The federal tax benefit that you mentioned is false, in fact married people pay more federal tax than two singles living under the same roof.  It is commonly referred to as the "Marriage Penalty".

The capital gains allowance of $500,000.00 for couples is accurate.  However, the law allows two singles in partnership owning their primary residence to each receive $250,000.00 capital gains allowance (totaling $500,000.00), assuming both partners are named on the Title Deed (same as marrieds).  So where is the problem.

In regards to sdstud's assertion as to dying intestate or medical decisions, these of course can be avoided by simple living wills and wills and trusts which do not restrict gay or lesbian individuals from naming their partners. Simple legal remedies.

Where is this going?  Preventing Gay Marriage is still immoral.

  Would you please kindly define moral and immoral.  Is you definition of morality absolute, universal, and conclusive in understanding??  
  Since I would be immoral for denying gay marriage, define the inherent and universal morality I am violating please.  Bring me out of the darkness.

oh coy one-

I believe it is immoral to deny basic rights to a sector of the population without any real reason other than you find their behaviour distasteful.

Personally I think really born again christians are a group of weak minded losers who seem to have purloined my family's fairy tales and creation myth.  A world without them might be a better place.  Their activities are often abhorrent to me, but...

I am an american and as such I have to accept that they have as many rights as I do and I have to sit and let them spew their venom and carry out their twisted rites to their heart's content.  I can only really object to their actions when they hurt someone (especially me).  That's our system- you can do what you want until it negatively impacts others' rights.  

I'm just saying since I can see no possible harm from gay marriages and no-one seems to be able to come up with any real arguments against it, it seems immoral to prevent it.  Especially when the benefits of allowing it for the gays and the rest of us are so clear.

OK- now diss me!  But using any Christian BS is not worthwhile, as it is totally subjective drivel and I have no respect for it.

Why compare?
If you're single, you have to 'accept' whatever tax advantages and disadvantages you have. And likewise if you're married.

And why care what somebody else has, or doesn't have? (Like anything else?)

I mean, if you were about to marry, do you say, 'wait, let me check with my attorney, my tax accountant, and..first' in order to see where I/we stand and how that could benefit, but might worsen it for me/us? No..

The point for ME is, and maybe a perspective for Funtime or anybody else, is, IF I WERE GAY, and I had someone I wanted to be a lifetime partner with (marriage), I would want to be able to marry and have it recognized the same as heterosexuals, and that includes many advantages in life as well as disadvantages to include taxation.

  Please oh enlightened one, illuminate those of us living in the caves of intellectual darkness.  We seek the light.
  How unselfish of you that you will only object when they harm you directly.  I see you put great thought in forming that logic.  As long as it don't affect me, I don't care.  
  Using Christian BS against you isn't going to work!!  Great, you assume Im born again Christian when I haven't been to a Church since I was 10.  
  You seem to know a lot about everything.  Are you the chosen one??

dude- calm down!

I put out my explanation for all to see- I know you are really a fun lovin' gad fly- more of a shit stirrer than an idealogue...

Not saying others have to agree- just statin my piece and how I arrived at it.

Did NOT say something has to impact just ME to be bad.  Just has to hurt somebody to be cause to take action...

Still no real argument from you I notice- just cattiness.

BTE WTF is Emerald Vodka?  That apple stuff?  All vodka is the same to me, just keep pouring...

gad fly-more of a shit sturrer That is hilarious

Sully,
   Where the hell did you come up with that one??  It is so hilarious  One of  the best ones I have hear yet
   Yes I do love to stir the pot, if only to get people to think of more than one side.  
   However, I am opposed to gay marriage.  You see no argument from me because it is a very serious issue IMO, not worthy of being discussed on a message board thats all.  I could write a 100 page personal explanation and send it to you though Im in no mood to do so and you would be in no mood to read it
   The issue is so complex IMO that justice cannot be done to it on a message board.  Hence I shall stick to my cattiness and stirring the pot further
   Let me know if you have any other ones like the gad fly

... Assuming I have spelled it right.  I think this might clear it up for you

If I remember it correctly, it suggests a government shouldn't make a law (restricting gay marriage) unless it is universally permitted for a government to make a law restricting any kind of marriage.  If that were correct, then a law phrobiting interracial marriage would be permitted, a law restricting marriage between retarded people would be permitted, a law restricting marriage between US citizens and certain foreign citizens would be permitted...

Since we say such laws are impermissable (marriage with children might be restricted, but children aren't citizens in a sense)  then we say that laws restricting marriages between any citizens are not permitted.

-- Modified on 2/24/2004 12:04:33 PM

  Something I found in my dad's room once, tried it and it was just so smooth.  I don't like vodka, but this was different than stoli, absolut, or grey goose.  Here is a link that explains how it is made.

http://www.forrelease.com/D20031103/sfm082.P2.11032003173838.06666.html

Re:gad fly-more of a shit sturrer That is hilarious

dude!

If you have reasons against i8t and they are NOT religion based (I think ALL religion is pretty lame- one thing Karl Marx was RIGHT about) bring it on!

Seriuosly- I have been posting on a number of boards looking for just such an explanation.  I am actually pretty good at empathising on a lot of topics- and yet no argument against it has even been tabled.  When the christo-kooks (yes that is what non-christians call them) start ranting, one just has to walk away- they NEVER make sense. After all, their whole world view is based on a fairy tale! But someone with some rational capability- now we're getting somewhere....

Why not gay marriage?

or is it just this Brand that is made from wheat and corn?

If it's made from wheat and corn always, than that might explain why I usually can't drink vodka without feeling sick - I'm allergic to both!

moral

\Mor"al\, a. [F., fr. It. moralis, fr. mos, moris, manner, custom, habit, way of life, conduct.] 1. Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those intentions and actions of which right and wrong, virtue and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, as respects right and wrong, so far as they are properly subject to rules.

Keep at the least within the compass of moral actions, which have in them vice or virtue. --Hooker.

Mankind is broken loose from moral bands. --Dryden.
.................................................................

OK here is the meaning of MORAL according to  English-language. So you ask where am I going with this?
Well So many have decided on past threads that gay marriage is Imoral sickening, and against God.
Who are we as a community here on TER to say what is moral and not? I am proud to be a provider, and I love doing it. But yet the very upstanding "MORAL MAJORITY" of this country look as Prostitution and the men that see us as something way less then MORAL. how many men that are married, use our services for what ever reason? By doing so would you not be going against Christianity in the English way? And moreover going against your vows of Moral Marriage?
The idea of Marriage in the eyes of God, do not just apply to the christians, and who is to say Gays,(men/women) can not be christains. We like to think we live in a culturaly diverse country. But yet a few think they need to push their ideolgy on the diverse to bring them around, or to say they are not right within our ideas of morality.
Why is it Hetero marriage has become such a farse around the world? Why is it more than 50% of all marriages fail? There are many Gays that have been with their partners longer than most straight couples will ever be. How one live's his or her lives as far as sexual prefrence, does not affect me personaly in any way, nor should it you.
If you don't like what someone is or their personal choices that is your right. But those people that are upstanding citizens, live their lives within the confines of the law, pay taxes, and love others, should have the same rights, privliges, and be able to love, and marry anyone they want.
Just remeber that; Ye without sin cast the first stone!

Cheers!
Kylie

that to deny gay people the freedom to marry is just UNFAIR, and WRONG to do so.
(Forget moral, or immoral and get away from those words and argument)

When we discuss controversial subjects (here or elsewhere), my opinions about the subject might be one thing, but what I see in the news and how I feel about it be very different. I can 'shelve' my upbringing, my beliefs, and my opinions to just look at the issue.

What if I were gay? What if I were black? What if I were pregnant? What 'if' any number of things.

Putting yourself in that place makes one think differently.
It's about being fair, not necessarily 'right' (according to my beliefs.)

Sully,
   Again, the issue is far too broad and complex.  My perspective is not based on absolute acceptance or denial of any philosophy of thought.  
   You automatically denounce ALL religion as petty and lame and attribute the validity of that argument to Marx, whom you have an affinity with on the issue of religion and I respect the merit of your conclusions.  Though you couldn't state your fundamental reasoning as to why religion is irrational, since your experience and understanding of reality do not accept any infallible power greater than reason born of sensual and verifiable certainty.  
   That one scenario is indicative of thought based on boundaries where ultimate conclusions are limitied to parameters of preconceived notions.  For me that line of thinking cannot absorb, rationalize, nor ascertain consequences on its merits.  
Which is  why we wouldn't see eye to eye on this issue.  Starting down this path requires time to fully express an understanding and its basis which this board will not afford to any of us.  
   Lets just leave it at liberals are commies and conservatives are fanatics.  Its much easier for people and a lot more fun for me

C'mon now! I'll be gentle, I promise. Hehe.

-- Modified on 2/24/2004 1:07:04 PM

That was how the legend began, looking  forward to meeting the man.

We restrict marriage between siblings!  We restrict marriage because of STD's (thats what the blood test is all about).  We restrict marriage between a man and more than one woman and vise vera.

So government does indeed restrict marriage.

Been away a few days, and I wanted to respond to funtime's answer to my "question what economic harm do homosexuals currently suffer from".  He mentioned the two items I listed above.

To your question "do you say, 'wait, let me check with my attorney, my tax accountant..."  I would respond yes quite a few do!  Have you ever heard of a Pre-Nuptial Agreement?

I still contend that homosexuals do not suffer economic harm, that fact that as a group they have more wealth, higher incomes that heterosexuals is proof of that fact.

Here's an idea that many of our left leaning members might embrace, lets raise the taxes of Gays and Lesbians because they have more and make more money that straight people!  I think that would be fair.  lol

HarryLime,
   We constatnly live in a state of chaos unless there is a constant introduced to appease that chaos.  Laws are not mere outcomes of jurisprudent logic absent of any other human variable.  The fundamental relationship between citizenry and and its governing body is merely reflected in the nature, content and depth of its laws.  They are everchanging and adapting not to accomodate society, but rather to understand what society is willing to accomodate.  Our very constitution is LAW.  Laws harbor no malicious intent inherently, nor are they restrictive in allowing a society to debate any issue that seeks to change its course or redefine its existance.  Without laws, balance would shift to the least controlled variable and hence society would lose its trust in any self-correcting mechanism to preserve balance and protection.
   Kant's principle is valid, however such absolutes in accepting or denying a reality through law merely negates debate as empty words without purpose.  
   Bribite is right, you can't marry a 12 year old if you wanted to.  If we were to restrict all laws then there would be no law against some 45 year old guy meeting your 12 year old daughter through the internet and marrying her.  kants theory simply doesn't pass the smell test...

Guys... Mr B, Mr EV... :)

I  SAID people children couldn't marry because they are not citizens.  I AGREE that people may not be able to marry because of public health concerns (Incest or STDs).  

None of those blunt the moral force of Kant's argument.  We may not meet the standard all the time, but when we don't, we should think about it carefully.  Probably, our legislative "fixes" might not meet the smell test (are you hearing a conservative streak in me EV?  I have one.)  

Dear Mr B.  People in a gay relationship can't file jointly (there are times when that is the right thing to do tax wise).  They don't have the same rights under social security.  They never (or very rarely) have the same benefits under retirement plans.  There are hundreds of treatments in the tax and pension codes that benefit married people exclusively.  It ain't fair and that is the simple long and short of it.  You know it and I know it.  

Dear Mr EV, I supose you are a conservative in the finest sense of the word (and I think that is a very fine sense).  I would expect you to see Kant as the highest ideal to which we can hold the law (if you like, I can grab you a couple of conservative writers who support my assertion).  I thought you would leave the kind of lawmaking to the liberals and the radical moderates.

Your radical moderate colleague in hobbying...Harry

-- Modified on 2/24/2004 4:51:25 PM

I would think that the incest issue does meet the "moral force" of Kant's argument.  But I remind you that people CAN'T marry their siblings or someone with an STD, not "may not be able to marry".  My opinion.

I'm not a tax accountant, but I have never heard of any cases when joint filing renders a tax benefit.

Don't me started on Social Security, it can't pay its current benefits and it is only going to get worse.  I suspect that the retirement benefit age will be over 72 within 10 years and considering that, since gays die earlier, I suspect it might be a wash.  The spouse death benefit is only $250.00 anyway.

As far as it being fair, well I want to spend a couple of weeks with Morgan Ashley, but I can't afford it, and I think its unfair that some guys can.  Oh well, i guess I'll have to live with the disappointment.

The fact is, it doesn't.

...it undermines the Religious Right's sense of entitlement and damages their fragile-but-oh-so-necessary feeling that all is Right with the World.

One thing I'll say about this thread...at least it's connected, however remotely, to the topic of sex.

Yoda

not only sexx will you discuss

With you the farce will be always..

Sully Fett the space man!

In my post explaining why a message board doesn't allow for a thorough discussion on the issue of gay marriage.  If I did sound I apologize.  That wasn't the intention.

Gary Bauer, president of the American Values, who ran for President in 2000 would have been more than a blip on the political radar screen.  As would have Pat Robertson in 1992!  Truth is, most Americans are more conservative than you are aware of.  Just look at the Republican gains in the 2002 election.  You greatly over estimate the power of the Religious Right, on purpose I believe, because it rallies those left of center.

Now that President Bush has publicly gone on the record in favor of a Marriage Protection Amendment, it will become a matter of public (way to public for John "Cash &" Kerry) debate.  If congress acts, we will see how the "real polls" have the American voters agreement or disagreement on this issue and you can bet your hobby money that they won't cross the public on this issue.  I think making it a campaign issue at this point is brilliant for Bush, and a real conundrum for whoever wins the democratic nomination.  John "Cash &" Kerry who has recently gone on the record as supporting marriage as that between one man and one woman will again have to explain himself to his base if forced to vote up or down on such an amendment.  At the very least, he has been cornered on the issue.

And just think, we conservtives have a Democrat, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco to thank for this election year gift!

IF as you seem to think, Gay Marriage has wide support in America, then it will be a great issue for Democrats!  However, I would remind you of Kerry's comments this past weekend on the subject, I think he may have some polls revealing that it is not widely supported.  I haven't heard anything from Edwards on Gay Marriage, but then again, I really haven't heard much from Edwards anyway.  lol

I don't think it has a wide base of support- but it ought to!

The Average American is about as intellectual as a prawn!  Doesn't mean much coming from a guy who can't type but it is true.

I think the average Euro goes to church once a year- the avg Yank about 35 times.  We live in our religious dream world- they in the real world.

If you want proof of how stupid we are- look at the white house-takes one to lead some!

We are the Baby Huey of nations- dangerously oblivious to what's going on- totally self centered.  A baby with a bomb!

Now there is a description

"We are the Baby Huey of nations- dangerously oblivious to what's going on- totally self centered.  A baby with a bomb!"

  I still like the gad-fly shit stirrer better, but this one is a close second  Keep em coming

Maybe just a myster, a myth, urban legend

Let's beat a dead horse, shall we?

It's obvious that most of us feel that gay people should be able to get married. The rest obviously differs in their opinion. So we're not really getting anywhere with this, but I do enjoy all the humorous slander. You guys are brutal!

Hugs,
Ciara

sounds like this is the issue you seem will determine the election ? is it your hope this is where the focus stays ,so it doesnt drift to the real ones...economy, war ,job losses to 3rd world countries, hallburton, enron , pharmacutical cos...the list goes on. imho  if you think the election rides on this 1 issue i believe your outta touch with realty like babybush

sounds like this is the issue you seem will determine the election ? is it your hope this is where the focus stays ,so it doesnt drift to the real ones...economy, war ,job losses to 3rd world countries, hallburton, enron , pharmacutical cos...the list goes on. imho  if you think the election rides on this 1 issue i believe your outta touch with realty like babybush

-- Modified on 2/25/2004 1:43:56 AM

Bribite, I stand corrected...

"However, the law allows two singles in partnership owning their primary residence to each receive $250,000.00 capital gains allowance (totaling $500,000.00), assuming both partners are named on the Title Deed"

I learned something new today.
It's amazing how much attention the gay marriage topic is receiving...


About the "marriage penalty" i will look into that some more. My instinct says that your wrong on this, I still think that married people get more tax breaks. Sadly, my instincts have been wrong before.
Bribite, thanks for the reply back...

For someone from Massachusetts to say "your outta touch with reality" is very funny!  38 states have passed laws similar to California's Proposition 13 which says they will not accept marriage as anything other than between one man and one woman.

Furthermore, just because a few people continue to complain about the economy, doesn't a bad economy make!  All the indicators are showing major improvements.  Indeed I think it will be an issue, one that Bush will use as the year matures.  

I don't know about job loss, but I do know that Walmart is the largest retailer in the country.  I think most people are also aware that Walmart is the largest importer in America as well.  Go figure!

The majority of American's continue to support Bush in the war, and I know that just irritates the hell out of Democrats.  The more Cash & Kerry's lies about Viet Nam and his traitorous behavior are revealed, he goes down in flames in an America where patriotism is on the rise.  And I know that just irritates the hell out of democrats too.

Haliburton, Enron, pharmaceuticals, blah, blah, blah!  Haliburton is the only American company that was capable to do the job.  Enron supported both sides, giving more money to democratic  politicians, and it was Bush's administration (SEC) that  revealed their bullshit.  Or do you think they were a quality company until the third week of January 2001?

No, I don't think it will be a single issue election, but I do think that this issue will provide the American people the hypocrisy of the Democrats still standing in the primaries.  Bush has publicly given his stand, and so has Kerry.  Lets see who tries to dance out of it!  My money is on the $1,000.00 per letter (or highest bidder) Junior Senator from your home state.

StartThinking, I'll eat crow if Kerry doesn't waffle on another issue

Oh well, looks like I don't have to worry about eating crow.

Will you?

Kerry's closet is so full of skeletons that I truly hope he wins the nomination.  However, I think you will see some of those bones coming out between now and Tuesday from the Edwards camp.  Not to worry though, if Edwards won't, the Bush campaign will.

My only disappointment in this primary is how quickly Howard Dean went down in flames.  I truly wanted to have a Bush vs Dean election.  That would have really sent the left into a tizzy!

Hey, how about Ralph Nader, what a guy!  Well, the 5% left fringe train just left the station.  It appears that the 5% right fringe that would have followed Pat Buchanan is leaderless.

OK, if Kerry wins, I'll eat crow, publicly.  As America eats shit!

The obvious question is why are you here?  If you think of the Europeans as intellectual giants compared to the dumb hicks of America why not join them?

Europe is highly socialized, big brother already takes care of everything, of course their economies are in the toilet, their productivity is just barely above the continent of Africa, but hey, they're atheists, they're smart.  Europe will most likely collapse economically under the burden of taxation over the next 10 years.  It's already happening in France and Germany is not far behind them.

Their so smart that they shit on their only market, those dumb rednecks in America.  And then get pissy when we won't let them participate in the rebuilding of Iraq.  They are a continent of cowards, always have been, needing the "prawns" of America to save their asses twice in just the last 100 years.  The best of them immigrated to the US leaving the "intellectuals" to suck the blood out of the remaining " smart atheists".

Your baby huey comment is so asinine and it reveals such contempt for your country and is revealing of how the left truly feels about America.  Good thing there are so very few of you guys to force your agenda on us.  But again, I ask, why don't you just move to France or Germany?

Funny how the whole world hates us, but at the same time wants to immigrate here and join our "intellectual prawns" in their pews.

In short, you suck.

So you Bushies are going to have to beat Kerry on your own.  And you might wish that you didn't have a Chickenhawk, Lying, AWOL, Constitution-Mutilating Loser to do it with.

Au Revoir mon frere!

That's why the Bush and the wacko right is trying to mutilate the Constitution.  I am SOO glad that S.F.'s Mayor has taken the steps he has, and now Bush has been forced out of the weasel wording and driven to what his right wing base really feels - That they are in favor of bigotry against gays, and would go so far as to mangle the Constitution to allow it.

Because they will HAVE TO Try.  Right now, the equal protection clause is clear as a bell on this issue, and even the present Conservative Supreme Court cannot see their way around it without this Amendment.  

And you know what, the American Public is NOT so far against gay marriage that they will decide to maim the Constitution about it.  Maybe 20% of the population cares so strongly about this issue that they would support such a disgraceful mutilation/amendment.  The vast majority of the public just doesn't care that much, would just as soon live and let live, and will give SERIOUS pause to actually putting the first ever bigotry amendment into the hallowed document.  Dumbya has WAY over-played this hand.  This tide is turning, and it is turning FAST.

BTW, let me be the first to wish you Au Revoir and Bon Voyage for your relocation to France.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court is WELL on it's way.  Scalia said it himself:  The Texas Sodomy case cleared the way for the Court to have NO CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS to support a prohibition of gay marriage absent a Constitutional Amendment.  And you know what, they will NOT get one.  It's one thing for many Americans to have a slight preference against gay marriage.  But most folks simply don't care enough to vote to MUTILATE a hallowed document like the Constitution by sticking it with the first ever Pro-Bigotry amendment.  Most folks would, when push comes to shove, simply choose to live and let live, rather than maim the Constitution in hatred.   Bush has WAY overplayed this one, and the sea is changing VERY fast on this issue.

Or is that seismic reading just aftershocks from your last girlfriend?

(8.0 buddy, I can smell it from here. Come a little closer....)

Sdstud, you brain is constipated with the gasses of your own anger

Sdstud,
  Where you been??  I love pissing you off friend  You know its nice to see someone who gets so worked up about an issue.  Its shows you care, eventhough I disagree with you on the issue.  
  Ok now time to piss you off  Im going to put this in language you understand.
  You butt pirate, closet homo, fruit loop just come out and admit you take sugar in the tank, I know you are gay sdstud
You left wing basketcase, fringe loonie, jackass.  Get it through your f@#$%^% room temperature IQ brain that homosexuality is an act contrary to nature.  
  Forget religion and morality.  Take the creationist thought and apply it to this issue.  There is a f@#$%^& reason why there are males and females.  If nature intended cocks for cocks, males and females wouldn't be necessary.  
  If everyone turned gay, civilization would come to an end.  So forget morality and religion.  The act is contrary to nature because mankind would end if everyone turned gay.  
   And I don't F@#$%^& think nature intended it that way
   Now I could have been civil about this but you insist on calling people who disagree with you names such a right wing fanatics and so on.  So Im giving you a piece of your own damn medecine.  
   How are the wife and kids??  Hope all is well friend, keep in touch!!

just recentlly moved to mass but even if i lived here forever , your insinuating what...how sad....dont believe i posted my opinion on the issue ...how sad again , you ASS-umer
  walmart ...largest employer of illigal immigrants and minimum wage employees w/o benies and importer of cheap imports...your point here ???....u an importer ??
 last war imho was ww2 , unless you count panama  im guessing that was a critical 1 for u 2 . good thing jr. learned from sr. how to kick the ass of a worthy advesory.also glad bush aint  spending the resources going  after "lame" targets lie N. koreaor osama...no need to overdue this war on terror or WMD on trivial or meaningless targets!
   u got me on halliburton , enron ..ect...im not sure what i was thnking trying to link bushie and cheney to them..way off base........lmao  your sillyness

Nonetheless, I shall need to disappoint you, as I do not copulate with males.  There are far too many lovely LADIES that I am saving myself for, to waste any of my precious seed on a gentleman's Hershey Highway.

And as for the tiny bit of substance in your post, the fact is, that technology would now allow the species to survive even if we were all gay.  Although I for one, as a non-gay, might be happy to have missed out on such a utopia.  You've heard of artificial insemenation, have you not?

And, it is in fact NOT TRUE that homosexuality is contrary to nature.  There are MANY examples of naturally occurring homosexual behavior in other species.  Homosexuality is merely not the behavior nature has determined will result in procreation.  Nonetheless, it DOES often occur in nature.

And incidentally, I certainly allow for others to disagree with me on this issue without calling them names.  I for one am NOT in favor of gay civil marriages.  But I am not troubled by those who are.  I am also not in favor of heterosexual civil marriages.  Marriage is purely a religiously based concept, and as such, I feel that the state has no business in it.  The state DOES have an interest in stable committed civil unions, and it should provide them to any committed couple of consenting adults who wish to have the legal benefits of such a coupling inure to their committed relationship.  This way, the state can provide TRULY equal protection under the law, just as it is specified in the Constitution, and NOT impinge on the religious nature of marriage for those who care about it.  But a religious marriage should also NOT carry with it ANY legal rights and responsibilities that do not also inure to those who are not married.  The legal rights and responsibilities would be conferred by the state, in a civil certificate that is available to ANY consenting adult couple that chooses to get one.

And, frankly, I don't go around calling names to those who oppose gay marriage and support heterosexual marriage.  I reserve my name-calling to those who would obscenely mutilate the Constitution by making it a bigoted document in pursuit of such an offensive goal.  That act is WORTHY of as much scorn and invective as I can heap on it.

Sdsutd, you said, "I reserve my name-calling to those who would obscenely mutilate the Constitution by making it a bigoted document in pursuit of such an offensive goal.  That act is WORTHY of as much scorn and invective as I can heap on it."
   Forget the other debates for now about nature and religion, they are extremely time consuming.  Just read your own last paragraph and tell me HOW in any way shape or form is a respectable and unoffensive statement.  
   Mutilate the Constitution by making it a bigoted documet.  Just because someone disagrees with gay marriage, they are mutilating and are bigoted.  
   How is that statement any different than these liberal commie degenerates want to mutilate society by making it immoral.  That kind of reasoning from both sides is the REAL FUCKING reason both sides are up each others hershey highway and poop shoot
   Someone disagrees and all the sudden emotions set in and the most childish accusations and name calling ensues.  This from a so called "educated society."  Sometimes I fail to see a distinction of intelligence between the taliban and college grads in this country because when it comes serious debate, everyone starts to hurl insulting rants and we as a society don't get anywhere.  
   If you disagree with gay marriage then you are a right wing fanatic and if you want clean energy and environment you are a left wing extremist.  This from a so called educated society.  Tell me how that line of thought is different than the caves of Afghanistan??  Its the height of ignorance.

It's simple.  The Constitution, as it is presently, and as it has been for at least 135 years, DOES NOT discriminate against anyone.  It has an equal protection clause, that in many ways, makes it the fundamental model for civilization as we know it.

As it relates to the equal protections clause, this particular amendment is no different than if it were to suggest the following:  

Say we proposed an amendment that simply defined marriage as a union between two WHITE people of different sexes.  No big deal, it's just words, and I guarantee you that in the south in the 1820s, many people would have supported such a notion.  

But they are offensive words, because they are inherently descriminatory, and as such, they are against the entire spirit of the equal protection clause of this document.  Removing the word "white" from this proposed amendment does not make it  any LESS descriminatory in nature.  It is still designed specifically to be discriminatory, and it is still a direct contradiction with the equal protections clause.  There is NO LEGAL, SUBSTANTIVE difference between this amendment with word "white" included, or excluded, EXCEPT that the scope of the discrimination is even greater with the word "white" included, and more people could be found that support it.  But EITHER WAY, it's offensive, and it mutilates the entire spirit of the document.

fuck the crow...now thats something i dont mind opposing........egads

   Very simple, just answer one question.  Does a 45 or 50 year old man get EQUAL PROTECTION if he wants to marry a 12 year old girl??
   If you say no then I am going to use every single argument against you that you use for gay marriage.  You simply do not get the implications of the act of legalizing the marriage of people who engage in the act.  I swear everyone just wants society to accept things because they feel good to them.  Freedom and equality isnt about blanket acceptance of any fucking thing your heart desires to have accepted by society.  Why have any laws or standards at all.  Legalize everything, just do away with all standards and lets all have a giant orgy and see how long we all sruvive.  

And yes, EVERY FUCKING THING that consenting adults' hearts desire that goes on in private and does not impact the rights of others is Constitutionally protected.  If it is protected for heterosexuals, it is protected for gays.   THAT IS IN FACT what the Supreme Court ruled in the Texas Sodomy case last year.  

Your example of a 12 year old minor is 100% spurious and irrelevant.  Because EVERYBODY acknowledges that the state has a compelling interest in protecting minors from exploitation by adults.  The state has NO justifiable interest in compelling consensual morality among adults.  These are two entirely unrelated issues.

how friggin pathetic to think that comparison makes your argument...the more u post the less inteligent u sound

  Come a little closer and whisper it into my ear and tell me what you thought I was suggesting.  Get really close and let your breath massage my aching thoughts, let every word of your whispers caress to a calm surrender my deepest longings.  Oh baby command me without lifting a finger

In virtually every discussion about this that I have heard, someone brings up this argument about marrying 12 year olds becoming legalized.  Why on earth would this follow?  Minors are not allowed to vote, or to buy alcohol or cigarettes, or enter into contracts, etc, etc.  Since these prohibitions have not been overturned, why would prohibiting their marriage be overturned?

-- Modified on 2/25/2004 3:09:17 PM

  You can't even defend it can you??  Thats how pathetic the gay marriage movement it.  All of you scream from the top of your lungs how unprogressive and evil, yet when confronted with  another situation testing your tolerance you have a simple cliche of apples and oranges to deflect the issue.  It really isn't surprising though, in fact its right in line.  
  Apples and oranges, now thats an original.  Pour water between your ears as the fire and flames that must have emenated from the mind who deliberated so profusely to come with with such an original will surely light the rest of the neighborhood on fire.  
  That comparison doesn't make my argument, its simply a test to see how "TOLERANT" all of you are.  Get thee hence to your history books and see for yourself that in many far easter societies for hundreds of years women did marry that young to older man and they didn't wind up in divorces.  It was simply an outcome of circumstances of the time, regardless it isnt a foreign practice in human history.  
   But maybe public education history left that part out.

The fact is, the equal protection clause holds for anywhere that the state cannot show a compelling interest to the contrary.  And protecting minors is a legitimate compelling interest for the state.  Legislating private morality between consenting adults is NOT a compelling state interest in the face of the right to privacy, and there is an overwhelming body of law to this effect.  The situation you posited is entirely unrelated to any situation concerning consenting adults.

  I know everyone wants to build a big fire and rejoice kumbiya style to "we are the world."
  Someone mentioned equal rights based on love.  Since 2 gay people love each other why can't they marry.  If a 45 year old and 12 year old are in love why can't they marry??  Anyone who supports gay marriage shouldn't in the least have a problem with the concept should they??  Oh but if that was your daughter you wouuldn't be so tolerant would you.  
   The point is that all of you gay marriage supportes who call us intolerant and fanatics would all the sudden become intolerant and fanatic too if a 45 year old asked to marry your 12 year old daughter.  That doesn't make you intolerant at all.  That is your right to disagree, jsut as we are not intolerant by not supporting gay marriage, we simply disagree.  
   You people are right wing fanatics is a bunch of thoughtless, idiotic, and childish angry ranting.  We have our reasons for not wanting gay marriage legalized.

   You are intolerant, bigotted, and mutilating the constitution for now allowing 45 year olds to marry 12 year olds.  Who the hell are you to say we can't love each other and get married, who are you to make us second class citizens.  
   Honestly, that is the essence of your argument for gay marriage so I'm throwing it back at you.  No matter what you want me to say Im going to use that same argument, because that is the depth of the gay marriage argument.

find me a post by me where im a gay marriage supporter????, save your crusade for bible class not a website that deals quite franklly in prostitution, u lame ass fool.
 you sure dont mind bringing up that comparison although it relates in no way to the topic at hand.
 to test how TOLERANT we are ....so if someone is for gay marriage or doesnt care it also means they are for child molestation....your fuc%in warped in the head dude.

Wow!  What a thoughtful response to my post.

It wasn't just in the east. Not too long ago it was not uncommon for older men to wed teenage girls in western societies. Ours being a multicultural society makes things more complicated, but cultural values are changeing. That's what the debate is really about. Personally I don't have strong feelings one way or another, but do find it amuseing how worked up some people get about it. I don't really care if gays can marry or not, doesn't really affect me. For those that adhere to the procreation arguement, wouldn't following that line of logic also ban childless marriages?

You are fundamentally wrong about this.  Please show me ANY basis in American Jurisprudence that SUPPORTS any claim of acceptability for the exploitation of a minor.  

The equal protection clause and the right to privacy have ALWAYS been held to be valid as they relate to CONSENSUAL behavior between legally competent parties.

Surely you can come up with SOMETHING better than the claim that gay marriage is equivalent to a marriage involving an exploited minor.  That's just complete rubbish, and has no basis in American Jurisprudence.  Whereas equal protection for the rights of adults has a very solid Constitutional basis.

i dont like green beans if you do that means u support 40yr olds marrying 12 yr olds......
   i dont like taxes if u do ..see above..
   i dont like bbw if u do see above...
   i dont like racial profiling , if u do see above...
   i dont like pedophile priests , if you do see above...
   i dont like fords , if you do  see above..
  i was raised baptist (not now), if u were not see above...
  i could go on , hopefully the point is taken these comparisons make as little sense as EV

Condoning pedophilia by Priests is actually a direct parallel to condoning 40 year-olds marrying 12 year olds.

   Exploitation of children??  This is the problem with ignorance. Arrogance in the universal validity of ones own argument without conscious awareness of a contrary reality is surely the pillar of mediocre greatness.  
   I urge you to research history before passing a judgement on it.  For hundreds of years in the far east many women as young as 13 would marry much older men and start bearing children as well.  What you call exploitation was another society's accepted and understood practice. They lived very simple, yet happy lives given their circumstances.  But since that doesn't agree with your view of reality, surely for hundreds those backward ignorant people engaged in exploitation.  
   Yes I see it as exploitation, but those whale like wolves during a full moon about gay marriage can't seem to come up with ONE SINGLE argument, as to why if a 45 year old and a 13 year old love each why they cannot marry.  The issue is marriage here isnt it??
   Maybe other societies definition of love maybe different than yours as well.  All of you who are so quick to call others fanatics for rejecting gay marriage might do yourselves and society a great favor by enlisting in a local community college and enlisting in some classes that give you perspective on the broad range of human thought.  Start with community colleges first though, as babies must learn to crawl before they learn to walk.  

Exploitation of children??  This is the problem with ignorance. Arrogance in the universal validity of ones own argument without conscious awareness of a contrary reality is surely the pillar of mediocre greatness.  
  I urge you to research history before passing a judgement on it.  For hundreds of years in the far east many women as young as 13 would marry much older men and start bearing children as well.  What you call exploitation was another society's accepted and understood practice. They lived very simple, yet happy lives given their circumstances.  But since that doesn't agree with your view of reality, surely for hundreds those backward ignorant people engaged in exploitation.  
  Yes I see it as exploitation, but those whale like wolves during a full moon about gay marriage can't seem to come up with ONE SINGLE argument, as to why if a 45 year old and a 13 year old love each why they cannot marry.  The issue is marriage here isnt it??
  Maybe other societies definition of love maybe different than yours as well.  All of you who are so quick to call others fanatics for rejecting gay marriage might do yourselves and society a great favor by enlisting in a local community college and enlisting in some classes that give you perspective on the broad range of human thought.  Start with community colleges first though, as babies must learn to crawl before they learn to walk.  
   

 

  Brilliant, just brilliant!  Weren't you the one who came up with that line in Forest Gump, "Life is like a box of chocolates?"
  What community college empowers the brain with such a profound ability to understand the depth of human understanding.
Start selling fortune cookies with your words of wisdom, surely the masses will hail you as the chosen and enlightened one.

My ENTIRE justification is based on American Constitutional Jurisprudence.  What other cultures have chosen to do or not to do has exactly ZERO relevance in my argument.  I could care less what THEY did.  Other cultures condoned human sacrifice.  That doesn't make it acceptable here.  Other cultures have condoned canibalism, but that doesn't make it acceptable in any way, shape or form here.

Even OUR culture condoned racial segregation and slavery, but WE now have a Constitutional prohibition against these unambiguously WRONG activites, as based on the morays of OUR civilization.  And we base that on what is codified within the document that WE use to guide OUR laws:  The U.S. Constitution.

NO OTHER SOCIETY'S LAWS AND MORAYS ARE AT ISSUE HERE. ONLY OURS.

I am not asking the Sunni moslems in Saudi Arabia to accept gay civil unions.  They don't even accept a woman's right to show her face in public, or to challenge the ideas of her husband.  I am asking OUR OPEN, DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY to live up to it's own, ALREADY CODIFIED ideals, and deliver equal protection under the law to all ADULTS.  Other, less-enlightened societies and their backward ways are not an issue here.


-- Modified on 2/25/2004 4:40:59 PM

Your argument is completely specious and irrelevant.  What other societies have done that we consider abberant has nothing to do with OUR society.

There is more wisdom in that one utterrance of Forrest Gump than you have amassed in every post you've yet made on this thread combined.  The fact that other societies have had practices that are abberrant to our way of life is not relevant here.  We have a Constitution that has codified OUR society's ideals, and THAT IS RELEVANT.  

-- Modified on 2/25/2004 4:43:47 PM

   Since it is a matter of constitutional jurisprudence as you say, and trust me Im  following your logic wholeheartedly, why cant two people in love marry regardless of age.  
   Very simple question!  If 2 people love each other then why can't they marry regardless of age??  My entire point in using that example was to reveal that you are free to express utter contempt and dissatisfaction with people seeking to legalize marriage between a 45 y/o and a 12 y/o.  You would also fight with all your being against legalizing such marriages for a thousand reasons.  Does that make make you a bigot and constitution mutilator??  NO!  You seem to have no problem saying exactly that about people who disagree with you on gay marriage.  
    I pointed to history  because it proves it is possible for older men and younger women to marry.  You may not agree with it and you would fight with your life to oppose legalizing such a marriage.  You would even shoot that 45 y/o who came to your door asking to marry your 12 y/o daughter.  Gee all the sudden since you disagree with the act you are no longer a bigot in opposing it.  
   The whole f@#$%^& point is that your use of words such as  bigot and constitutional mutilator are completely empty tirades.  Because you wouldn't stand by one minute and allow the legalization of marriages between 45 year olds and 12 year olds.  History proves it certainly is possible for such marriages to exist.  If you and rest of the holy gay warriors would see that much we all could have a civil debate on the issue.  
   But its always the same.  You right wing bigoted fanatics!  All of you say that then rejoice and bask in your own glory like Nero marvelling at his own greatness, thinking you have spoken the eternal truths.    Even a redneck could make that statement about anyone.

Here's time number 6:  There are TWO reasons, both can find their basis in Constitutional Jurisprudence:  

#1:  The state has a COMPELLING interest in protecting the exploitation of a minor child, that allows it to prohibit an adult marrying a child, because our society does not view a child as being competent due to immaturity to enter into such a relationship.

#2:  Our society, and in fact the Constitution does NOT give minor children the same rights and privileges as it gives to adults.  Among other things, they can't vote, and they don't have the right to engage in any number of behaviors that adults are allowed to engage in.  There is longstanding precedent that the state has a paternal interest in providing a protected environment for children, and that includes, putting laws in place protecting them from drinking, smoking, facing the same legal sanctions as adults, and having the freedom to NOT attend public schools.  

Children are viewed as a different class of citizen by our legal structure.  The don't have as many freedoms, and they have more protections, than do adults in our society.

As a result, Anything related to what we do or don't allow children to do freely is 100% irrelevant as it relates to what we do or don't allow any consenting adults to do freely.  PERIOD END OF SENTENCE.

You may not like this answer, and you may not agree with this answer.  But this IS the answer, and it IS the law of the land in the country you live in.

   The great wisdom and thought all of you have applied to the gay marriage issue would surely put Gandhi, and the great Buddha to shame right??  All of you have deliberated tirelessly and understand all the implications of legalizing the act will have on society as a whole for years to come.  Really, you want me to believe that when all any of you can come up with is you right win fanatics??  For a group who claims to have dissected the issue from every angle and then come to the conclusion that gay marriage should be legalized shold be able to do better than right wing fanatics and bigots.  
    Surely all of  you who have thought this decision through rigerously can do better than right wing fanatics.  Or could it be that the majority of you haven't spend one fucking minute, or used up even half a brain cell to really think about the implications of such a broad and historical change??  I bet majority of you simply see this in terms of it don't effect me so why should I stop them.  That logic doesn't even require a GED, get fucking real.

Hmmmm.  Well that was a thought out response.... NOT!

Well I do suck but only the SO and then not well- nerve damage in the neck...

You may think what you will- but some place between the old totally socialized Europe and our total free for all might be  good place economically.  The Euros are going there. We will probably follow soon enough.

glad you did not take on the truth of my statements only the format.  I am a patriot in that I see what we CAN be and want to go there and take the country with me.  I see whats better and want that.

But I am sure Chauvinism works fine for you.  Bet you didn't know it was invented by a FRENCH guy!  Hey your country right or wrong!

Enjoy yourself.  Live Long Prosper.  Just understand what is going on when the rest of the world thinks you a poltroon!

Sdstud,
   Good now youre getting angry and frustrated.  Thats precisely my goal.  Because the logic you are using to support gay marriage sounds just as stupic and idiotic to me as mine sounds to you.  
  You call it exploitation someone else calls it love.  You are rigidly stuck on the eternal greatness of your on definitation.  What if what you call exploitation is someone elses love.  Did you ever bother to stop and think about that one???  All of you seem to believe only you hold the answers, but guess what you are wrong.
   Exploitation??  Thats what you call it and you are free to do so.  I could just as well take history and say its not exploitation because it worked for hundreds of years so why can't it work now??  It isn't so fucking simple all the sudden is it??
   You didn't answer shit to a person who believes they can fall in love with 12 year old.  And history proves they can have healthy marriages, but since that doesn't fit your reality you discard it as exploitation.  That person who falls in love with that 12 year old will say you are the bigot making him into a second class citizen.  And you will try until you are blue in the face to convince him it is exploitation.  
   Maybe there is a bigger fucking picture you are looking at when you call it exploitation of children just as maybe we are looking at a much bigger picture when we say do not legalize gay marriage.  That is my entire point.

My point about Walmart is exactly what you replied;  

"walmart ...largest employer of illigal immigrants and minimum wage employees w/o benies and importer of cheap imports:

And that they are the Largest Dollar Volumn Retailer in the county!  This is one of the reasons that the jobs are going offshore, seems quite simple to understand to me.  Americans want the best bang for their buck and they don't seem to be getting it in American Made products and they don't give a rats ass about how Walmart runs their business, illegals, no bennies, notwithstanding.

We are changing (or have changed) from the Industrial Age to the Information Age and those people who don't adapt will be known as the buggy whip makers of our generation!  Job losses occur, people adapt.  But if they are waiting for RCA to start making TV's in America again, they are waiting for Godot.

The rest of your rant just reminds me of an east coast liberal.  I would say you have found a nice home with like minded people.

You continue to misrepresent my position.  I don't support ANY state marriage at all.  I support state civil unions for any consenting couple of adults.  All LEGAL rights and responsibilities of the partnership would inure to any couple of adults who swore a commitment.  Marriage could be whatever the church of your choice would make it.  And if you don't belong to a church, a state-sanctioned civil union would be exactly what you could have if you so chose.  Be you straight, or possibly in your case, gay.

And, I am not frustrated at all.  I'm certainly willing to concede that you are incapable of comprehending my point.  And that I will eternally be disagreeing with yours - I DO understand your point.  It's simply primitive thinking, just as condoning human sacrifice or canibalism is primitive thinking, so would finding an equivalence between gay consensual unions and adult-child unions is primitive thinking.  I'm fully capable of acknowledging that you feel that way, ignorant as it may be.

And I am content to leave it that way, because the U.S. Constitution is on my side.  You can disagree with it all you want.  But you will find that it's not so easy to mutilate this document, as the citizenry of our country actually hold it in rather high reverance, and will give it some serious thought before they install discrimination in it's body through the amendment process.

I hardly think voicing an opinion is cowardly!  Or is it only opinions you oppose that are cowardly?  In fact, I am so out numbered here (not a real cross section of America) that voicing my opinion might be the opposite to some.  

I would say marching into socialism is stupid.  It has never worked for long.  Your elevated opinion of Europeans is without facts, they are in a economic breakdown.  They had a baby boom too, and the payouts are way to big to meet.  France has already had riots over welfare payouts being cut.  The fact is, Europe is in deep shit and socialism is the reason.

And where does the Chauvinism comment come from?   That I think that America is still the greatest country on the planet?  If so, then call me a chauvinist, but poltroon, hardly!

  There is an entire movement from a very large sector who wants to LEGALIZE marriage.  Im not talking about the nuances of your thoughts on state sanctioning marriage as a whole.  That is a completely different issue??
  There is an entire fucking movement that is pushing for legalizagion of gay marriage permenantly.  That is the issue here, not your nuanced understanding of state rights.  All these self-righteous leaders caliming high openminded intellectual ground are pushing for the LEGALIZATION of gay marriage.  Thats what the whole debate is about.  
  The movement has created an urgency that must be matched with a much greater thought and wisdom.  Its just not as simple as it doesn't affect you so why are you denying us our rights.  If society was so fucking simple we wouldn't need brains we could be rodents.  
  They want to change the meaning of an institution that is as old as civilization itself and they have the audacity to call any of us close minded bigots simply because we actually bother to think about the long term implications of such historic change on society.  Have any of you actually thought about how this will impact the evolution of society in just the next 20 years??  No because just like the public schools you all graduated from there isn't much of an emphasis on using the brain.  Simply meet some really low standards and move on with life.  That explains why the only argument most of you can come up with is you bigoted fanatics and right wing nuts.  I bet most of you calling us fanatics didn't even fucking know how to spell Iraq or where the hell it was on a map.  I bet most of you who call us fanatics have children who cant even spell correctly the state in which you live or even know how many states there are in this country.  And you have the nerve to call us backward bigots and fanatics.  
   

dude-

Where did I say you were a coward?  Not a bit of it-  just joustin'

Just pointin' out that the average Euro is a better conversationalist with more to say about more topics than an American-IN ENGLISH!  

Pretty sad when we can't compete in our mother tongue...

Never liked the mindless America is better talk- cuz it is not true on all topics.  Still my choice- got to stay and improve it- make it a better place with less distance between rich and poor and a more realistic approach to the environment and the economy.  If we actually paid what things cost and not govt's subsidised oil corn, wheat, etc- we'd have the occiasional riot too.

    I do comprehend your point which is why I say you have a right to it.  Im simply not primitive enough to discard your opinion as bigoted.  The reason I point to history is because there is a longstanding precedent for marriage between young and old.  You are primitive to actually ignore historal fact that entire societies accepted as primitive.  Again, it just shows how deep you have drowned in the abyss of your own arrogance.  
Those societies were all wrong for hundreds of years because you said so.  Oh chosen one lead us to the promised land.  Since you seem to be the absolute authority on all matters concerning the world.  
   These adult-child unions existed for hundreds of years yet they are primitive and you are enlightened.  You are way too full of yourself.  
   Here is an insult that will really help you gain some clarity.  You thinking your opinion and version of the world reigns as the height of human understanding is like W Bush believing he is smarter than Einstein.  Both of you may want to believe in your own greatness, however I assure you there is a world outside your own egos.

Actually, I already thought that marriage meant when two people who love each other decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, and acknowledge this fact in the society, and wish for society to acknowledge it back.  They might perhaps even wish to raise a family together.

This is a good thing.  It always HAS BEEN a good thing, and it always WILL BE a good thing for society.  And whether these two loving committed adults are heterosexual, gay, or purple is immaterial to whether it is good for society that their committment to one-another be ENCOURAGED, rather than discouraged.

I don't see how anything different is happenning in San Francisco.  And, btw, my view of a civil commitment is EXACTLY the same as what HAS been called a marriage.  I am merely willing to acknowledge that some folks who's basis is religion may have a problem with it, so I am willing to throw them a PURELY SEMANTIC distinction, between their faith-based coupling and a civil union.

The fact is, there is NO change to society, except for the encouragement of STABILITY in relationships, where otherwise there would be more proimiscuity and less commitment.  You might wish that there were not gays.  But there are, and they have their legal right to live, and to receive government benefits and to fuck each other.  All we are doing is encouraging them to do so in the same responsible manner that we already encourage HETEROSEXUALS to settle down and provide each other with a social safety net.

There SIMPLY IS NO HARM TO YOU in this process, as a heterosexual.  ARGUABLY, there is much BENEFIT to you, as a member of the society that might otherwise need to bear the costs of the type of non-committed promiscuis relationships that some of these folks might engage in WITHOUT the societal encouragement.

The courts are correct on this issue so far.  None of the parties who oppose these gay unions have been able to show any harm that has been incurred.  And those who are getting committed to one another HAVE been able to show convincing and clear benefits.  Your views are on the wrong side on this.  You need to wake up and see it, or else you need to do ALOT better job in demonstrating an actual harm to society, or to yourself.  It isn't there, and the courts are all seeing that such harm isn't there.  Show us that there IS GENUINE HARM to society, and maybe we will consider your views to be something other than simply bigotted "the sky is falling" hysteria.  

But so far, nobody has.  Our system is based on balancing of the rights of individuals, with the genuine interests of society.  It is NO ACCIDENT that nobody actually seems to be able to identify ANY detriment to society, of stable, committed, socially endorsed gay coupling, as compared to unstable, unapproved, yet still obviously occurring gay coupling.  Get over it.  The times, they are a changin'.

And, I'm perfectly comfortable with your disagreeing with it.  So long as your view is NOT the one that society legally sanctions, and mine is the one that it DOES sanction, through the Constitution, I am happy to have you go around believing I'm wrong, and I'm arrogant.  

What I AM, is completely satisfied that my view is the law of the land, and yours is not.  And you may want to change it through Constitutional mutilation (a.k.a. an amendment), but we will fight you all the way to the death on the mutilation of this document.  Good Day.

They got married yesterday and look we are all still here today.  Great therefore there are no negative consequences to society and let open the flood gates of gay marriage.  
  Do you think on divorce has any impact on society??  No, because thats probably how many divorces happened 50 years ago.  Today over 60% of marriages end in divorce in the first 8 years.  Nobody fully understood the consequences of a broken home on society 50 years ago, and today the psychologial trauma on most kids from broken homes is immeasurable.  
   What effect did one porn magazine named playboy on society??  Nobody full understood back then that 50 years after the first playboy a society would be ruled by images of sex.  If you don't see the impact of the hyper sexual culture on society then you are more blind than the taliban.  Every kid in highschool is thinking about fucking instead of education.  Every girls self image is based on how close they come to the SI look rather than dignity, character, and self-respect.  
   Thats the fucking problem, non of you want to acknowledge that there are consequences to actions.  Today we are probably the dumbest society on earth with the most schools and colleges, why do you think that is??  Why is it that 3rd world Indian and backward middle eastern kids are far exceeding our children??  
   There are no simple answers and consequences can't be understood overnight that doesn't mean there aren't any.  But for most of you is as simple as it feels good or it feels right so be it.  
   Most kids didn't even fucking know where Iraq was before the war and still don't.  Here is one we can agree on!!  70% of the adults thought Saddam was behind 9-11.  Why the fuck do you think this society is so damn stupid.  The public wasn't that stupid in 1941.  FDR couldn't have stood up and said Mussolini attacked pearl Harbor.  What do you think happened in those 50 years.  Its not fucking hysteria when 70% of the public is so stupid that they believe Saddam was behind 9-11.  
  There are underlying changes that have brought us to this sad state of being in the last 50 years because no one had the wisdom and foresight to understand how accepting certain change impacts the future.  You may not be worried, but this world isn't about you.

  And according to your view, if it is a matter of principle, any two people who love each other should be able to marry regardless of age difference.  Good job Sdstud, you just legalized marriage between a 45y/o and 12y/o.  That fits your logic perfectly.  But as long as is not your 12y/o right??

What the fuck does any of the things you are decrying have to do with Gay marriage, as a societally encouraged institution, as distinguished from promiscuous gay coupling in a manner that is not societally encouraged?

It's simply irrational hysteria, or else it's mean-spirited bigotry.  I will grant that it might NOT be bigotry, but it then clearly IS Hysteria.  You are asking us to make LAWS, WITHOUT ANY BASIS EXCEPT FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN.  Our society does not work that way.  Laws are made by balancing the known and predictable outcomes among a range of alternatives.  That is why the courts are ASKING what the harms are in gay marriage.  To both the married couple, and to the plaintiffs in the case.  Because we already KNOW what the harms are to gays when the society stigmatizes and persecutes them.  

And, btw, the sad state of knowledge among the American populace can pretty strongly be correlated to the rise of television, at the expense of reading, as the public's main source of obtaining information.   And George W. Bush is a product of that dumbing down of the American public.

I can't be bothered making the exact same argument again and again, when you continue to misrepresent it the same way again and again.  We'll just deem this as an IQ test for you.  Either you actually get what I said CORRECT, and reitterate it as such before disagreeing with it, or I'll simply need to deem you to be stupid.  Note, I am NOT insulting you - I am giving YOU the chance to demonstrate that you're NOT stupid, by rebutting my ACTUAL argument, not a misrepresentation thereof.  But your last post argues to the contrary, because SO FAR, you're failing that simple test.

  Hugh Heffner also said its his freedom of speech being violated and said all of society was wallowing in irrational hysteria over that one playboy, precisely the argument you are making now.  He claimed society was over reacting to one magazine and couldn't prove it harmed society.  Thank you for proving my point that you and the rest of the crowd haven't put one ounce of thought into the long term implications of this issue.  
  Heffner was right that his first amendment rights were being violated when society demanded he stop publishing his filth.  You know who was backing him??  All the men who wanted to see that porn and all the business people who saw all the money to be made.  
  No sir the dumbing of the American public is not due to the TV.  The public tolerated one dumb show, and the second one came about and a third and a fourth and a fifth and today all of television is nothing but stupidity.  Change impacts society so fast that we don't even realize it until its too late.  
   I was a little kid in the 80's and my parents restricted me to watching just a couple shows and the rest was spend with tutors.  They wouldn't have had to restrict me 50 years ago.  Society started to tolerate moles because it felt good at the time and they turned into mountains that are now crushing the entire society.  
   Why should television itself make anyone stupid?  But people decided that decedance and sex would sell so TV became a medium to condition society with decadent images of sex and society stood by and tolerated.  Its that tolerance that played the biggest role in the dumbing of society, not the TV by itself.  People tolerated and the envelope was pushed further and further until it was too late to go back.    
   Believe me I can discuss the philosophy of laws, the constitution, and state roles with you like the best of them.  And those are worthy debates to be had, however this is about society actually tolerating gay marriage and its long term implications.  
   I have freedom of speech and expression, but I can't go around in public naked and cursing every person that walks by.  There is a reason that limit exists.  That limit doesn't probihit is extinguish the first amendment, it allows for endurance through time.  

You know I love that shit. *sigh* You are wasting your talents on that political drivel. Give me some more. C'mon. Pleeease.

-- Modified on 2/25/2004 7:38:38 PM

    Argue all you want, your world is not everyone elses world.  I know exactly what you are saying about the state not condoning any marriage at all, since marriage is based on religion.  I also understand exactly what you are saying as it relates to the equal protection clause.  
    I also know this issue is much more than about interpretation of the constitution.  I also know that having freedom of speech and expression doesn't allow me to run around naked in public and curse everyone that walks by.  That is not a limit on freedom just as not allowing gay marriage doesn't violate the equal protection clause.  
    Its the same old tiring mantra that people are stupid, right wing fanatics because they don't agree with you.  You are taking a literal intrepretation of the constitution when human existance and thought are not simple or literal.

Reammit! That's not f-ing fair! (jumping up n' down in my blk. leather stilletto boots)

   With one deep stare of your devious and develish eyes make my heart and soul lose all its strength to control itslef so only pure unadultrated passion starts capturing every atom of my entire existance.  As your breath gets closer and closer, I become weaker and weaker like a thirsty man nearing that drink of bliss.  Your fragrance reminds me of the softness of you soul and fills me with the desire of an hungry animal.  My body starts quivering and electric waves start shooting all across my body as one touch of your flesh removes all sense of reality from my existance.  I pierce your eyes with a stare so raw and yet so commanding that says an uncontrolled passion hidden in both our deepest desires will meet for the first time and unleash a force so powerful that all thought will vanish we will be lost to a world where unimaginable bliss will rule us both like a master rules its slave.  
    Now quit jumping up and down

Where's the part about your long shlong?

I haven't told you about my evil tongue yet have I  Then we can talk about other endowments

This could be so kinky! Ok, I'm kicking off the boots, and I'm ready for my bedtime story!

Not that I agree with the premise, but isn't that indeed socialism creeping into our lives?

Subsidies for farmers are usually given to NOT farm, to keep prices up and steady or for modernization.  Subsidies for oil, I have not heard that, other than using our power to keep the oil flowing from the middle east, ala Gulf War I.

If we weren't exporting so much food to Europe and the world, our prices would be much lower - supply & demand.

Again, I think your opinion of the average American is unfounded, but then again I don't know where you are from.  You may very well be from some rural redneck backwoods place in West Virginia.  My experience of Europeans is that they are pretty much the same in cross section with Americans in regards to knowledge of current events, politics, etc.  I can speak German and Spanish, however, much of the time Europeans do want to practice their English with me.

One of my greatest problems with Intellectuals (pseudo-intellectuals) is their arrogance.  Although most of the people I run into (who consider themselves intellectual) are hardly intellectuals, they just want to be identified as intellectual.  Not unlike groupies, they repeat what they have heard and cannot defend their "adopted" opinion, usually breaking down quickly to name calling such as bigot, racist, homophobe, etc.  This is a product of not having the ability to think your opinion through, so you cite someone else's.

BTW,  the definition of "Poltroon" is "a thorough coward".   Websters New World Dictionary.  Sully, did one of your friend use it recently?

The ONLY limitation to your rights of free expression comes when you actually harm others and the excercise of THEIR rights.  That is why the judges in the Gay Marriage cases keep asking what harm that the plaintiff can show.  They MUST show harm to themselves for there to be ANY legal justification to prevent the gay couples from marrying.  And then, if they COULD show harm, the court's job would be to balance the harm to the rights of the gay couples (which would be substantial if the right to wed were withheld) vs. the rights of the plaintiffs (who so far have been able to come up with ANYTHING, short of psychic offense at the behavior of the gays).

So, if you can actually come up with significant REAL harm that comes from the allowance of gay weddings, you could have a legal leg to stand on.  And so far, neither you not any of the plaintiffs in any of the cases has done so.  Otherwise, it will basically be an open and shut case in favor of the gay weddings.

There IS actually NO LIMIT on your right of free speech until and unless it abridges OTHER peoples rights and freedoms.  Once you start verbally assaulting others, you've run into that limit.  Even so, if you actually had content and rationale to your verbal assault and offensive expression of nudity, beyond simply choosing to offend, your right of free expression would probably be upheld by a court.  Nobody has shown that there is any significant harm to others in Gay marriages, and that's why the right continues unabated.

Yeah, and "everyone" used to acknowledge that homosexuality was perverse.

'Fact is, "everybody" agrees is neither persuasive, nor true.  What about NAMBLA?  The Rene Guyon Society?  There are plenty who want to do away with the age of consent, which is an entirely artificial concept, unlike true marriage.  Young teens were getting married for most of human history; it is only a recent legal innovation to limit sexual relations to adults.

"100% spurious and irrelevant"?  Simply because you declare it does not make it so.  Your premises are wrong, as is your history.  One man's exploitation is another man's consensual interaction.

And if "The state has NO justifiable interest in compelling consensual morality among adults," then what about in economic transactions.  Can we do away with labor laws?  Workplace safety regulations?  Or are you happy to have the heavy hand of the State interfere in those relationships, as well?  Your prior posts would suggest not.

sdstud demonstrates the typical intellectual chaos of the Left ... except that it's not all that chaotic.  The far Left wants the State to have authority over virtually every aspect of our lives, and therefore, must attack the one great societal institution that predates, and counterbalances the power of, the State: the family.

The closest I can figure out, is that they think they're in a zero-sum game with regard to taxes.  The thinking is: ANY change that lowers someone else's tax w/out also lowering mine, is a net loss for me.

And I guess that's technically correct, in a sad way.