Constitutional Ammendment on Gay Marriage - Will We Embarass Ourselves?

Are we really going to embarass ourselves as a nation by having MARRIAGE as something specifically addressed in the Constitution?

Is this really so serious a matter that it deserves the same treatment as the right to speak, the right to vote, the right to peacefully assemble, or the right to a speedy trial?

If we pass a Constitutional Ammendment on this issue, it will be a black mark forever that reflects horribly on this time in our nation's history. I sincerely hope this idea never gets beyond Congress.

I am really opposed to this as an ammendment because the Contitution should be about freedoms that are ensured.

I think for many people, the matter of calling it a marriage as opposed to a civil union is a religious debate.

I am not opposed to gay marriages because to me, I am married in lawful matrimony, not holy matrimony and it would be unfair for me to say that this title should only be allowed based on traditional co-gender pairings.

The problem is that marriage is both a lawful and a religious bond at the same time.

I do believe that marriage was actually a religious bond before it was a lawful bond so I would not be offended if instead, they changed the law that said only religious people could be married and its a term only a church can give and from there let each church decide if same-sex marriage is acceptable. This would keep the argument within the church rather than in the Constitution.

The big issue here (at least in my opinion) is the separation of church/state. I know it's also about the recognition of same-sex spouses with regards to healthcare and other benefits married couples have, but when you throw the constitution at something traditionally associated with religion, it comes down to church/state.

I think that whether gay couples are "joined in holy matrimony" is a decision the various clerical sects have to make. I also think it's unconscionable that any 21st century governing administration refuse recognize same-sex unions (whatever word you want to use for it), whether the ceremony is done in a church, temple or city hall.

It's a shame when the "most powerful man in the world" won't do what's right for fear of isolating some of his constituency (i.e. middle America and/or conservatives). I really hope it comes back to bite him in the ass this November.

I kinda think it may come back to bite the GOP in the ass, so to speak. I mean, it's not as if anti-gay marriage people were going to vote for non-GOP candidates this November. Perhaps if Pat Robertson were running as a third candidate, Bush's decision to come out so strongly for a constitutional ban on gay marriage makes sense, but as it is, all he will do is mobilize liberals and normally politically apathetic gays (as well as gays like the Log Cabin Republicans, who voted for the Bush/Cheney ticket back when the two candidates said this was an issue for the States).

That having been said, I don't think it will have much of a real-world impact on American Gays, as individual States will recognize same-sex unions to the same extent they would otherwise - they just can't call it marriage. It basically is just legislative gay-bashing, which hurts, don't get me wrong, but in the end, it will probably just create a second-class version of marriage called "civil unions" with gays having to consult an attorney whenever we move to find out how that will impact our benefits and child custody issues. But, really we have to do that now. SO again, it doesn't have any practical impact on most gays now, apart from freezing any progress in the area of gay marriage for the couple decades or so it would take to get the supermajority of States on board to rescind the amendment.

It will be an apalling black mark on our history, but in the end I think we shall overcome it. That said, this will make the Patriot Act look like a footnote in any argument that the U.S. has turned its back on two centuries of democratization and social progression.

One of the big issues here is the state of marriage just in general. Family law is a shambles. The statistics more than bear this out. From the personal angle, I know a woman who gave birth to three children and then was kicked to the curb, the man remarried and is now having his first child with the new wife. The first wife's life was given over to child raising and now she has nothing, her life a ruin. She considers suicide daily.

While a lot of you drift through life blissfully ignorant of the effects the so called "culture war" has on real people, some of us live it daily. I was the only child in my two families not to get help going to college. My step mother objected to money going to me vs her daughter, and my step father, also divorced from my mother, pressured her not to help me as he was paying a lot in child support and aliminy which he didn't legally have to pay, so he held that over her head and drove a wedge between us.

These bonds of family and marriage did not develop over time all over the face of the planet by some sort of accident. Putting religion completely aside, issues of fidelity, love, children and financial responsability are important, and the decision to do away almost completely with marriage as a legally enforceable document in some states, while in others I guess it is still impossible to get a pre-nup enforced, there is chaos, there is confusion, and people are being effected by it.

Enter the gay marriage debate. On the news I hear it being preached marriage has nothing to do with child rearing or whatever, that it is about loooooove and warm gushy feelings. Folks, marriages used to be arranged. They are all about who is resposonsible for what in the context of family and child bearing. If homosexuals want to get hooked up, beautiful, but marriage as a legal insitution is a lot more complex than that, and lumping anyone who is leary of one more social experiment with family law in this country when we obviously are still realing from the previous wave of them as some sort of backward thinking moron who doesn't see the beauty of freedom in our great and blissful land is mind boggling to me.

Folks, if marriage doesn't have anything to do with something, it is love. One wishes it did, but it is clear from the present divorce rate that it doesn't. Some people who love one another don't marry. Some people who marry don't love one another. The people who preached that nothing really bad would happen if we loosened the legal bonds and just allowed divorce at will lied to us. It's not that I feel the people need to stick together if they don't love each other, it is that there are responsabilites to be fulfilled here. If two people don't love each other, fine, get divorced, but let's get back to some basics about how that goes down, who is responsible for what and why before we take another wild stab at deconstructing a few thousand years of common law and practice.

Furthermore, the situation between a gay couple is completely different. It is not well defined who the domestic part of the couple is, who is the breadwinner, if indeed they are a two income family, whatever. It is a totally different set of circumstances and it needs more than just a hasty patch and a wild "YAHOO, WE WON" during an election year to do this correctly. Marriage as it exists now does NOT apply to homosexuals, period, as the gay community will find out soon enough when the inevitable happens and they have to deal with divorce.

The people who should be embarassed are the people who use this issue as some sort of trumpet, make aspersions, declare the topic settled and that people who don't agree are an "embarassment", drive wedges between us all for political purposes, or whatever. It is incredibly clear that this is a deeply important as well as emotional issue for a great number of people, and throwing around grandiose moralisms about how it will inevitably be looked at by posterity in the dead heat of the middle of it is nothing but harmful. This is a time for all of us to listen to one another, talk to and not at each other. Slow down, settle down and let's get this right for once.

There's a few things to keep in mind here. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. Let's say one person in a gay union (I'm substituting the marriage word) works and the other maintains the home, should the employed partner be able to include the homemaker on his/her job's healthcare policy?

2. Should one of the partners die without a will, should his/her longtime partner be the beneficiary as would be the case if they were straight and married?

3. Should the couple have the same tax breaks (assuming there are any) as a heterosexual married couple.

I don't like the government telling gay couples that they cannot receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples because the state doesn't recognize their union. It's total horseshit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian

Furthermore, the situation between a gay couple is completely different. It is not well defined who the domestic part of the couple is, who is the breadwinner, if indeed they are a two income family, whatever.

---

Woah! Since when is one partner in a HETEROSEXUAL marriage "well defined" as the breadwinner? Or are we going to throw out the whole women's liberation movement, too, and expect them to all be nice little homemakers?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Talithia
Woah! Since when is one partner in a HETEROSEXUAL marriage "well defined" as the breadwinner? Or are we going to throw out the whole women's liberation movement, too, and expect them to all be nice little homemakers?

---

A woman who has children at the very least has to deal with the childbirth and period when the baby needs constant care. Things are developing slowly in the realm of time off work for these sorts of things, but for a lot of working class women it is just a hardship they have to work through. It's simply physically not an issue for men. It will be different for gay men adopting, lesbians perhaps having children of their own, sometimes with one staying home, perhaps sometimes taking turns having children.

There is also quite a body of legal precedant on who gets the children after divorce, though again, it gets confused. Furthermore, in cases where a woman has decided to go ahead and take that role, because of the supposed advances in women's rights, that certain segment of women have actually lost almost all the protection they once had on that issue. I even gave an example of that. Do you think it is fair what happened to this woman, who maybe gained a few pounds over the years, and I have seen her she is not HUGE, but the guy dumps her and her life as she knew it is over. All basically for sex, when you get right down to it.

I am not focusing here on one aspect of this. There are a lot of issues to be looked at. The way you brought this up, and with the immediate accusation that someone is trying to take away someone's rights, whereas what happens over and over again is rights have already been taken from a huge segment of the female population and then this has been labeled "progress" and no one questions it.

People are sitting here giving short lists of what they think is the only thing anyone should be thinking about, but it's just not the case. Some judges in the northeast and a mayor in San Francisco have succeded in whipping this issue into a political fast track that is not healthy with these sorts of issues.

I really wish people would take a deep breath and think, really think, what it means to take something that is that fundamental to society and change it, and go ahead and do it if that's what seems right and fair, but take the time to do it right, address the various issues that really are there, not invented or made up, but are just right there and need to be addressed, and not turn this into a mud slinging circus for this years political purposes and then leave a lot of people with a hell of a mess to live through before any of you take it up again as an issue since you don't have to live with it yourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wyden
There's a few things to keep in mind here. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. Let's say one person in a gay union (I'm substituting the marriage word) works and the other maintains the home, should the employed partner be able to include the homemaker on his/her job's healthcare policy?

2. Should one of the partners die without a will, should his/her longtime partner be the beneficiary as would be the case if they were straight and married?

3. Should the couple have the same tax breaks (assuming there are any) as a heterosexual married couple.

I don't like the government telling gay couples that they cannot receive the same benefits as heterosexual couples because the state doesn't recognize their union. It's total horseshit.

---

Exactly right. these things need to be more precisely defined for gay couples, and indeed, perhaps need to be re-evaluated for heterosexual couples as well. All the government's vested interest in any of this is whether or not children are properly cared for and whether or not the financial interests of the adult parties to the union are protected in regards to how they divide labor in the household. I am surprised the gay marriage folks are so bashful about saying yeah, maybe the government should allow for domestic partnerships between multiple people. Especially, in a case where maybe one woman has more than one man interested in spending their life with her, this has historically been considered just beyond the pale, whereas men having multiple women is the norm in many places. What really is the difference? And why is it so evil for people to maybe love more than one person? Does this sound outlandish to you? It shouldn't. There are already, due to the fact that sex outside of marriage is now perfectly legal, many MANY instances of domestic issues relating to divorce and the financial responsability of children from mulitple spouses. Just not all at once. But what, what is the big difference between having one spouse and several other extra maritcal affairs and just being above board and saying, ok, I have more than one wife or husband? Pretending it's not an issue doesn't make all that go away.

And then there is divorce....

I had a history teacher who made an impression on me, when she pointed out this hubbub about women working "outside the home" is historically a bunch of bunk. Upper class women sure. But for the majority of women all through out history, the VAST majority, women have been working outside the home forever. We had been blinded to the needs of the working woman by a blissfull sort of Ozzy and Hariet mirage about what it is to be a woman in America. Now we are blinded by a different image. The image of the free woman who is above all this simply because she has "escaped" that which never actually existed to begin with. Women still have need of specific protections if they are going to be properly protected in society and still be able to confidently be mothers without fearing loss of financial viability. The whole thing is a mess, largely because it has been politicized and turned into a mob fest. You can't have a serious and substantive talk about these things anymore it seems. It's time and well past time to look at the entire issue of marriage and children and women's rights and unique needs in society for people who fall outside the "norm" and get things responsibly taken care of.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Graeblyn
I kinda think it may come back to bite the GOP in the ass, so to speak. I mean, it's not as if anti-gay marriage people were going to vote for non-GOP candidates this November. Perhaps if Pat Robertson were running as a third candidate, Bush's decision to come out so strongly for a constitutional ban on gay marriage makes sense, but as it is, all he will do is mobilize liberals and normally politically apathetic gays (as well as gays like the Log Cabin Republicans, who voted for the Bush/Cheney ticket back when the two candidates said this was an issue for the States).

---

Considering every poll shows 65-70% of Americans opposed to gay marriage, I would have to say that it is *impossible* for this to "bite the GOP in the ass."

This is an incredibly safe issue for Bush.

The person this issue is dangerous for is John Kerry. He cannot support gay marriage because that would result in an instant loss for him. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against it.

He also cannot be totally against it because then he alienates his base.

He is forced into this weird flip flop situation where he is afraid to take a stand.

If you hate George Bush, you can thank idiots like Gavin Newsome, Mayor of San Francisco, for making this a national issue. This issue is massive dead weight for Kerry and is a win-win situation for Bush.

That's some BS. Having multiple spouces elsewhere as the norm would be in 3rd world countries where there is no rights of a married couple. And it is no where in the same ball park as two people getting married. Polygamy does not face the same discrimination as homosexuality anyway in general. A guy making kids with a dozen women is not the same as a guy marrying those dozen women either. As I see it, opposition to gay marriages is largely religious based thus has no right to be a congressional decision.

I think you're batting at a lot of things that has no weight in the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Katidyd
That's some BS. Having multiple spouces elsewhere as the norm would be in 3rd world countries where there is no rights of a married couple. And it is no where in the same ball park as two people getting married. Polygamy does not face the same discrimination as homosexuality anyway in general. A guy making kids with a dozen women is not the same as a guy marrying those dozen women either. As I see it, opposition to gay marriages is largely religious based thus has no right to be a congressional decision.

I think you're batting at a lot of things that has no weight in the issue.

---

I think you just ignored the issues I made very clear and then cast an aspersion against religion in general. To repeat, multiple spouses in the sense of having multiple men having children with one woman or multiple women having one man's children is already well established in THIS country, but is inadequately addressed by the law. Plus, you actually repeated one of my points as if I were opposed to it. the fact is, for whatever reason, women who have more than one male are disparaged just as much if not more than any gay couple. You yourself seem to hold those sorts of relationships in contempt as you seem to find them utterly less palatable than homosexuality, despite the fact that there are a great deal more people dealing with those situations than there are homosexuals needing to get married so they can hurry off and adopt unwanted children.

Believe it or not, you -may- not be able to trace every single societal problem to the evil "religious" people trying to control all our lives.

Exemplify a "well established (norm) in THIS country" by naming some names of multiple spouces who are legally married under the law

I was not ignoreing the issue, you have thrown several things in the same boat that are unrelated. The issue is homosexual couples wanting the same legal rights and benifits as heterosexual couples. The magic words are "same legal rights and benifits". As to the evils of religous people, well, reference the bible where gay couples live happily ever after in society. For that matter, in any religion.

Polygamy is illegal so I dont know how you thought it was an established norm in this country (http://www.polygamyinfo.com/law.htm) or how it becomes my contempt for relationships. This is an article about the economics of marriage, it even comes with diagrams! http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academ...y_Chap_21.html

I am not saying polygamy is well established as a legal norm here. I am saying it is a well established norm for people to have children from more than one man or woman, and that this presents as much if not more of a problem to this country than same sex couples and marriage. I hear continually that marriage is about love. As I mentioned above, it is not. People don't get financial benefits from marriage because they are in love. It is all predicated on the idea that they will create a family unit which is fundamental to society. Ther undermining of old marriage customs with such things as no fault divorce and the fact that lots of women end up without any guarantee anymore that the time they spend in child bearing and child rearing is counted as worthwhile and guaranteeing any protection from being simply divorced and hung out to dry worries me a lot more than giving tax breaks and work benefits to people who in fact are no more likely to be truly "in love" than any straight couple. The whole thing is more about words and politics than about equality. In fact, for gay couples to be able to have marriage benefits then makes straight people who room together long term unfairly discriminated against. None of which ever gets brought up.

They are related issues to me. If you don't see the relation, or think such issues are less important than gays marriage, then that is your opinion. I think it is time to take a long hard look at family law in this country though and not degrade it even further with hasty actions during an election year for a lot of political dancing and prancing that can only serve to undermine serious debate about this or any other issue.

Now that makes a lot more sense!

It's a great political gimmick though, it worked in Reagan's favor too did it not?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
In fact, for gay couples to be able to have marriage benefits then makes straight people who room together long term unfairly discriminated against.

---

I'm not sure I'm following you here. Couldn't the straight couple (like the hypothetical gay couple here) just get married if they wanted the benefits of marriage? Where does the discrimination come in?

Quote:

---

I think it is time to take a long hard look at family law in this country though and not degrade it even further with hasty actions during an election year for a lot of political dancing and prancing that can only serve to undermine serious debate about this or any other issue.

---

I'd agree that election years (particularly presidential election years) are always a bad time for important issues to suddenly find themselves thrust into the political limelight. But I don't really see the connection to family law? Most if not all of what is wrong with the family structure in America is not related to who can marry who, unless we want to get into a discussion about whether or not people should provide some sort of certification demonstrating that they are not abusive and/or irresponsible assholes. And, to be honest, for most people, even those who divorce, the family works just fine. Gay people are already getting married and having families. They just aren't usually getting the same sorts of legal protections and recognitions that straight people with state-issued licenses are getting. To argue that we should sort out family law first before considering whether or not we want gay marriage is tantamount to telling people who want to marry same-sex partners that they will need to wait until we first fix an institution that (a) isn't so broken as to warrant not giving more people opportunity to enjoy it's legal benefits, and (b) will probably never be entirely fixed anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
In fact, for gay couples to be able to have marriage benefits then makes straight people who room together long term unfairly discriminated against.

---

This statement doesn't make any sense to me. We're not talking about homosexual common-law arrangements versus non-homosexual common-law arrangements and their associated benefits.

I'm not really going to get involved in this topic too heavily because these tired topics usually just end up pissing me off. But I guess I am curious... I thought that the seperation of church and state was something pretty major in the USA. If there -is- actually a separation of church and state, I wonder what secular reasons there are against this. Maybe it's gross, and yuck...and it disgusts you, and perverted and all of these things. Well, then don't be gay. Problem solved.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by karahd
Well, then don't be gay. Problem solved.

---

They tried that with the South Park dog and it didn't work. You know... Sparky! Don't be gay! :p

What I love is that the religious wrong frequently bashes homosexuals on the basis that their lifestyle is unstable. Letting people get married is a major step TOWARDS stability.

One of the reason the black community is in such bad shape is because of the break down of the family. The overwhelming majority of black children are born to a single mom. Please don't make me look up the statistic, but it is something around 75% or higher.

If you are truly concerned that homosexuality makes for an unstable lifestyle, then let them marry.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that homosexuals could make any more a mockery of marriage than Hollywood has been doing for the last 20-30 years. Britney Spears getting married as a "joke" is far more damaging to the institution.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle


Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that homosexuals could make any more a mockery of marriage than Hollywood has been doing for the last 20-30 years. Britney Spears getting married as a "joke" is far more damaging to the institution.

---

That's more or less the point. the whole institution is in a shambles precisely because of the flippant attitude people have now towards what it really means to be a family, to have children, or to take responsibility for their life and behavior just in general.

Traditionally, we just don't give people tax breaks and legal benefits just because they have a specific sexual practice or living arrangements.

And the "religious wrong". There's another tell tale hint about what all this is really about.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by karahd
This statement doesn't make any sense to me. We're not talking about homosexual common-law arrangements versus non-homosexual common-law arrangements and their associated benefits.

I'm not really going to get involved in this topic too heavily because these tired topics usually just end up pissing me off. But I guess I am curious... I thought that the seperation of church and state was something pretty major in the USA. If there -is- actually a separation of church and state, I wonder what secular reasons there are against this. Maybe it's gross, and yuck...and it disgusts you, and perverted and all of these things. Well, then don't be gay. Problem solved.

---

Homosexual activities do not disgust me. Not at all. This issue has nothing to do with church and state, though many want to pretend so becase pretending that is the issue is about the only way it even makes sense for it to be an issue. It is about what real interest the government has in giving incentives for homosexuals to cohabit whether or not they intend to start any family.

Tell me, why do you need to be able to stay home and be kept on your spouses insurance? Why can you not just work and take care of your situation like any other set of roomates who have no intention of having children but are just sharing expenses? Why do you deserve tax breaks I can't have unless I get married to someone who might actually get pregnant and we end up having a financial burden and have real need of extra help to stabalize the family? Why at the very least are you not willing to show some interest in actually having children first before you get legal benefits designed for the sake of benefiting those who are likely to have children and need those arrangements to help raise them? You'd end up just taking money out of the system that needs to be reserved to those who have an actual need for it. Is that what you want, or have you even thought about that? Do you even acknowledge that there are a lot of gay couples who don't want children? Because there are. The number of children likely to ever benefit from homsexuals getting married is negligible. More likely, money will be syphoned off to people who will never have children and who never wanted to to begin with. Basically, why does money need to be spent on making sure that gay people get breaks and incentives that no one else is elligible for?

Why is it that these family law issues aren't being looked at as FAMILY law issues? What is so special about being gay? Why is it that any question of the relevance of this sort of legislation is immediately labeled religious or hateful or prejudice, and no discussion about the fundamental issues of family and child rearing are allowed to be included in the debate? Why, in fact, does no one here seem to think the benefits being about children is nothing to do with it? I guarantee you, that is exactly why the benefits are there. Heterosexual couples do not get these benefits just because they happen to be living together and having sex. You have at the very least to meet common-law definitions of marriage before you get these benefits. And common law benefits more or less assume that there is at least some possibility to have a child. Homosexuals simply do not have that problem. For a homosexual to have children, they have to be doing something besides living together and having sex.

No one cares about the real consequences of this, just as no one cared about the real consequences of destroying traditional values regarding sex and marriage. Well, the destruction of traditional values regarding sex and marriage landed all over my face and has defined my entire life almost, just as it has many, many others. Hopefully at least some people will think about latch-key kids and the runaway divorce rate and the effects it has all had on the inner cities before playing just one more game with the most fundamental unit of society any more. Hopefully, but I dount it, given the entirel lack of conscience or any sort of sense of self discipline or responsibility in the US today.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
And the "religious wrong". There's another tell tale hint about what all this is really about.

---

You're going to be barking up the wrong tree if you try to label me a religion hater. I am not religious, but I support people's right to be religious.

I do not think freedom OF religion equals freedom FROM religion.

I support prayer/silent time in school at the beginning of the day.

I support government support of faith based charities whose purposes have valuable public policy benefit (like the ones that rehab felons and have the best rehabilitation rates of any such programs).

I think the Boy Scouts have the right to determine the rules for membership and scout leader status, and regardless of their rules they still deserve charity status and should be allowed to use government property (parks, etc.).

I support the "under god" part of the pledge.

I think the attacks on Mel Gibson's "The Passion" were outrageous and totally inappropriate. I think Andy Rooney should be fired for his outright slander.

I don't think gay marriage (or any marriage) is a right, but if there were a vote in my area, I'd vote for it.

I just despise the freakish religious wrong and their outrageous tactics on many issues like: opposing stem cell research (this one REALLY pisses me off), virtually all of their anti-abortion tactics (ranging from most extreme to least: bombing abortion clinics, killing doctors who perform abortions, creating hate-sites that list the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions), and supporting every anti-gay measure under the sun.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
It is about what real interest the government has in giving incentives for homosexuals to cohabit whether or not they intend to start any family.

---

What incentives? I mean, does anyone really look at child tax credits and say, "Whoah! That's a pretty fucking awesome deal! I think I'll go out and get married and have kids right away!"

Quote:

---

Tell me, why do you need to be able to stay home and be kept on your spouses insurance?

---

Huh? Who said anything about staying at home?

Quote:

---

Why can you not just work and take care of your situation like any other set of roomates who have no intention of having children but are just sharing expenses?

---

I could be wrong, but I'm assuming you're not married. Legal marriage carries a tremendous number of benefits that just being roommates does not. Many of which have nothing to do with whether or not there are children in the picture. If I buy a piece of property and later die, my wife maintains ownership of it without having to go to court to prove to the state that it should be hers. If I am hospitalized for some reason, she can visit me without me first having to sign a document giving her permission to do so. If my company offers a health plan for families, she is included even if they choose not to recognize "domestic partners." In most states it will be cheaper for she and I to share insurance policies on our cars than it would if we were not legally married.

Quote:

---

Why do you deserve tax breaks I can't have unless I get married to someone who might actually get pregnant and we end up having a financial burden and have real need of extra help to stabalize the family?

---

What tax breaks? The only significant tax breaks I get are for having a child (and those come nowhere close to making up for the actual cost of raising said child). A gay couple without children, just like a straight couple without children, are never going to see these tax breaks.

Quote:

---

Why at the very least are you not willing to show some interest in actually having children first before you get legal benefits designed for the sake of benefiting those who are likely to have children and need those arrangements to help raise them?

---

Again, there are plenty of benefits associated with legal marriage that have NOTHING to do with trying to raise children. Marriage, as a legal institution, is no longer just about child rearing.

Quote:

---

You'd end up just taking money out of the system that needs to be reserved to those who have an actual need for it.

---

Bullshit. He'd end up keeping money that is rightfully his to begin with.

Quote:

---

Is that what you want, or have you even thought about that? Do you even acknowledge that there are a lot of gay couples who don't want children?

---

Yet we don't force straight couples to prove that the are willing and/or capable of having children before we let them marry. Why a different standard for gay couples?

Quote:

---

More likely, money will be syphoned off to people who will never have children and who never wanted to to begin with. Basically, why does money need to be spent on making sure that gay people get breaks and incentives that no one else is elligible for?

---

What ARE you talking about?

Quote:

---

Why is it that these family law issues aren't being looked at as FAMILY law issues? What is so special about being gay? Why is it that any question of the relevance of this sort of legislation is immediately labeled religious or hateful or prejudice, and no discussion about the fundamental issues of family and child rearing are allowed to be included in the debate?

---

But it is the people opposed to gay marriage who seem to think there is something special about being gay. And, let's face it, with a bunch of morons running around shouting stupid shit like "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," without drawing the censure of their political bedfellows on this matter, is it so surprising that such a position seems to be rooted largely in prejudice?

Quote:

---

Homosexuals simply do not have that problem. For a homosexual to have children, they have to be doing something besides living together and having sex.

---

This is also true of 1 and 6 straight couples as well who, at the very least, will require some sort of medical assistance in order to have children.

Quote:

---

No one cares about the real consequences of this, just as no one cared about the real consequences of destroying traditional values regarding sex and marriage.

---

What are these traditional values? The only truly enduring tradition of marriage is that it generally conforms itself to the needs of society. I think marriage as a legal institution, no fault divorces and all, is doing just fine, and I don't see why we should pull out our hair just because some people are complete fuckups and would remain so no matter how many years back in time we were to go for our model of the ideal marriage.

Quote:

---

Hopefully, but I dount it, given the entirel lack of conscience or any sort of sense of self discipline or responsibility in the US today.

---

Oh, yay, I get to take a role I'm not often seen taking on these boards. I get to leap to the defense of America!:fence If we are in such an appalling social state today and suffer from an entire lack of conscience or self-discipline or responsibility, how is it that we manage to remain the economic and military powerhouse that we are? I mean, I'm not exactly a member of what anyone would consider the priviliged class. Yet, when I look around at my neighbors or my co-workers or my friends or back at the people I went to school with or served time in the Army with, most of them seem to have the whole conscience, self-discipline, responsibility thing down pretty well, even the moral relativists and the humanists and the atheists and the [insert any standard religious right codeword for people who supposedly fail to give proper deference to the virtues that would make America great]. Granted, there are some exceptions, but they are that -- exceptions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by karahd
I thought that the seperation of church and state was something pretty major in the USA. If there -is- actually a separation of church and state, I wonder what secular reasons there are against this.

---

There is a de jure separation of church and state, but that doesn't meant that lawmakers and the voting don't allow their religious prejudices dictate how they vote, and it doesn't stop people from openly expressing their derision for the constitutional principle of non-establishment.

Eorick, Spouses get to inherit becase they are family, not because they are in love or having sex. Spouses get consideration in insurance because they are family. Married people can file taxes either together or seperately, depending on which seems it will work out. You're right, I am single and never married, but I have to assume there is SOME reason why most married people file jointly.

Bottom line, all these things have to do with being a family in the sense of being a family unit with children. If you are offended that married people who do not yet have children get these benefits, that's one thing, but to pretend the benefits exist solely for religious purposes or that they have nothing to do with child rearing or family is just wrong. That's the ONLY reason they are there, as the fact that just living together and having sex does NOT acrue these benefits attests to, and which I pointed out earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
You're going to be barking up the wrong tree if you try to label me a religion hater. I am not religious, but I support people's right to be religious.

---

I do not read you well, that is true. I remember you making some sort of comment about "welfare brood mares" somewhere that flew all up and down my spine. Here, you threw out the phrase "religious wrong" in the middle of this conversation and it certainly came across to me as a slap at religion. Whatever you believe, it is very difficult for me to understand or put it into any sort of context except that you seem to enjoy insulting whoever you do not agree with. I don't know what else to tell you on that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eorick

What are these traditional values? The only truly enduring tradition of marriage is that it generally conforms itself to the needs of society. I think marriage as a legal institution, no fault divorces and all, is doing just fine, and I don't see why we should pull out our hair just because some people are complete fuckups and would remain so no matter how many years back in time we were to go for our model of the ideal marriage.

---

Thus we have the completel breakdown if family in the inner city, whose combined poverty and leftover effects of discrimination and slavery, coupled with the disintigration of values, has decimated an entire generation. But don't let me get in the way of your blissfull lack of concern for the effects of your cavalier attitude towards responsibility and values.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eorick
Oh, yay, I get to take a role I'm not often seen taking on these boards. I get to leap to the defense of America!:fence If we are in such an appalling social state today and suffer from an entire lack of conscience or self-discipline or responsibility, how is it that we manage to remain the economic and military powerhouse that we are? I mean, I'm not exactly a member of what anyone would consider the priviliged class. Yet, when I look around at my neighbors or my co-workers or my friends or back at the people I went to school with or served time in the Army with, most of them seem to have the whole conscience, self-discipline, responsibility thing down pretty well, even the moral relativists and the humanists and the atheists and the [insert any standard religious right codeword for people who supposedly fail to give proper deference to the virtues that would make America great]. Granted, there are some exceptions, but they are that -- exceptions.

---

Yeah, leave it to you to suddenly forget that part of the power of this country has to do with taking advantage of our economic and military power to suck resources, including human resources in the form of virtual slave labor, from 3rd world countries. Leave it to you to not understand how a lack of moral judgement and personal integrity plays into American willingness to just let such things continue on and on. Leave it to you to suddenly find nothing at all so terribly wrong with the US when the subject is is the fundamental institution for passing on values of personal responsibility and integrity, and to then turn around and blame this nation for anything and everything else under the sun without offering one single soilitary iota of helpful advice of how to get to a better place from where we find ourselves now. How could you? As far as I know, you don't even believe in a "better".

Yes, I too have noticed that the country has, thankfully, not yet sunk to total barbarism. Congratulations though on the progress you and yours have made so far in guiding us in that general direction using silly rhetorical tricks like this to obscure issues and deflate concern about important problems we all face.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
I do not read you well, that is true. I remember you making some sort of comment about "welfare brood mares" somewhere that flew all up and down my spine. Here, you threw out the phrase "religious wrong" in the middle of this conversation and it certainly came across to me as a slap at religion. Whatever you believe, it is very difficult for me to understand or put it into any sort of context except that you seem to enjoy insulting whoever you do not agree with. I don't know what else to tell you on that.

---

Ari is, I believe, referring not to everyone who is religious but specifically the political movement known as the Religious Right. Religious Right, Religious Wrong -- get it?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
Whatever you believe, it is very difficult for me to understand or put it into any sort of context except that you seem to enjoy insulting whoever you do not agree with. I don't know what else to tell you on that.

---

It is difficult for you to understand only because you cannot put a label on me. My beliefs are exceptionally diverse and do not conform to any political party nor any major political "group."

Welfare brood mares are just that. If you doubt they exist, do a little research.

The religious wrong is just that when it comes to issues like stem cell research, anti-gay laws, and their hypocritically murderous attitude towards abortion. Furthermore, any political force that calls itself the "religious right" is so egomaniacally arrogant they deserve to be called the religious wrong.

I am not sorry that your labels won't stick to me and therefore you have trouble understanding me. It is a shame that you had to resort to another labelling attempt by saying I "insult everyone I disagree with." If that were the case, there would be a whole lot of folks here in need of some asbestos underwear.

I think for myself instead of regurgitating someone else's talking points or political pamphlet conclusions. I certainly won't feel any shame for that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eorick

Oh, yay, I get to take a role I'm not often seen taking on these boards. I get to leap to the defense of America! If we are in such an appalling social state today and suffer from an entire lack of conscience or self-discipline or responsibility, how is it that we manage to remain the economic and military powerhouse that we are? I mean, I'm not exactly a member of what anyone would consider the priviliged class. Yet, when I look around at my neighbors or my co-workers or my friends or back at the people I went to school with or served time in the Army with, most of them seem to have the whole conscience, self-discipline, responsibility thing down pretty well, even the moral relativists and the humanists and the atheists and the [insert any standard religious right codeword for people who supposedly fail to give proper deference to the virtues that would make America great]. Granted, there are some exceptions, but they are that -- exceptions.

---

I agree. It is a shame, however, that the greatness of the United States is something you are so rarely willing to rejoice in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
It is difficult for you to understand only because you cannot put a label on me. My beliefs are exceptionally diverse and do not conform to any political party nor any major political "group."

Welfare brood mares are just that. If you doubt they exist, do a little research.

The religious wrong is just that when it comes to issues like stem cell research, anti-gay laws, and their hypocritically murderous attitude towards abortion. Furthermore, any political force that calls itself the "religious right" is so egomaniacally arrogant they deserve to be called the religious wrong.

I am not sorry that your labels won't stick to me and therefore you have trouble understanding me. It is a shame that you had to resort to another labelling attempt by saying I "insult everyone I disagree with." If that were the case, there would be a whole lot of folks here in need of some asbestos underwear.

I think for myself instead of regurgitating someone else's talking points or political pamphlet conclusions. I certainly won't feel any shame for that.

---

You're not that hard to peg politically. You're more or less a self described libertarian. I was referring specifically to your habit of using off color remarks at times that make you seem to mean one thing, only to turn around and say you actually meant another.

There are, for example, other ways to refer to young women who have children out of wedlock and are on welfare than "welfare brood mares". And, while we are speaking of labelling, not all young women who do such are ammoral lazy people who do it on purpose. So, lumping every woman who is on welfare and has what you might consider to be too many children with too many different men together and labelling them "welfare brood mares" seems to go against your previously expressed concerns about not labelling people.

So there we go again.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
Thus we have the completel breakdown if family in the inner city, whose combined poverty and leftover effects of discrimination and slavery, coupled with the disintigration of values, has decimated an entire generation. But don't let me get in the way of your blissfull lack of concern for the effects of your cavalier attitude towards responsibility and values.

---

It's time for another edition of Do the Math!
:bigparty
Your argument: There is a breakdown of the family in the inner cities.
Obvious fact: Such a breakdown is not systemic throughout the whole of American society.
The Math: If the problem were the institution of marriage, it would be failing for all of us. The failure of the family in the inner cities has its sources in the overall failure of society on many levels in the inner cities. If one were just to look at the inner cities, every single cultural and public institution in America would probably look like a failure. Do the math!

Quote:

---

Yeah, leave it to you to suddenly forget that part of the power of this country has to do with taking advantage of our economic and military power to suck resources, including human resources in the form of virtual slave labor, from 3rd world countries.

---

Nice try. You completely failed to address the question. How are we in a position to flex our muscle around the world and consume a disproportionate amount of the world's resources, if we lack in conscience, self-discipline and responsibility? And who exactly are you talking about? As I already mentioned, in my life, I seem to largely be surrounded by moral, responsible people. Where is this systemic lack of values that you suggest exists?

Quote:

---

How could you? As far as I know, you don't even believe in a "better".

---

That's odd. Because in just about every thread I was ever involved in concerning American foreign policy (and there have been quite a few over the years), my arguments were predicated on this notion that there are better ways for us to interact with the rest of the world. Even my arguments for giving equal legal recognition to same-sex marriages ultimately have their source in the belief that this will make us a better nation. I don't suppose it is even worth pointing out to you that, particularly since the advent of modern democracy and the concept of the liberties of man, that nations have been quite adept at developing one set of political and social ideals for the home front and one often rather divergent set for the colonies.

Quote:

---

Congratulations though on the progress you and yours have made so far in guiding us in that general direction using silly rhetorical tricks like this to obscure issues and deflate concern about important problems we all face.

---

Again, nice try. But you completely fail to address what is actually a straight-up question. In fact, as usual, you've chosen to dodge the whole point entirely. If the institution of marriage is such a failure, why do Americans, even those who get divorced, largely manage to function as responsible family members and raise children who become productive members of society? Where is this big failure you are talking about? Furthermore, even given the unquestionable fact that marriage is not a perfect institution, what real justification is there for not allowing people to participate in this imperfect institution with same-sex partners?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
Eorick, Spouses get to inherit becase they are family, not because they are in love or having sex. Spouses get consideration in insurance because they are family. Married people can file taxes either together or seperately, depending on which seems it will work out.

---

Um... duh? But their being considered family has nothing to do with whether or not they have children. My wife and I were still legalize recognized as a family before we had a child. Married friends of mine who have no children and no plans to have children are still legally recognized as members of families. Why shouldn't same-sex couples receive the same legal recognition, whether they intend to have children or not? Or, conversely, I suppose we could argue, why are hetero couples entitled to such recognition before they've demonstrated a willingness or ability to have children? I think you would find that the vast majority of married couples, no matter what their political stripe, would be opposed to losing all their current benefits they receive as members of childless families. In fact, most would probably be really surprised at any suggestion that their decision not to have children indicated that they were in some way not making a family together.

Quote:

---

You're right, I am single and never married, but I have to assume there is SOME reason why most married people file jointly.

---

Some file singly as well, depending on what their tax situation is. Every year that I have filed income taxes, I have figured them out returns for both joint and single filings, and trust me, the savings on joint returns aren't exactly the sort of thing you'd write home about (and, in fact, the first several years that we were married, my wife and I paid more in taxes than we would have if we weren't married). Most couples will save far more money simply by virtue of the reduced costs of sharing a single home. Again, no one is going to look at tax returns and say, "Hey! I'm getting ripped off as a single, I better find someone and get married quick!"

Quote:

---

If you are offended that married people who do not yet have children get these benefits, that's one thing, but to pretend the benefits exist solely for religious purposes or that they have nothing to do with child rearing or family is just wrong.

---

I have never said that. Learn to read for comprehension. I get tired of responding to responses to arguments that I don't actually make. I said that marriage is no longer just about child rearing. Come on, it's not like that is some sort of really subtle distinction or anything.

Quote:

---

That's the ONLY reason they are there, as the fact that just living together and having sex does NOT acrue these benefits attests to, and which I pointed out earlier.

---

That's completely irrelevant. I know you hate the idea that legal recognition of marriage for same-sex couples is not about equality, but it is. Hetero couples currently have the option of living together inside of a legally recognized partnership or living together without any legal recognition of that partnership. Why is it so hard to grasp that maybe there is just basic fairness and respect for liberty in the idea that people can have the same options available even if they choose a member of the same sex as a partner?

The whole "family law is a shambles" is a dodge. In a free society, we cannot pass legislation to force people to behave in some ideal manner within a marriage. It's not the law's place to "fix" marriage. About all it can really do is lay out how such an arrangement and any cessation of that arrangement effects property ownership, child custodial issues, and inheritence. And all of these have nothing to do with whether the couples involved are of the same sex or not.

maybe the straights are just afraid the gays will out last them in the marriage/divorce statistics.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian You're not that hard to peg politically. You're more or less a self described libertarian.

---

Wrong. Thanks for attempting another label though. You really just can't handle a discussion with people you can't label, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
There are, for example, other ways to refer to young women who have children out of wedlock and are on welfare than "welfare brood mares". And, while we are speaking of labelling, not all young women who do such are ammoral lazy people who do it on purpose. So, lumping every woman who is on welfare and has what you might consider to be too many children with too many different men together and labelling them "welfare brood mares" seems to go against your previously expressed concerns about not labelling people.

---

Exactly how does use of the term "welfare brood mare" imply that ALL women on welfare are abusing the system? I never, ever said that and it is a scurrilous charge to imply that I did.

There are people who legitimately need help and there are welfare brood mares. They are different types of people. It is only your own inability to understand that both can exist that limits your capacity to understand the term.

It is your own overly simplistic thinking that precludes the ability to understand that a system can be flawed even if less than 100% of the people are abusing it. Welfare brood mares DO exist, regardless of the fact that not all welfare recipients are such beasts.

It is a fallacy that saying something in a mean way makes it erroneous. Oftentimes, the only true analysis is also a mean one. This is particularly true when talking about people who are abusing a government handout that real working people have to pay for.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eorick
Again, nice try. But you completely fail to address what is actually a straight-up question. In fact, as usual, you've chosen to dodge the whole point entirely. If the institution of marriage is such a failure, why do Americans, even those who get divorced, largely manage to function as responsible family members and raise children who become productive members of society? Where is this big failure you are talking about? Furthermore, even given the unquestionable fact that marriage is not a perfect institution, what real justification is there for not allowing people to participate in this imperfect institution with same-sex partners?

---

As I had mentioned before, this is my life. Divorced couples do NOT carry this off well, and, well... you know what. Whatever.

You have a flippant tone and an attitude that just because you say something it is true. The idea that nothing is really wrong with anything unless you acknowledge it, when concern is everywhere over these issues. Whatever.

I -lived- this perfection you are assuming divorce and broken families have become. Your assumptions are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
It is a fallacy that saying something in a mean way makes it erroneous. Oftentimes, the only true analysis is also a mean one. This is particularly true when talking about people who are abusing a government handout that real working people have to pay for.

---

To repeat, saying something mean and without much context makes you hard to understand. As for the labelling problem, that's what people do. No one fits entirely in any one label, but there's that old SAT question, "which of these answers best fits". If you feel like actually talking about what you do believe or where you do fit best, go for it. It's an easy enough thing to do. "I'm generally liberal on fiscal, moderate on cultural..." you've heard people I am sure, then go through the details from there. I'm not going to get to feeling guilty because you have a tendency to spit rude epithets though.

I'm no more prone to labelling than anyone. You and Eorick both have a hard time talking about anything without throwing mud around though.

My thoughts in a nutshell on this topic are as I have expressed them, and are easily understood. I have seen the damage broken families cause first hand. I do not believe the insitution of marriage and family is disposable. Nothing is perfect, but I think things could be done to make it better. I think trying to apply it to gay couples does further damage to it through added confusion. If you don't have anything constructive to say about that, then the rest of this mess is really beside the point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Eorick
I think marriage as a legal institution, no fault divorces and all, is doing just fine, and I don't see why we should pull out our hair just because some people are complete fuckups and would remain so no matter how many years back in time we were to go for our model of the ideal marriage.

---

Because people who completely fuck this up, fuck up other people's lives as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
As I had mentioned before, this is my life. Divorced couples do NOT carry this off well, and, well... you know what. Whatever.

You have a flippant tone and an attitude that just because you say something it is true. The idea that nothing is really wrong with anything unless you acknowledge it, when concern is everywhere over these issues. Whatever.

I -lived- this perfection you are assuming divorce and broken families have become. Your assumptions are wrong.

---

Have you realized yet that YOU are the one with contempt towards relationships?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
Because people who completely fuck this up, fuck up other people's lives as well.

---

Duh. Tell me something I don't know. People, if given enough opportunities, fuck just about everything up from time to time. Once again, your modus operandi in this thread has to stop actually trying to make a case your position and instead just keep repeating what you have already said. Yes, people completely fuck up marriage, my own statements have made it clear I am aware of that fact. Overall, though, marriage works. Overall it is serviceable. If it were some great shambles, our society would be considerably less functional than it is. It's not perfect, but no system probably ever will be. The only real solution, in a free society, to keep people from fucking up making a family, is for them to voluntarily refrain from becoming a part of one.

But how is any of this relevant to the discussion of legalizing or prohibiting same sex marriage?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
I -lived- this perfection you are assuming divorce and broken families have become. Your assumptions are wrong.

---

Read for comprehension! Jesus Christ. I even used the word "imperfect" do describe the institution of marriage. To say that it is largely a successful institution is not to say that it works for everybody, or that everyone can make it work or that married people won't for whatever reasons fuck up their relationships.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
To repeat, saying something mean and without much context makes you hard to understand.

---

Hardly. "Religous wrong" and "welfare brood mare" are not difficult to understand terms. You just don't like them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
As for the labelling problem, that's what people do.

---

Sometimes labels are appropriate. You, however, rely on them exclusively such that you are unable to deal with a situation where a label does not apply.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
I'm not going to get to feeling guilty because you have a tendency to spit rude epithets though.

---

Sometimes the truth is unpleasant. Your inability to face that is your own failing, not mine.

Welfare brood mares deserve nothing but derision and there is nothing wrong with heaping on such legitimate descriptors.

You don't have any problem speaking ill of groups you dislike. I dislike groups who steal from hard working Americans by defrauding government handout programs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
I'm no more prone to labelling than anyone. You and Eorick both have a hard time talking about anything without throwing mud around though.

---

You are possibly the most prone to labelling of anyone on the forum. Frequently, your first response is a label rather than to simply stay on topic.

As for your accusation about throwing mud, perhaps you should look at your own hate mongering. Worry not about the speck in thy neighbors eye when thou hast a plank in thine own.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
I have seen the damage broken families cause first hand.

---

Who hasn't?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
I do not believe the insitution of marriage and family is disposable.

---

Who does?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
Nothing is perfect, but I think things could be done to make it better.

---

Agreed. How about step 1 is not using it as a tool of hate?

If you want to help marriage, make it illegal to get married more than once every 10 years. That would put a damper on the mockery celebrities make of marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
I think trying to apply it to gay couples does further damage to it through added confusion.

---

What confusion? When two people love each other and want to spend their lives together they get married. How is that confusing?

If you really cared about society, you would embrace the stabilizing effect marriage has as a benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
If you don't have anything constructive to say about that, then the rest of this mess is really beside the point.

---

What kind of horseshit statement is that?

If we don't agree with you everything is beside the point? Pathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
If we don't agree with you everything is beside the point? Pathetic.

---

No, the name calling makes the conversation beside the point. Ditto for the repeat performance of "read for comprehension" by Eorick.

There is no place in a meaningful discussion for name calling, and I have no idea where you learned anything different, but anything I have ever read or heard about debate or even just plain public speaking refutes your claims to the contrary. My "label" of you, Aristotle, as a libertarian, while perhaps wrong, was no insult. You and Eorick rely on the tactic of name calling, along with ignoring my actual concerns, to the exclusion of anything else.

On the plus side, you win, right?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
No, the name calling makes the conversation beside the point. Ditto for the repeat performance of "read for comprehension" by Eorick.

There is no place in a meaningful discussion for name calling, and I have no idea where you learned anything different, but anything I have ever read or heard about debate or even just plain public speaking refutes your claims to the contrary. My "label" of you, Aristotle, as a libertarian, while perhaps wrong, was no insult. You and Eorick rely on the tactic of name calling, along with ignoring my actual concerns, to the exclusion of anything else.

---

Nice tangent here.

So much for the substantive argument. You don't like people's word choice so you twist and convolute it into "insult."

When I say "religious wrong" I am not insulting you. When I refer to "welfare brood mares" I am not insulting you.

Is this some kind of dodge? You are no longer able to stay on topic so you have to drift off into this absurd tangent?

Grouping me with Eorick as if we are some kind of "team" is also a loathsome, cheap, erroneous tactic.

I notice you love to use as an argument "everything I have ever read or heard." I have seen you do this multiple times lately. You might think that sounds like evidence or a citation, but it is neither. All you are really saying is "I think ____" because "everything I read or heard" is vague to the point of meaninglessness.

I haven't called you any names in any of these threads and I find it ridiculous that you have ruined multiple discussions now because *YOU* insist on making everything personal.

Furthermore, when Eorick says "read for comprehension" do you ever stop to think that maybe you actually NEED to read more carefully? Why do you assume it is an insult? Maybe he's just calling a spade a spade. Perhaps you just need to focus more on reading what people write instead of dreaming up straw men and irrelevant tangets. If someone had a huge mole on their nose with hairs growing out of it, and someone said "wow, that old lady has a mole on her nose with hairs growing out of it!" that's just telling the truth. That isn't an insult.

Don't be surprised if your posts start getting deleted if you continue to go OFF TOPIC by obsessing over your evaluation of other people and their debate methods.

Stay on the issue or don't post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokrian
Here, you threw out the phrase "religious wrong" in the middle of this conversation and it certainly came across to me as a slap at religion.

---

For the sake of clarification:

I was assuming that you know there are many religious political groups and individuals who call themselves a part of the "Religious Right." They use that term to imply that they are right, or correct, as well as "on the right" politically.

Any people who are so arrogant that they call themselves that deserve to be called the "religious wrong" when they are so incredibly WRONG on issues like stem cell research and virtually every gay issue. If they can call themselves "the religious right" when they think they are right, it is certainly fair to call them the "religious wrong" when I feel they are wrong.

I figured I would clarify that in case you just did not know what the Religious Right was. I assume anyone participating in a political discussion is aware of such major political forces. Perhaps that is an inappropriate assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle

Don't be surprised if your posts start getting deleted if you continue to go OFF TOPIC by obsessing over your evaluation of other people and their debate methods.

Stay on the issue or don't post.

---

Your use of insult and personal attack is inexcuseable here, and threats to ban me (again) for pointing out that you do it do not make me any more tempted to try to speak to anything except your continued blatant abuse and cowardice to start up insults and then threaten to censor someone.

If my tactics are so plainly wrong headed, you should be able to leave them there as a sign to all how wrong headed I am. I am pretty sure you want to get rid of my posts for reasons other than that I am so terribly wrong headed.

I have on several occasions made my point here, including examples that neither you nor Eorick have even bothered to touch. If you're too full of yourself to address the disaster that the modern unenforeceable marriage contract has made of the american family, that is your problem, not mine. Maybe you'd understand better why 60+% of Americans agree with the "religious wrong" on this issue if you sucked your head out of whatever twilight zone you have it in, thinking slinging random insults is perfectly ok but people pointing out that you do it is not.

What do you think would happen to the insurance industry, or the construction industry, or the transportation industry, if you made their fundamental contracts unenforceable? What happens then if, after than, you just throw all industries together under one set of rules, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and pretend like it's "only fair"?

No, I have made my point repeatedly and you and Eorick have responded by deconstrcuting paragraphs, taking things out of context, refusing to answer concerns, and now finally threatening to remove my posts.

Have at it. Since you, Ari, are likely to be the only person to ever read this, I will tell you flat out, yours is the ONLY of -multiple- boards on political and social commentary where anyone has ever even so much as warned me to stop posting. If I want serious discussion on these matters, there are other places to go. But hurling insults, then threatening to remove replies to YOUR insults???

You're an amazeingly self-deluded individual.