Just because gay couples can't get married doesn't mean they're gonna turn heterosexual instead.

------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

Personally speaking, I think that's a great idea. I have no opposition to that whatsoever.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it

What Avenger said. Marriage is a religious thing: the government should be exclusively in the business of civil unions.

Brian: State-recognized civil unions/marriages are important for quite a few reasons, among them determining inheritance and the power of attorney. If your wife was in a coma, you would want to be the one who decides if any plugs get pulled and how her property would be handled if she died.

oS: Odd. I never thought absolute morality was determined by what made people happy. Regardless, US laws are/should be based on maximizing personal freedom while protecting the freedom of others. Unless your actions quantifiable infringe someone's rights, you should be able to do absolutely anything. For example, murder and stealing are illegal because they infringe on other peoples' right to live and own property, and drinking and drugging should be legal until you get into a car and therefore endanger someone's life or wellbeing, et cetera.

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited February 24, 2004).]

I already showed that there's nothing morally wrong with it...

http://forums.massassi.net/html/Forum1/HTML/033073-2.html

As for Bush's little "amendment", you people seem to not know the consitution well enough... YES, the government is supposed to convey what the majority wants, but not if it seriously infringes upon other people.

If you consider banning gay marriages to be right, I ask you a few questions to see if your thinking is consistent. If you answer "NO" to any question, consider your viewpoint invalid.

-Do you think that it is wrong to have children out of wedlock?
-Do you think that contraceptives are wrong?
-Do you think that people who are too old to reproduce should be "euthanized"?
-Is the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act FULLY legit?
-If the Protestant portion of the U.S. (the majority) wanted to prevent weddings for Catholics, Jews, and those of other religions, would that be right?

Consider those. There WAS a constitution that promoted majority rule over everything else, it was calle the Articles of Confederation. It only lasted from 1776-1789. The U.S.A. Consitution is meant to allow for majority rule, as long as it doesn't infringe on individual rights.

------------------
Nes digs around in the trash can.
Nes finds a hamburger!
Nes puts the hamburger in his backpack.

And Argath, think before you reply next. Think about what it would do. It doesn't seem like anything right now, but it WILL. It will cause others to demand more from the insurance agencies, and confuse a lot of taxation laws. All I know of this is from my parent's sayings when I questioned them on taxes, no documented evidence AT HAND.

------------------
There is no signature

On another note, marriage was an institution created for use with ALL other institutions, not just religion. You can go and get married in a courthouse, and have legal vows instead of "holy" vows.

I also would give some support for banning ALL marriages in the United States, considering that OVER 50% of opposite-sex (heterosexual) marriages end in divorce, typically within 5 years. I see no reason why religion should have any influence over society, given that its laws have only been followed when they were convenient (I don't see any bans on pig products, as touching pigs is forbidden by the Bible, as is lending money at interest, and slaves are allowed)

------------------
Nes digs around in the trash can.
Nes finds a hamburger!
Nes puts the hamburger in his backpack.

I believe it is all cool to steal from people, murder and rape... Please do not force your morals over me, its discrimination against those of us that want to have a relationship with the cave man side of ourselves. And besides its not like your morals are right is it now?

------------------
Team Battle.

I think what Ictus said pretty much answers that;





------------------
When bread becomes toast, it can never go back to being bread again.

One's parents are rarely the best source for tax laws, as more oftenthen not, they THEMSELVES aren't really quite sure.

And if it creates more demand from insurance agencies, then it better promotes a free market! Both liberals and conservatives agree that a free market is the best type of economy. If insurance agencies are asked for policies for couples, then it means they have more business, which means more companies will want in on the money! I see allowing marriage/union between same-gender couples as a way that will provide a moderate boost for the economy.

------------------
Nes digs around in the trash can.
Nes finds a hamburger!
Nes puts the hamburger in his backpack.

Because you know, my Dad doesn't do our taxes EVERY YEAR and not screw up. Not to mention that but my mom works in mortgage, and knows a lot about house-taxation laws, and other affiliated laws. These are the major ones which would be affected.


[Edit] Why did I capitalize mortgage? [/Edit]
------------------
There is no signature

[This message has been edited by Dj Yoshi (edited February 24, 2004).]

So there would be more people getting tax breaks. There would be more people applying for significant others insurance. That's the end of the world

------------------
I'm not an actor. I just play one on TV.

[This message has been edited by Avenger (edited February 24, 2004).]

So if I were to say that Deus Ex is a marriage of First Person Shooters and Role Playing Games I'd be committing a great sin against our great language, English? There's no man or woman involved in that marriage... Hell, there aren't even any people! Surely a marriage with no people is more offensive than one with two people of the same sex?



Fine. That's a great idea. Pity there's no one working to get it done. But there *are* people out there actively working to ban gay marriages, leaving gays *nothing*. If you want to give everyone the ability to civilly union with anyone, call up your Senator or whoever and suggest it.

Incidentally, "Will you civilly unionise with me?" sounds ridiculous, so you know people are just going to use the word "marriage" anyway...



Sadist Bestialists deserve rights too, you bigot



So if gay marriages were suddenly legalised you'd find yourself inexplicably gay? The only thing stopping you from a world of hot, hedonistic gay sex is Bush, the mighty defender against Total Population Extinction?

Here, I have something that might help you:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1581603762/qid%3D1041820400/sr%3D2-1/ref%3Dsr_2_1/103-7171787-5391837

It's amazing how different the vocabulary in normal conversations compaired to what's found in legal documents is...

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

Yes, but won't people still complain that "a marriage is between a man and a woman" when two men or women use the word "marriage" to describe their relationship whether they are in a Civil Union or a Marriage? If so, why not just let them "marry", if that's how they and everyone else will refer to it?

Because I actually know a few people who live with someone bound by a civil union because of the simple fact that marriage is religious, and since they are not religious people, they feel they should not participate in such a ceremony.

------------------
Roach - Steal acceptance, lend denial.

0 of 14.

He's not supposed to make direct desicions conscerning the entire nation. That's why we have Congress. Congress gets to do that so that dirty republicans can't push their morals into politics without a fight.



------------------
-=I'm the wang of this here site, and it's HUGE! So just imagine how big I am.=-
1337Yectiwan
OSC Returns!!
10 of 14 -- 27 Lives On

Majority wins. The majority is in favor of banning gay marriage. Get over it.

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

The majority was also in favor of segregating schools. Get over it, bigot.

... Wrong. 51 Senators can't vote to have the other 49 sacked. We live in a pluralistic republican democracy, not a mob dictatorship.

And..DJ..let me get this straight - you're against granting a group of people a certain right because it could cause problems with the tax code? Money is more important than individual freedom?

Not to sound too cynical (?) but isn't that the American way Sine? :/
Money > * in America


------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

Glad to see at least somebody here understand what "Democracy" means... The idea of complete rule by the majority is NOT part of the consitution.. it WAS part of the Articles of Confederation, and look what happened to them...

------------------
Nes digs around in the trash can.
Nes finds a hamburger!
Nes puts the hamburger in his backpack.

The majority DOESN'T win if they favor infringing the freedoms of others... History has shown this... In earlier times, the majority of voters favored not allowing women, African-Americans, Native Americans, and people aged 18-20 to vote, and look who can vote today... FREEDOM is the main principle of this country, backed by PLURALISTIC decision making (taking everybody's rights into consideration), NOT complete majority rule, which, in the late 1700's, was called "majority tyranny", and for good reason.

------------------
Nes digs around in the trash can.
Nes finds a hamburger!
Nes puts the hamburger in his backpack.

Didn't it require the approval of all 13 colonies to pass legislation?

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it

I feel the need to come back and further explain what I said. Someone said that I said happiness equates to absolute truth. Thats not what I said or meant.

Absolute truth leads to happiness, and so you can alot of time trace happiness to absolute truth, but not always. For instance, adultery brings happiness to both participants. Except for STD's, the other people they are involved with, long term emotional chaos, etc. Many will often be made *un*happy.

------------------
Ω of 14

Your analogy is flawed, because today everyone can vote, whereas back then they couldn't. Telling me woman were not allowed to vote because the majority says they couldn't is stupid. Why? because woman couldn't vote. That's my point. Now that EVERYONE can vote, including those in favor of gay marriage, let them. If they are a pitiful minorty (which they are), they'll lose. That's called democracy. If homosexuals couldn't vote, you're right, it would be something other than a democracy, but that's not the way it is.

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

^^ I would personally hope that majority rule doesn't involve not giving rights to certain people that we give to others. I would call that [url="http://]http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discrimination"]discrimination[/url].

Edit: What ever happened to 'all men are created equal'?

[This message has been edited by fourwood (edited February 25, 2004).]

I think they threw it out with affirmative action.

------------------
Ω of 14

With affirmative action? It has never existed. It is part of a fantasy that so many people seem to believe. :/

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

... Yeah, I'm sure it really pained you to say that, considering you're loath to make ridiculous statements about anything and everything American, but would you mind explaining why it's the American way for money to trump individual freedoms? Please?

Didn't exactly mean that, but crises which would stop insurance payments and any benefits/deductions for an extended period of time (a month or so) could SERIOUSLY hurt our economy. Besides, as Freelancer said, majority rules, even if only on morals. Sorry, but that's the way it goes.

------------------
There is no signature

oS: Yeah, that would be me.

Determining absolute truth and getting everyone to agree that it is indeed absolutely true is arbitrary and impossible, respectively. The system for determining legality that I posted is logical and consistent, and has served the US perfectly over the past two centuries. I'd be interested in your objections to it.

And truth leads to misery, not happiness, because truth is a cruel and callous thing.

Freelancer: You should have learned this in your high school government class. Why do you think we have the Bill of Rights if the majority rules?

To protect the rights of minorities. Duh.

Dj: No, it doesn't. I would recommend staying in school until you have a basic understanding of government.

And your objection to civil unions because of insurance is nonsensical. Why would payments stop because gay couples got unionified?

[This message has been edited by Ictus (edited February 25, 2004).]

... DJ, you can keep insisting that the majority can decide to trump the rights of minorities under the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights is still gonna be there to prove you wrong.

Money?

It can change the mind of someone in the time it takes to open your billfold.

Money, IMO, is like the "One Ring"


------------------
I’m not going to die, I’m going to see if I was ever alive. - Spike

It's not your right to decide whether they live or die. They deserve a chance! - Vash

Just take a look at what the political system has become over the past 30 or 40 years.
Look at the health care system. With profits in the billions of dollars and a double digit persentage of citizens having either no health care or having to resort to fraud there, in Mexico or Canada.
Look at corporate America. Laying people off not because there is no work but because they would make more/save more money.

What about all those people and thier freedoms and rights? No one seems to care or America would be the place that you see in the posters from the 1950's.
Ideally, America is an incredible place. Really it is not.
Just go down town and give the people on the street your spare money. I'm not talking about the $1.26 you have in your pocket. I'm telking about the $729 you have in the bank that you aren't using for anything right now. You have lots and there are so many people that don't have anything but you won't ghive them your cash or what they need because it's your money.
Maybe it's your freedom and right not to give needy people your money.

WE (yes the western world and just because I say America it usually means that it's the country in the subject) care more about $5 than we do the freedoms of others.
Maybe it's because we don't think our $5 will make a difference.

And you got me wrong Sine. It does pain me to see that people don't give a crap.
I love the US. It's a huge beautiful country with beautiful people with beautiful things all over. We just never seem to have a thread about the good things in any country.

Maybe I'll start a thread about what I loved about living in the US when I did.
I'll also start a thread about what Paul Martin is up against right now. I have a TON to say about that (but only about 3 people would respond because only about 8 of us know who he is).
Maybe about Canadian companies like Bombardier and Stelco, or Canadians like Conrad Black and Lucien Bouchard, or...
------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

[This message has been edited by Darth Evad (edited February 25, 2004).]

Argh, it seems everyone's misunderstanding me, and since I can't seem to convince anyone that I'm not saying what you think I'm saying, I'm just going to quit. This thread is headed nowhere.

------------------
There is no signature

Evad, does all your money that isn't required for necessities go to the poor? Are you living in a single, one-room apartment? Because you could do with just that, while all that money going toward a house or larger apartment could so easily lift the poverty of others. Stop being so selfish and self-centered.

I bet those poor people don't have the internet or a computer. What were you thinking, spending your own money on yourself like that, when other people could have used it to just buy a burger to feed themselves?

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited February 25, 2004).]

What are these "rights" I keep hearing people spew forth? A few extra dollars at tax time? Give me a break.

------------------
Have a good one,
Freelancer

I still just don't understand how people can discriminate with such conviction as to say "That is not moral", as if there is anything about love that isn't moral.

How can I tell you that people don't make a decision to be gay? Because nobody in their right mind would subject themself to countless discrimination if they didn't think it was worth it.

This is America. Its supposed to be a free country. What on earth is the point of pointing out a group, and taking from them rights. It would be the most painful thing imaginable to really love someone, yet not be able to marry them. i don't understand why people don't simply see this. Even though many of us are heterosexuals, can we not all comprehend the emotional pain that someone might feel if they truely loved somebody, but couldn't marry them? Don't respond, just think about it for a second.

And yet gay marriage is somehow offensive to the word 'marriage'? Marriage does not pay respect to God, it pays respect to love. Marriage is the ring which allows too people to live together forever. Surely, divorce rates have proven it a somewhat damaged institution, but it all comes back to this: Do all you conservative folks really think that it is moral (yes, you who claim to be making a decision from your own moral highground) to deny people to love each other for forever?

Civil Union.... Please....

------------------
To myself I surrender to the one I'll never please.
But I still try to run on.
You know I still try to run on. But it's all or none.

Eddie Vedder

Ah Wolfy, I was making a point.

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

Freelancer: Try "equal protection under the law". That's a good one.