Amendment I, ratified December 15, 1791
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, of of thre press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble..."

In NAACP v. Alabama, 1958, the Supreme Court declared that this provision also protects' peoples right to associate, not just physically assemble.

Admittedly, that argument might be a little weak. So how about this:

Congress may not pass laws that establish any religion (or religion in general). Moral arguments against gay marriage are always based off of religious grounds. Turning religious directives into law sounds like the establishment of religion to me.

For any other arguments against gay marriage, I point you back to the excellent arguments of nottheking, who is my new hero.

1: Who says this has anything to do with religion? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. If they didn't complain about it in the 1900's, 1800's, 1700's, 1600's, 1500's, 1400's, 1300's, 1200's, 1100's, 1000's, 900's, 800's, 700's, 600's, 400's, 300's, 200's, 100's, or B.C., why the hell should we change it now?

2: Equal protection under the law? I'm not married, so you're saying I'm not equally protected under the law, but my parents are? I want some of what you're smoking, sounds like some potent stuff!

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

...Perhaps because, oh, SOCIETY CHANGES.

Apparently you, sir, do not.

Hey, why don't we start considering it a mental illess again and issue "corrective surgeries".

Look back at various other cultures which predate judeo-christian society, and you'll see that some of the most complex and advanced cultures throughout history embraced homosexual relations (Ancient Greece, for example.)

That may be a poor argument, but certainly is enough to disprove your argument that things change. "Jews have been oppressed for thousands of years? Why stop now?!" "Blacks have been our slaves for 300 years! Why stop now?!" Obviously a very different situation, but says what I'm trying to say, regardless.

------------------
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

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

Freelancer: Now you're being obtuse. Laws that are not universally applied are unconstitutional. If you don't allow interracial marriages but allow same-race marriages, you are unequally applying the law and violating the Constitution. Prohibiting interracial marriages is analogous to prohibiting homosexual marriages. Here's an easy explanation if you're still confused.

A point which has been made before.. i bet you'd like this guy Evad:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/19990905mag-poverty-singer.html



Yes.. and guess what, in ancient greece no matter how queer or whatever you were, when you turned 30 you damn well married and started producing offspring. Sure you could have your live-in gay lover on the side or whatever, but even there they were adament about that.

Not to agree/disagree with the topic at hand, just your argument.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

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

OK. To make sure you understand the point and not take it too literally, here you go.
America is a capitalist society.
People in America hoard thier money. Even if it's only $729.
If America is a capitalist society and by looking objectively at how the political and economic stage is set, you can only conclude that money > * in the US.

Does anyone need $53 billion? No.
Does anyone need $24 billion? No.
Does anyone need $1 billion? No.
Does anyone need $250 million? No.
Does anyone need $50 million? No.
How many people have money somewhere in that range? Quite a few.
Should other people have that money? Depends on your values.
Does America tell the world that you can go there and make $53 billion and keep it all to yourself? Yes.

That's my point.

Look at the point of the reply you guys.
I could get silly and make comments on statements about things like what someone said earlier about adultry and STD's. Yeah. Adultry leads to STD's. No. Random unprotected sex, which may be had by married people and unmarried people leads to STD's. I get the point the person was trying to make. Not what he said exactly.

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

IF, homosexuality is indeed a genetic defect (as is the main supporting argument), then you have just made a point of why we SHOULD prevent homosexual unions.

Let me explain. There are numerous homosexual couples who DO reproduce. How? By getting a friend of the opposite sex to donate an egg or sperm (as needed).

Therefor, IF, homosexuality is a genetic defect, these genes would then have a strong chance of being present in the offspring. This is equalivant to someone that was born with heart problems, reproducing and giving their offspring those genes. This child is innocent! Not even given the choice, but had it forced on them by genetics! Is this not as wrong as abortion?!

::BTW::

Morals and Ethics != Religion. Many Doctors, for example, are Athiest, yet (in general) are considered to have the highest sense of morals and ethics. Which futhermore illustrates that if the above is true, few doctors would condone homosexuals to reproduce.

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

The world is over populated. Why do so many people think that same-sex marriage will single-handedly lead to the extinction of the human race? Get it through your head that it will not!

------------------
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

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

But isn't one of the primary goals of medicine to enable people to live and breed that otherwise may not have been able to.. leading to an increase of genetically-transmitted defects, or stronger bacteria that otherwise would have killed someone off and died with the host, or such things..

Thus, doctors discouraging those from breeding and spreading the theoretical 'homosexuality as a hereditary genetic defect' seems a bit unfounded.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

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

Oh yeah, for those that are still trying to compare interracial marriages to homosexual marriages, please stop. Why do you ask? BECAUSE ALL HUMANS ARE OF THE SAME RACE! WE ARE ALL HOMOSAPIANS! The difference in skin pigmination is no different then the difference in hair or eye pigmination. "Interracial" marriages, despite it's rediculous title, fullfills the diffinition of 1 Male and 1 Female. Which is still, very much, morally and ethically sound (despite religous contridictions...another proof that religion doesn't dictate morals and ethics, IT GUIDES IT, just as much as science, logic, and reason!).

Why is Homosexual marriages unethical? Because homosexual "lust" is unethical. Why is this? Because even in Dolphins (the only other mammals known to have sex for both reproduction & pleasure) do not exibit homosexual behavior!

If, homosexuality is a genetic defect, then for humanities sake, we should be looking for a cure. If it is a mental issue, then they should be treated for such issues.

This is NOT discrimination. Mental issues can come on all sorts of levels. Most everyone has some type of mental issue. For example, people who go to loud rock concerts of mental issues. They are causing serious tearing and scaring to their very sensitive ears. When they start saying "what?", "Huh?", and "Could you repeat that?" more frequently due to hearing lost, you'd think they'd stop going to those concerts. The sad truth is, however, that many of them continue to go DESPITE what logic and reasoning telling them (subconciously) to not go. These people too should be treated for mental issues, for their own good. Which, btw, isn't uncommon for the government to pass laws to protect us from ourselves. Illigal substances and seatbelts are good examples.

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

The point of this thread (other then Darth Evad's ranting/venting) is to discuss if "Marriage" is really necessary.

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

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

No, the primary goal of medicine is to enable people to live healthy lives as long as possible and to seek out cures for disease and biological defects.

Thus your conclusion is incorrect.

Admittedly, there are areas of medicine that do help those to reproduce that are unable to (due to genetic defects). This is, from my standpoint, unethical. The general standards and guidelines for ethics are not complete. It changes in the same way science changes. Neither is an absolue. They are a means to and end (an ongoing search for the truth).

------------------
"At last, we have come to find the truth to our souls. Though, the truth is not what we expected. I now fear my own soul."

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

Ok so perhaps i should have said one of the primary results of said goal.. but regardless, point still stands, semantics aside.

And the whole dolphins/monkeys/lemurs/iguanas do or don't do x therefore it is fine for people to do or not do x strikes me as a bit absurd. Sharks for instance do basically absolutely nothing else except Swim Eat Breed Repeat, does that mean people should model their lives after that.. or monkeys sit in their cages all day and wank in public and fling dung at people-- ok so maybe that one hits a little close to home, but regardless.. i'm not seeing a viable corrollary.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Chaulk this one up to conservative values verus a system designed to hinder ultra-quick changes by tyrranical Executive or even Legislative powers. The courts can't declare an amendment unconstitutional, but the government isn't going to pass the amendment anyway.

More likely? Leave it to the states, like it is. Done and done. Now, shut your trap George, go to Crawford for ANOTHER vacation, piss off Japan, and then, run your re-election campain like your daddy did. Into the ground.

*****Somebody other than Bush in '04*****

------------------
"If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?"

That's not true. There are species of monkeys that have orgies, including same sex relations.

The "one human race" argument is a technicality. Regardless, interacial marriages were, at one time, illegal due to irrational dislike and misconceptions about other "races".

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

The more times i get involved in these discussions [both here and elsewhere, surprisingly consistently], the more my opinion tends towards: Ban all marriages, and preferrably all breeding.. problem solved.

------------------
[Blue Mink Bifocals !] [fsck -Rf /world/usr/] [<!-- kalimonster -->] [Capite Terram]
"You'll have to face it, the endings are the same however you slice it. Don't be deluded by any other endings, they're all fake, with malicious intent to deceive, or just motivated by excessive optimism if not by downright sentimentality. The only authentic ending is the one provided here: John and Mary die. John and Mary die. John and Mary die." -Happy Endings [Margeret Atwood]
NPC.Interact::PressButton($'Submit');

Ban humanity!

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

I think bigotry is a mental defect.

Don't you agree, CaptBewill?

<3



------------------
-=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

CaptBewil: Homosexuality has been recorded in dozens of difference species, including dolphins.

So, why are homosexual marriages unethical again? Heck, you might as well explain why ethics (particularly your warped brand) should have anything to do with legality.

Also, medicine exists to prolong the lives of people who are 'unfit'. Diabetics, alcoholics, those who are cancer-prone, those who are susceptible to disease, et cetera are all genetically defective and shouldn't be treated, by your logic. Antibiotics allow people with weak immune systems to live and reproduce. Glasses, contacts, and corrective eye surgery make nonviable people functional so they can pass on their genes. Et ****ing cetera.

...

Eugenics are for idiots and angry white trash.

Whoever said it was a "defect"? At the end of the day, what two consenting adults do is none of yours or anyone elses business. Marriage of homosexual individuals wont change the way you live, it wont change your rights, it wont. have. any. effect. whatsoever. on. you.

Homosexuals deserve the exact same rights as another person. You may as well get used to the idea, because it doesn't matter how much people carry on about homosexuality being "immoral" or "physically wrong", one day they will have the exact same rights that you do. Someone said it earlier, issues like these never result in the deprivation of rights, but always end in an expansion of them.

Marriage as it is today isn't exactly the most christian of institutions anyway. People marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, leave children scattered here, there and everywhere, have children out of wedlock, engage in infidelity. The nuclear family died in the 90's, where what I like to call the nintendo family took over. Family splits up, one parent buys a nintendo, kids love it, want to spend more time at that parents house, other parent ends up having to buy a nintendo as well.

Letting gays get married isn't exactly going to bring the whole process into disrepute.


By that line of thinking, all retarded people should be neutered.... Try and put that idea into the public realm and you'd get smacked with the giant club of ethics in the way that only Oprah can dish out.

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

It's their opinion that it's "sad"


------------------
Sigs are for n00bs.

[1337 FRNDS_Pommy | 3.14 of 14 | » And-GTx2]
Half-Life 2 Central - your definitive source for everything HL2!

No. The point of this thread was for me to state that I think it's sad the George is going to the trouble of banning gay marriages and therefor making life sad for some of his fellow citizens (when he stands up and says 'My fellow citizens...', he is talking to married gay people too). I was the one who started this thread and being Massassian for a long time should've realized that we would have gone in this direction.

I still think it's sad that George wants to do that to people. :/

I was not ranting nor was I venting. I am only replying to what other people said.

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

I find it interesting that about 4 years ago both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney stated that any decision on same-sex marriages should be a decision left to each state. Also, I find it interesting that Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.





http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/25/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/index.html

[This message has been edited by fourwood (edited February 26, 2004).]

I thought it was quite obvious that this, along with his "marriage bill," Bush was simply trying to garner votes. He knows he's lost the greater majority of liberal and moderate votes, along with a large number of conservatives, so he's hoping that, by doing this, he'll get enough core-fundamentalist votes to keep himself in office for another four years.

------------------
"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