And the courts recognize that states can state their own public policy with regards to the public's general welfare, as well as precedent. So it looks like the gay marriage movement is in for a rude awakening.

4/15/2007 9:02:52 PM

i think the catholic church has made its position clear on little kids

4/15/2007 9:03:31 PM

Quote :

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

So you let some director in Hollywood dictate what should be considered right and wrong in your life?

4/15/2007 9:04:03 PM

Quote :

"So you let some director in Hollywood dictate what should be considered right and wrong in your life? "

since when is someone else's marriage affecting how you live your life?

4/15/2007 9:04:34 PM

Quote :

"And the courts recognize that states can state their own public policy with regards to the public's general welfare, as well as precedent."

...until it violates the first amendment

Dude, just face it. Bigotry is on its way out. Just look at the 2008 presidential candidates.




[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:08 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 9:05:25 PM

I don't want to see something that I hold to be sacred and honorable cheapened by people who couldn't care less about my religious beliefs and who will do anything to trample them, common law, precedent, and society be damned.

4/15/2007 9:06:42 PM

^^ And how many of them are gay?

Stupid, stupid argument.

If anything, YOU want to violate the 1st amendment by ignoring the establishment clause.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:08 PM. Reason : ugh]

4/15/2007 9:07:10 PM

well then you should probably want the state out of marriage completely

4/15/2007 9:07:30 PM

If it's all or none I'd much rather see it out than in.

4/15/2007 9:08:56 PM

but you'd also be cool with limiting it to only people who share your same values?

4/15/2007 9:09:29 PM

Quote :

"So you let some director in Hollywood dictate what should be considered right and wrong in your life?"

1) No, but it reflects an overall increase in acceptance of gay marriage across the country
2) Do you really feel it necessary to make all these childish pop-shots at strawmen? Are you actually cognizant of how terrible your arguments are?

Quote :

"And how many of them are gay?"

1) How many of them are anti-gay?
2) Do you really feel it necessary to make all these childish pop-shots at strawmen? Are you actually cognizant of how terrible your arguments are?

Quote :

"If anything, YOU want to violate the 1st amendment by ignoring the establishment clause."

1) I don't ever get this. So by disconnecting religious beliefs from public policy, we're violating the Establishment Clause? Very interesting.
2) Do you really feel it necessary to make all these childish pop-shots at strawmen? Are you actually cognizant of how terrible your arguments are?

4/15/2007 9:10:01 PM

It was limited well before this country became a nation.

4/15/2007 9:10:05 PM

so was who was allowed to vote.

4/15/2007 9:11:05 PM

you should also be campaigning to stop single parent adoptions, divorce, artificial insemination, cohabitation, etc...

those are all destroying marriage more than gay marriage ever could

4/15/2007 9:11:57 PM

Quote :

"1) No, but it reflects an overall increase in acceptance of gay marriage across the country "

Yes, because all of those wonderful, normal, mainstreamed hollywood types are the measuring stick of American opinion. I think you need to back away from your TV, stop living by the glow of your computer monitor, and get out some.

Quote :

"1) How many of them are anti-gay?"

Why don't you tell me? How many of those democrats support gay marriage? I sincerely hope, that based on your wonderful anecdotal evidence of America's political heartbeat, namely Hollywood, that each Democrat embraces your advice and campaigns specifically to extend marriage rights to homosexuals. Good luck with that, bud!

Quote :

"1) I don't ever get this. So by disconnecting religious beliefs from public policy, we're violating the Establishment Clause? Very interesting. "

No, you're asserting your values on the rest of American society, its law, its traditions, and its precedents that have been the outlining basis of marriage for many centuries.

To quote you:

Are you actually cognizant of how terrible your arguments are?

4/15/2007 9:16:10 PM

Quote :

"you should also be campaigning to stop single parent adoptions, divorce, artificial insemination, cohabitation, etc..."

Speaking of strawman...

4/15/2007 9:17:43 PM

too bad marriage in the legal sense is just a contract between two people affording them certain rights and responsibilities to each other.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:18 PM. Reason : speaking of double post.]

4/15/2007 9:17:55 PM

isn't your position that gay marriage harms marriage? if so thats not a strawman because those are all real threats

4/15/2007 9:18:54 PM

^ None of those things do a thing to change the fact that a marriage has always been recognized as a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God.

Quote :

"so was who was allowed to vote."

The right to vote was never religious in origin.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:22 PM. Reason : more]

4/15/2007 9:19:25 PM

plenty have made religious arguments in support of racism and sexism.

Quote :

"None of those things do a thing to change the fact that a marriage has always been recognized as a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God."

i'm glad you got the memo from god. oh yeah and that our laws should be based on religion. way to go.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 9:21:12 PM

Quote :

"Yes, because all of those wonderful, normal, mainstreamed hollywood types are the measuring stick of American opinion."

50 years ago there would be widespread outrage over Will & Grace. Where's that outrage now? This is what I'm speaking of.

Quote :

"Why don't you tell me? How many of those democrats support gay marriage?"

Of all the (viable) candidates so far (except Romney, if you want to call him viable), none of them would support an all-out ban on gay marriage. All the Democrats support civil unions. 50 years ago, how many presidential candidates supported homosexual civil unions?

Quote :

"No, you're asserting your values on the rest of American society, its law, its traditions, and its precedents that have been the outlining basis of marriage for many centuries."

So if the separation of church and state is against some people's religion, the separation of church and state violates the establishment clause? Beautiful! What's even funnier is that you view the expansion of civil liberties as somehow suppressing your own liberties.



[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 9:23:32 PM

Quote :

"^ None of those things do a thing to change the fact that a marriage has always been recognized as a union between a man and a woman in the eyes of God."

my bad, i thought we were talking about state recognizing gay marriage not church

Quote :

" The right to vote was never religious in origin."

hah, i just caught this gem. religion was was used heavily by the anti-suffrage group. basically people like you but back then.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 9:23:33 PM

^ Do you not read your own arguments? You cite a bunch of strawmen which does nothing to change the concept of marriage and then you try to act as if your strawmen are somehow tied to the government's concept of marriage? WTF?



I really do not care what has been done in the past to justify X or Y. Marriage, until very recently, has always been recognized for what it has always been and always will be.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:30 PM. Reason : more]

4/15/2007 9:25:00 PM

Quote :

"I really do not care what has been done in the past to justify X or Y. Marriage, until very recently, has always been recognized for what it has always been and always will be."

in other words: A=B. A /= B.

4/15/2007 9:25:50 PM

Wlfpk2k, I bet you still wonder why "elitist" people dismiss you.

What's even the point of arguing? Your arguments are dishonest beyond words.

4/15/2007 9:27:59 PM

so if something has been a certain way for a long time that means it is right? lets hope you dont ever see a free black woman ride the front of the bus to a polling station

4/15/2007 9:28:53 PM

More strawmen. How predictable.

4/15/2007 9:31:46 PM

you were making an appeal to tradition

4/15/2007 9:33:06 PM

Strawmen? Where?

Why not use your typing time to respond to my three responses?

4/15/2007 9:34:09 PM

Hey, argue with the law then. Most laws are based on tradition, starting with those evil 10 commandments.

4/15/2007 9:35:23 PM

what is this now, the fallacy game? laws to not get their authority from tradition you retard.



[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:38 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 9:36:27 PM

Quote :

"Strawmen? Where? "

guth be his name

4/15/2007 9:36:42 PM

^^ Nice edit, asshole. You're the one damning tradition. We might as well burn the constitution, along with every law that is based on common law and precedent and start over, since hey, tradition is apparently the new boogeyman word, kinda like OMG big oil11!!!!.



[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:39 PM. Reason : carrots]

4/15/2007 9:38:04 PM

laws to not get their authority from tradition you retard.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 9:39 PM. Reason : if they did they would never change]

4/15/2007 9:38:33 PM

Plenty of laws are based on tradition, thus giving them authority, genius.

4/15/2007 9:40:26 PM

4/15/2007 9:41:49 PM

Quote :

"Wlfpk2k, I bet you still wonder why "elitist" people dismiss you. What's even the point of arguing? Your arguments are dishonest beyond words."

1) I don't really care what you or who you consider to be "elite" think. You can dismiss it all you want, and I invite every Democrat to actively campaign on this subject, based on your political barometer of American opinion, our friends in hollywood.

2) I am arguing for what I think is right. Sorry if that makes me dishonest in your eyes. Like I said, I really don't care what you think. And as far as we're on the subject of what people think, I think people like you are the greatest threat to our society and I only hope that every Democrat will be as honest and forthcoming with his or her intentions when it comes to America, its traditions, and its law.

4/15/2007 9:45:10 PM

its not that your opinion is different than mine, its that you cant make a logical defense to save your life and are too retarded to notice

4/15/2007 9:46:29 PM

You know guth, it's sad that you think it's cute and witty to throw around a 2nd grade insult as if it actually emboldens your position. The fact that you have to stoop to such a level only weakens your argument and your attempt of destroying American law.

4/15/2007 9:49:20 PM

please introduce your face to a rusty nail

4/15/2007 9:51:42 PM

Quote :

"I am arguing for what I think is right. Sorry if that makes me dishonest in your eyes. "

It's not your belief, it's the astonishingly dishonest and illogical arguments you use to justify your belief.

Could you please just admit that you don't want gay marriages because you feel the need to impose your religion on others? At least it'd be honest.

4/15/2007 9:53:12 PM

Quote :

"50 years ago there would be widespread outrage over Will & Grace. Where's that outrage now? This is what I'm speaking of."

One TV show is all you have to offer for general acceptance by the public at large? Tolerance of a tv show and total acceptance that would extend to giving gays the right to marry are two entirely different things.

Quote :

"Of all the (viable) candidates so far (except Romney, if you want to call him viable), none of them would support an all-out ban on gay marriage. All the Democrats support civil unions. 50 years ago, how many presidential candidates supported homosexual civil unions?"

There's plenty of time between now and the primaries. The polls mean dick right now.

Civil unions and gay marriage isn't exactly the same. It's a shame these dems don't have the guts to stick by their political gay companions and give them the rights that you think they deserve.

Quote :

"So if the separation of church and state is against some people's religion, the separation of church and state violates the establishment clause? Beautiful! What's even funnier is that you view the expansion of civil liberties as somehow suppressing your own liberties. "

The establishment clause was created to keep the government out of religion. The separation of church and state isn't even found in the Constitution, and its idea was rooted in the fact that the government shouldn't use the church for its own selfish gains and to keep politics out of it.

Nobody wants a state run religion. If you think I said that, then you should take a remedial comprehension class.

4/15/2007 9:57:54 PM

Quote :

"It's not your belief, it's the astonishingly dishonest and illogical arguments you use to justify your belief."

Let's see, common law, precedent, the Defense of Marriage Act, marriage is by and large a traditionally religious practice between a man and a woman and should remain to be recognized as such...yes you're right, how could I be so astonishly dishonest and illogical. How dare I cite those.

Quote :

"Could you please just admit that you don't want gay marriages because you feel the need to impose your religion on others? At least it'd be honest."

I feel the need to respect legal precedent and religious tradition. I'm sorry if that doesn't coincide with your preconceived notions that I am some kind of religious nut bent on forcing my beliefs on others. The truth of the matter is that my beliefs align nicely with this country's recognition of the legal interpretation of a marriage.

4/15/2007 10:06:30 PM

Quote :

"One TV show is all you have to offer for general acceptance by the public at large? Tolerance of a tv show and total acceptance that would extend to giving gays the right to marry are two entirely different things."

No crap, but I thought we were arguing about progress, not present acceptance.

Quote :

"There's plenty of time between now and the primaries. The polls mean dick right now."

Haha, right. So you don't have a real response to this, then?

Quote :

"It's a shame these dems don't have the guts to stick by their political gay companions and give them the rights that you think they deserve."

It is, but they're going further than anyone did 10 years ago. Again, progress away from bigotry.

Quote :

"The establishment clause was created to keep the government out of religion."

And visa-versa

Quote :

"The separation of church and state isn't even found in the Constitution, and its idea was rooted in the fact that the government shouldn't use the church for its own selfish gains and to keep politics out of it."

Again, visa-versa.

Quote :

"Nobody wants a state run religion. If you think I said that, then you should take a remedial comprehension class."

I'm not accusing you of wanting a state-run religion, but you already know this. I'm accusing you of wanting to legislate your religious beliefs.

Quote :

"I feel the need to respect legal precedent and religious tradition."

That's a beauty. It has nothing to do with your religion... you just have a hard-on for precedent? 1) Religious tradition means squat in government 2) precedent only goes so far; it doesn't justify furthering the violation of the 1st Amendment.

[Edited on April 15, 2007 at 10:09 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2007 10:07:11 PM

Quote :

"No crap, but I thought we were arguing about progress, not present acceptance. "

You were discussing progress as proof of acceptance, when that is simply not true.

Quote :

"Haha, right. So you don't have a real response to this, then? "

Why should I care who are the frontrunners now? How far away is New Hampshire again?

Quote :

"It is, but they're going further than anyone did 10 years ago. Again, progress away from bigotry."

Don't you think that your own anti-religious bigotry is clouding your judgment here?

Quote :

"I'm accusing you of wanting to legislate your religious beliefs."

I haven't had to advocate the legislation of my beliefs in the slightest because they have long been recognized as the law of the land. If anything, you are forcing the legislation of your beliefs in order to alter over 200 years of tradition, precedent, and recognition of what defines a marriage.

Quote :

"That's a beauty. It has nothing to do with your religion... you just have a hard-on for precedent? 1) Religious tradition means squat in government 2) precedent only goes so far; it doesn't justify furthering the violation of the 1st Amendment."

1) If religious traditions mean squat then why does the government recognize the religious holidays of Christmas and Easter?

2) The only violation of the 1st amendment would be advocating the government to enforce a new defintion of marriage, which highly violates its original religious origin and intent.

4/15/2007 10:32:06 PM

stop with the appeal to tradition

4/15/2007 10:33:55 PM

Quote :

"You were discussing progress as proof of acceptance, when that is simply not true."

I was discussing progress as proof of progress. But now that you've lost the progress debate, you've retreated to complete acceptance.

Quote :

"Don't you think that your own anti-religious bigotry is clouding your judgment here?"

Anti-religious, eh? I'm a Christian. Just not the type who thinks you could or should force it on others.

Quote :

"If anything, you are forcing the legislation of your beliefs in order to alter over 200 years of tradition, precedent, and recognition of what defines a marriage."

Again, you're arguing with tradition, which doesn't go very far. See slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc...

Quote :

"1) If religious traditions mean squat then why does the government recognize the religious holidays of Christmas and Easter?"

Recognize, sure. It recognizes Yom Kippur, too. Does the government force you to practice Yom Kippur? Or Easter?

Quote :

"The only violation of the 1st amendment would be advocating the government to enforce a new defintion of marriage, which highly violates its original religious origin and intent."

This is the most laughable of all your arguments. How would allowing gay marriage violate your religious rights? How would it be legislating religion? How would it be violating churches' freedoms? Please tell me. How would it be doing anything but taking religion out of public policy?

4/15/2007 10:42:19 PM

Because his religion assumes that it has the right to control what everyone does, even the ones who aren't part of his religion. You can't take that right away.

4/15/2007 11:53:46 PM

reminds me of:

Quote :

"MIAMI — U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris told a religious journal that separation of church and state is "a lie" and God and the nation's founding fathers did not intend the country be "a nation of secular laws." The Republican candidate for U.S. Senate also said that if Christians are not elected, politicians will "legislate sin," including abortion and gay marriage. Harris made the comments in the Florida Baptist Witness, the weekly journal of the Florida Baptist State Convention, which interviewed political candidates and asked them about religion and their positions on issues. Separation of church and state is "a lie we have been told," Harris said in the interview, published Thursday, saying separating religion and politics is "wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers." "If you're not electing Christians, then in essence you are going to legislate sin," Harris said. Her comments drew criticism, including some from fellow Republicans who called them offensive and not representative of the party. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., who is Jewish, told the Orlando Sentinel that she was "disgusted" by the comments."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210630,00.html

4/16/2007 12:03:28 AM

Quote :

""If anything, you are forcing the legislation of your beliefs in order to alter over 200 years of tradition, precedent, and recognition of what defines a marriage.""

wrong, the North Carolina statute on marriage wasn't enacted into law until 1876. So unless it is magically 2076 then it hasn't been 200 years.

4/16/2007 9:08:34 AM