So logical fallacy and dishonesty are all you have to offer?

Well, this network of laws served to protect the rights of spouses and children and protection of lineage and inheritance. They weren't just about morality. They served a purpose beyond morality.

If you couldn't have sex with someone unless you were married, children would be protected in terms of inheritance. They would be legitimate heirs to a families estate.

If you couldn't have sex with someone other than your spouse, then likewise, you would have only legitimate heirs. The other aspect of this is assumed paternity - If your wife had a child, it was assumed that you were the father. This assumed that these other laws were being abided by. This prevented a husband from claiming that a child wasn't his.

Are you somehow claiming that having sex other than penetrative oral sex is somehow conducive to procreation? Having oral or anal sex (forms of sodomy) prevents procreation because tab A does not go into slot B.

Then you have bans on contraception, which prevent procreation.

So, the government, in regulating sex in this manner, expressed it's interest in marriage for purposes of procreation.

Now, it is true, that it did not require a person to have sex. But if they were going to have sex, they had to allow for the possibility of procreation. And given the government's obvious interest in procreation and the availability of sex only in marriage, it was reasonable for the government to expect that a couple would have sex in marriage.



Yes, but... as you've admitted, the gender of the two people was not specified in the legal definition of the term marriage.



Oh, but there were related laws that established an age of consent. So, where is the one related to homosexual couples and marriage?



No, I want you to prove that the parameters are arbitrary.



Yes, very true. But marriage is a fundamental right and, as such, there are strict guidelines regarding how you can restrict it.



Oh, I see so now it's very, very few... and not no couples. Oh, how we backpedal.

Well, let's see...

Bruhs Mero and Gean Harwood... were a same-sex couple in New York from 1929 until Mero's death in 1995... 66 years. Long time to not exist, I think.

Edith Hamilton and Doris Fielding Reid... same-sex couple for 60 years... Hamilton died in 1963.

George Nader and Mark Miller... same-sex couple for 55 years.

That's the first three I could come up with in a matter of seconds, droop.

I don't think there is a complete registry of same-sex couples, so I doubt I could come up with all of them.

No... I just wrote for about 20 minutes... you are just a fun diversion.



You are no more (or less) a bigot than the people who do not want homosexuals to get married. Fair enough??

Grendal came in calling people bigots, I merely made a comparison. So if you feel I am calling you a bigot it is only because the immaturity of Grendal. Blame him

I've backed up my argument. You're the one who has to pretend that former definition marriage allowed same sex couple to marry, even though they couldn't get married.



O.K. I did. And now so should you.



Is that all you need, A reason??? So if a person has a reason for not allowing something than it is not arbitrary?? By definition that would be correct. Hell, if that is all it takes why do you use the word to describe what is happening in cases of Gay Marriage.

Entspeak


I've seen people give you TONS of reasons, yet you still refer to laws that exclude homosexuals from marriage as arbitrary. Oh I guess it has to be a reason you agree with, then??



True. And I feel should marriage be defined as any consenting adult can marry any other consenting adul, the Gays should be allowed to marry. See our logic is pretty much the same.

Well, then this boils down to what the government can and cannot constitutionally restrict.

Just because the restriction is arbitrary in one particular case does not mean that it is arbitrary in other cases.

Other people have given reasons, yes, but those reasons don't really satisfy why it is necessary to limit the right to choose who we marry based on the gender of the choice.

Here are the one's I've heard:

Procreation: well, the government no longer expresses much interest in this so to do so only for homosexuals is arbitrary - especially since, as is the case in some states, the government requires some heterosexual couples to be unable to procreate before allowing them to marry.

Best interest of children: same-sex couples raise children and there is no conclusive evidence that children are harmed at all by being raised by same-sex parents. In fact, in some states it is illegal to consider the sexual orientation of the couple when it comes to adoption, so the government feels that sexual orientation in those states is not an important factor in determining the best interests of the child. So, it is arbitrary to exclude same-sex couples for this reason - especially where sexual orientation is not a significant factor in determining the best interests of a child.

The weakening of the institution of marriage: considering this thread, this is the one that makes me laugh the most. Civil Unions and domestic partnerships weaken the institution of marriage by providing an alternative to marriage. If same-sex marriage is legal, then there is only one choice... marriage. Nothing in the marriage contract changes, heterosexuals still have all the options they had before. All that needs to be done is to return to the pre-1970's legal definition of marriage. It is absurd to think that heterosexual couples will choose not to be married simply because same-sex couples are allowed to do so. It is, however, not absurd to think that heterosexuals will seek domestic partnership benefits and civil unions... thereby decreasing the number of people getting married.

Slippery slope into polygamy and incest: simply bogus. These types of relationships have issues specific to them and until those issues are dealt with, the State can constitutionally restrict these types of marriages.

None of these arguments point to the necessity to exclude same-sex couples from marriage.

We have the right to choose the person we marry.

There are strict guidelines the government needs to adhere to in order to constitutionally restrict that choice.

When you have something to offer beyond the slippery slope fallacy, let me know.

All that writing to just say the laws served some other purpose?? Agreed, but the laws were predominately legislating morality.



No I'm suggesting that oral sex is the fun that gets us to regular sex



Point 1: Exactly, it did not require that some one had to be married. So marriage between homnosexuals was not prevented due to sodomy laws, because sex was not prerequisite to marriage, and marriage was gender neutral prior to the 1970's. So why weren't gays getting married??

Point 2: Stop pointing at archaic laws of morality and stating that these laws were laws that showed an interest in procreation. If the government was interested in procreation the, hen it is now.



Agreed. It could be two men, it could be two women, or it could be one man, one woman. What I am pointing out two you is prior to the 70's that the gender is unspecific not that it is . Prior to the 70's two men and two women were not able to marry. 1 man and 1 woman were those are two people that could join in marriage.



Can you point me to which legal definition of marriage you are using...

Oh, I see so now it's very, very few... and not no couples. Oh, how we backpedal.

Well, let's see...



Can you go any further back than that?? I mean the same site that gave you these names also gave you Da Vinci... So this site is definately making a stretch. But that is why I back pedaled. Because if I say give me some "historical" gay couple, you merely have to go back 20 years... or 30... in one case 60 years... But the further you go back the less you have. I would say that there are close to the same, percentage wise, homosexual males today that there were 200 years ago. Yet, no body was out of the closet. Why??

And just to remind you why we are even talking about this, it goes back to this notion that legislators wanted to make marriage gender neutral. There was no need to be specific about 1 male and 1 female getting married, because that WAS/IS what marriage was/is, that's who got engaged, that's who dated, the way public courtships worked man and woman

To change that is to redefine/restructure marriage.



Agreed



Entspeak, all you've done is provided a rebuttal to an argument presented to you. But by definition, arbitrary has no reasoning. You've presented quite a few. So may ask, if one can make a rebuttal argument odes that invalidate a reason enough to make any law, based on the rebutted reasons, arbitrary?

Procreation: One could argue that the government still has shown interest in procreation by the fact that there are still tax incentives for getting married. Why do these tax incentive exist entspeak??

Best interest of the child: The best interest could be said to be the biological parents of a child. Biological parents always come in the form of man and woman. Any same sex couple would lack the genetic makeup to give a child a complete perspective. In fact it could be a sexually confusing household with no clear examples of masculinity or feminimity

The weakening of the institute of marriage. It weakens it by broadening it to a sexless term.

Slippery slope into polygamy and incest: Not so bogus. Incest is illegal, but that can be overturned using the same case that overturned sodomy laws. No one has the right to legislate our private behavior. So it fits in the same category. Polygamy , as you say, is illegal because you have to restructure marriage. But changing marriage from one man, one woman is also restructuring marriage. So they can piggyback off this issue as well.



No... just desire. Look there is no necessity for any marriage regulation involving consenting adults. Just desire.



Obviously not. Even if gay marriage was allowed tomorrow there would be adults not allowed to marry people they want.



That's what you keep saying!

Grendal



You post two "one-liner" posts in a row... then tell me to let you know... when I've got something!!

No. Not true... absolutely not true. Most emphatically not true. Historically, adultery, for example, was only a crime for a married woman. Is that a law legislating morality? I think not.

Historically, fornication was a crime between an unmarried woman and a man (regardless of his marital status). Women were at first, the property of their fathers and fornication would diminish the value of that property. After marriage a woman became the property of her husband. The laws surrounding sex had very little to do with morals and more to do with control, property and the value of said property. Sodomy could indeed be said to be a moral law, but on what basis? Because it is an "unfruitful" act - relating to what? Procreation.




And oral sex was illegal.



Which part of "it was reasonable for the government to expect that a married couple would have sex" did you not understand?



No, I won't. Your ignorance regarding the history of these laws is no reason for me to stop stating the truth.

"hen it is now?" I'm sorry, I don't quite understand.

Perhaps you meant to say, "if the government was interested in procreation then, then it is now." But, of course, this is not true, is it? How can a government that requires a couple to prove that it is unable to procreate before allowing them to marry be interested in regulating marriage for purposes of procreation such that it excludes another couple because they can't procreate? That makes no sense.



What? I was using California's to be specific.



Well, let's see... it's a funny thing about recorded history, droop. The farther back you go, the less of it there is. The fact is, you stated that there were no same sex couples. In the closet, out of the closet, it's ignorant to assume that they didn't exist.



In order for it to be restructured, something in the marriage contract has to actually change, droop. If you allow same-sex couples to marry, nothing changes. Heterosexuals still get married just as they always have... in the same way, with the same rights. Absolutely nothing changes.



No. Arbitrary, in this case, means... by definition:

Merriam Webster


Now, considering the requirements for the government in restricting a fundamental right - that in order for a restriction to be constitutional, it must a: serve a valid State interest and b: the restriction must be necessary in order to further that interest...

Taking that into consideration, a restriction, in this case, is arbitary if it isn't necessary.

QUOTE

Irrelevant. If the State allows heterosexual couples that it knows can't procreate to marry, it can't logically be necessary to exclude same-sex couples for this reason. Such an exclusion on these grounds is arbitrary.

QUOTE

If the state decides that sexual orientation is not a factor in determining the best interest of a child when it comes to allowing a couple to raise a child, it can't be necessary to prevent a couple from marrying on these grounds. Such an exclusion on these grounds is arbitrary.

QUOTE

If allowing same-sex couples to marry has no effect on heterosexual marriage - in that heterosexual couples still marry in the same way that they always have, there is no way that the institution of marriage is weakened. Marriage is more than a term. As such an exclusion based on these grounds would be arbitrary.

QUOTE

Yes, true... but the fact that Lawrence might lead to the overturning of incest laws has nothing directly to do with marriage. If incest laws were overturned right now via Lawrence, there would be no reason to keep incestuous couples from marrying - even if same-sex marriage remained illegal. It is absurd to make a direct connection between incestuous marriage and same-sex marriage.

If there is no change to the contract itself, there is no restructuring of marriage, droop. Allowing same-sex couples to marry simply allows more access to the same contract.







Yes, this is true. But as you've acknowledged, this comes down to what the government can and cannot constitutionally restrict. There may be cases where the government can prove that it is necessary to prevent a particular couple from marrying.



Is it not true?

I think so. In a patriarchal society, it sounds all too much of a law of morality.




Keep spinning... eventually you have to slow down. Tell me what did a woman go for in the 1800 in America. What price could you get for 18 yr old virgin woman. Explain how sex diminished the value of said property. Did she lose her ability to work in a house or bear children after having sex? No. She just was less appealing. Because no one wants the town whore. Which goes back to morality.

As for sodomy, it simply was morality. Why would the government find an interest in stopping oral sex?? Do you think they actually thought a married couple might just use their mouths and never have sex?? That doesn't make sense?? It truly had nothing to do with procreation. Not then, not now.... But if you think it did then, then it does now.



Slow down turbo... your moving a little fast. I understand completely what you are saying. What part of "there is no prerequisite to have sex to get married" don't you understand??

You said that laws prior to 1970 were gender neutral.

I said they were merely unspecific, because there was no need to say 1 man 1 woman, it was assumed.

You in turn say the fact that legislators didn't specify means they made the definition of marriage was gender neutral.

I ask you a simple question then why weren't men marrying men and women marrying women prior to the 1970's

You answer is sodomy laws

I remind you that there was no prerequisite to have sex in marriage.

So if prior to the 1970's marriage was gender neutral, and there was no prerequisite to have sex to be married, then homosexuals could get married and never break the law so there was nothing barring them from getting married. Yet they could not get married. Because prior to the 1970's, marriage was not gender neutral.



Which of the two of us are trying to say that marriage laws prior to 1970 allowed men to marry men and women to marry women.



Because they still give incentives to get married. Why do they do it Enspeak?? If it was procreation then it is procreation now. And just because they don't want incestuous procreation, which is what % of marriage? .0000000000001 percent?? This does not mean they don't still find procreation to be the main reason for marriage.



What exactly did it say?? What was the definition you keep refering to and what does it say now??



Yeah, because written language wasn't developed in the 1800's. The whole point I was making, which you still may not remember, is it is ignorant to assume that marriage laws prior to the 1970's weere gender neutral. Of course they were homosexual liasons and relationships going back to B.C. time. Of course there were secreted gay couples who were merely "good freinds". But they were not coupled like there heterosexual counterparts. Infac, they were ostracized, if not out right persecuted.

Thus why would anyone ever think to specify gender in marriage when all official couples and engagements involved one man and one woman. It would seem redundant. a union between man and woman is what marriage is/was.



Yeah right, nothing changes.... except the fact that you no longer have a HUSBAND and WIFE!!



It changes because for there to be a marriage there is a requirement of one man and one woman. You are changing that.








Yeah... just desire. People are not banned from marriage out of necessity. Homosexuals are not banned from marriage at all, they just want marriage defined in a way that allows same-sex marriage. Polygamist are not banned from marriage, they just want to marry more than one spouse. And incestuous people are not banned from marriage they want to keep it in the family.

To bring this back on topic.... out of all three groups, Gays have the least claim to marriage. Fundamentally, marriage is between a man and women. A person is restricted from marrying more than one person at a time, a person is restricted from marrying their relative. Marriage never included the uniting of two people of the same sex.

So civil unions are not an second class marriage, because marriage is an institute that has always reqired both sexes until very recently.

The problem with this portion of the argument, is the way it is framed.

They want same sex marriages. Ok..I understand that.

But then they frame all other classes of consenting adults as male-female - as if same sex issues don't exist in every class of people. Given that they ARE same sex, there is no genetic/procreation issues. If two guys can get married, it would be completely arbitrary to deny 2 brothers the same rights/protections.

If children are not the driving component of marriage (as I believe it is), neither is the physical act of having sex. It's an arbitrary activity as watching American Idol every Tuesday night. It's just an aspect of any relationship no more or less important than any other marriage activity. Therefore, no restrictions at all should exist.

Just get rid of marriage completely and everybody is on the same playing field. Let the lawyers sort out the civil issues between any group of adults (hospital visitation, wills, powers of attorney, etc)

“Are you for or against civil unions for same-sex couples, and why?”

I am against them for all the same reasons that I am against gay marriage. It seems to me that civil unions are, in fact, marriage except for in name.

Liberals seem to have a methodology for implementing their ideas. Since the general public would not stand by and allow Liberals to implement their programs ad hoc they tend to follow the motto of “inch-by-inch-its-a-cinch” (remember Hillary’s version of universal health care? The American people wouldn’t stand for it.).

It seems to me that Liberals are doing the same thing with homosexual marriage. They ask for marriage but agree to call it something else. So we give them “civil unions”.

Now that they have “civil unions”, they’ll start demanding it be called “marriage”.

Inch-by-inch….

By the time we get around to arguing about the name “marriage”, conservatives will have already lost the battle.

Isn't that how progress has always work whether we are talking about santions against child labor, Black civil rights - that went very slowly - until Lyndon Johnson pushed through the 1964 civil rights bill and the 1965 voting rights bill.

Poor conservatives. Society does manage to make progess despite conservatives, who have at times, literally block the door.

Sounds all too much of, eh? Wow.

But to what end, droop? Morality for moralities sake? Or was that moral law intended to make sure that men had legitimate heirs? So that they didn't have to worry too much about whether or not they were giving their entire estate to some other man's child.





Well, having a virgin insured that she did not have sex with someone else the night before, the day before, the week before the wedding and wasn't already pregnant when she was married. They actually checked to see that she was still a virgin before being married. Not having a whore for a wife had benefits beyond the moral - it meant you didn't have illegitimate children.



Sodomy Law:




Well, it did then. Prove that it does now.





Being that sex and procreation was reserved for marriage - it is reasonable for the government to expect that a couple would have sex (and allow for procreation) once married. After all, raising a child is the fundamental purpose of marriage.



The government expected people to use marriage to raise children... primarily through procreation... this is the way the network of laws surrounding marriage were constructed... allowing for procreation was mandatory in marriage.

That is where the assumption existed... in married couples having sex. And there were all sorts of laws to back up the fact that this was the assumption.

You can't legally define marriage as one thing and then assume it means something else.



Let's be accurate, I stated that there was no explicit ban on same-sex marriage prior to the 1970's. Same-sex couples were implicitly barred from choosing to marry a person of the same-sex because of sodomy laws.

You keep saying this isn't true, but you have yet to provide proof to back up your argument.





If you explicitly allow a non-procreative couple to marry, why would it be necessary to prevent another type of non-procreative couple from marrying simply because they are unable to procreate?



Jesus! How many times do I have to post the thing before people read it? How can you claim to be able to rebut my argument if you haven't even read it?

Well, perhaps this might be the last time I have to post this - though, I think that might be hoping beyond hope.

From 1850 -the point at which it became a member of the United States - until 1977, the law defining marriage in California stated:

Marriage is a personal relation arising from a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.

From 1977 (coincidentally, right after it repealed its sodomy law) to the present the law has stated:

Marriage is a personal relation arising from a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary.

A gender neutral law is a gender neutral law. If it doesn't specify a gender, it is gender neutral or unspecific as to gender. Either way, this legal definition of marriage does not prohibit same-sex marriage.

And you can't say it marriage was legally assumed to be between a man and a woman, because the legal definition is what is used to define the term legally, and it is not specific about gender.



Okay, so because they were ostracized and persecuted they didn't exist? If they didn't exist, there would be nothing to ostracize and persecute, would there?

You seem to be arguing that because a group of people was ostracized and persecuted in the past - to the point that they hid their relationships - and, to a much lesser degree, continue to be ostracized and persecuted today, they should not have the right to choose who they marry. Which, of course makes all the sense in the world.

Perhaps we should base more legal restrictions on previous and continued ostracization and persecution. Jews for example should have no right to religious freedom because people have ostracized and persecuted them based on religion for ages, right?



Please show me the legal definition of marriage pre-1970 that stated this. Just because same-sex marriage did not occur previously - because of the illegal nature of homosexuality, doesn't mean that should homosexuality be decriminalized, same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage.

I grant you that the people who wrote that legal definition had no idea that it might one day allow same-sex marriage. I grant that. But I'm sure they never expected sodomy laws to be repealed either, or contraception bans, or fornication laws. You want to talk about a slippery slope. Well, it started the moment people wanted privacy. That opens Pandora's box and lets out all the ills. The problem is that conservatives don't want to acknowledge or accept that in order to constitutionally prevent sodomy, they have to stop having oral and anal sex with their wives.



Okay, but that is in the definition which defines who can participate in the contract and is not the contract itself.

If the contract occurs between two persons... then those two people agree to abide by the conditions of the marital contract. If you allow same-sex couples to marry, nothing changes in the marital contract.

So, all you need to do is return to the pre-1970's legal definition of marriage and everything else pretty much stays the same. Heterosexuals still marry and still have to abide by the same contract. What else changes for heterosexuals?



That requirement is no longer necessary - thanks to changes in the laws by heterosexuals. It is no longer necessary for a marriage to be between a man and a woman. Therefore, the change in the legal definition post-1970's is not supportable. It is meaningless except to maintain a status quo that is no longer necessary. A law does not justify it's own constitutionality... in this case, it must serve a valid State interest and must be necessary in order to further that purpose.



Things change. The argument that it never occurred before therefore it can't ever occur is absurd.

Prove that the gender distinction is a fundamental component to marriage. Prove that it is necessary such that an exclusion of couples of the same gender is warranted.



A rose by any other name...

At least on this one point, part-time grasshopper and I agree.



If incest is banned solely because of issues related to procreation, then you'd be right, but it's not. And, regardless, so long as incest is illegal, incestuous marriage remains illegal.



I know that I've always stated that children were the driving component of marriage. Homosexual couples raise children. It is procreation that is no longer the driving component of marriage. But procreation is not the only way a child becomes present in the marital relationship - it is now simply another option (the most popular and most used option... but still only an option.)

“Poor conservatives. Society does manage to make progess despite conservatives, who have at times, literally block the door.” – BoF

Why does Liberal “progress” have to be communism?

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

Sound familiar?

Tell me, BoF…

have you ever felt cheated?

Who said anything about incest? That is a sexual act that has no bearing on a new definition of marriage.

If procreation is the purpose of marriage, sex is required. Hence, allowing siblings to marry would be sanctioning incest. That is illegal and would never happen.

However, if procreation is not the foundation of marriage, sex is not required. Therefore, any sexual act would be as arbitrary as any other marriage activity.

The same argument that "plenty of married couples don't produce children" holds true with sex and gay marriage - plenty of people have sexless marriages. Without the sexual requirement (that currently exists) for purposes of procreation, there is no incestual component.

You are making an assumption of sex when it really would no longer be relevant. With gay marriage, sex has nothing to to do with anything and has no more relevance to marriage than going to Dairy Queen for a banana split.

You keep on twisting the sibling argument into incest when it really has no relevance if gay marriage is allowed. Currently, sex is a necessity. With gay marriage, it is simply another activity between consenting adults.

You said brother's getting married. Just because procreation and sex is no longer the foundation of marriage - but merely an option in marriage - doesn't mean the State doesn't have an interest in procreation. It just doesn't have it to the extent that it is necessary to exclude a particular group of non-procreative couples for that reason alone. But the taboo on incest is not just related to sex. And to the extent that it does, it isn't just about inbreeding. It is considered incest for a step-parent to have sex with his/her stepchild.

Prove that sex is currently a necessity in marriage. Or is it that the government assumes that the majority of married couples will have sex? Then it becomes an issue of over/under inclusion.

Dale, you are getting personal, but I'll answer anyway.

In what way Dale? Like most teachers I felt cheated in that the monitary rewards were not equal to the tasks we were asked to perform and that current teacher retirement in Texas is far from adequate. Otherwise no.

Considering your inflammatory remarks on a closed thread ...



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=215637

...I'm not surprised that you are on here today playing the "Commie" card.

Traitor is strong language Dale. Have you been reading Ann Coulter? Have I [we] so angered you that you would like summarily put me and a few other here before a firing squad. You know Dale, I'm 64-years-old. Edited to fix typo fiscovered after Dale posted. I have had this sort of thing hurled at me before, so please forgive me if I'm not suitably impressed.

I have a better suggestion. Get a fast computer and a video game that involves shooting "Commies." If there isn't a "Commie" game get one with Muslims and pretend thay are "Commies." It might be a wonderful way to relieve your anger, frustration and agressions, especially between semesters when you have some extra time on your hands.

Hey BoF,

“Dale, you are getting personal, but I'll answer anyway.

In what way Dale? Like most teachers I felt cheated in that the monitary rewards were not equal to the tasks we were asked to perform and that current teacher retirement in Texas is far from adequate. Otherwise no.” – BoF

“I'm not surprised that you are on here today playing the "Commie" card” – BoF

I’m not “playing” a “Commie card”. As you can see by the list I provided, specifically goal no. 26, would you not agree that promoting homosexuality is a communist goal?

Seems obvious to me.

And as communism is a failed concept that murdered 200 million people in the last century, seems like a bad idea to accept any of it’s goals, don’t you think?

This is why I asked the question if you felt like you’ve ever been "cheated". Maybe I should have said "tricked" or "hood-winked" or something else.

“Traitor is strong language Dale. Have you been reading Ann Coulter? Have I [we] so angered you that you would like summarily put me and a few other here before a firing squad. You know Dale, I'm 64-yeaqrs-old. I have had this sort of thing hurled at me before, so please forgive me if I'm not suitably impressed.” - Bof

Wow. That’s quite a leap.

Tell me again who you think is angry?

A communist goal to the socialist-communist conspiracy theorists of the 50's.

Can you prove that this is an actual goal of Communism, part-time grasshopper? Or is this statement - taken from the book of a socialist-communist conspiracy theorist and entered into the Congressional record at the behest of some woman in Florida - all you've got?

I'm not slobbering all over my keyboard. Considering that you dropped in Saturday night, wanting to execute people you don't like, pretty well tells who is angry. All this "commie" stuff that started with the John Birch Society, et al. is old hat. It's time to move into the 21st century Dale. We have bigger problems than a few "commie" stragglers.

But let's get back to the topic. What gay people do, whether it's civil unions or marriage doesn't particularly bother me. I’m pretty much for letting people do as they wish as long as it doesn’t violate my rights. For me, civil unions and/or gay marriage does not rise to that level, but it does seem to raise your hackles.

Hey BoF,

“Considering that you dropped in Saturday night, wanting to execute people you don't like, pretty well tells who is angry. All this "commie" stuff that started with the John Birch Society, et al. is old hat. It's time to move into the 21st century Dale. We have bigger problems than a few "commie" stragglers.” – BoF

Yes, I dropped in Saturday night, corrected an error on your part, and left you “slobbering all over [your] keyboard” and cussing on this web-site where you managed to get your very own thread shut-down.

And you think I’m angry….

Geez.

"What gay people do, whether it's civil unions or marriage doesn't particularly bother me. I’m pretty much for letting people do as they wish as long as it doesn’t violate my rights. For me, civil unions and/or gay marriage does not rise to that level, but it does seem to raise your hackles.” – BoF

I do not allow it to "raise my hackles” (whatever that means) because I can allow myself to approach this matter intelligently and without emotion. The facts are on my side.

As such, I don’t think that marriage should be redefined. You don’t give a pyromaniac a Zippo and you don’t give someone with mental / emotional issues the right to marry someone of the same sex.

Hello?

Ahh, the wonders of a seminary education This guilt by asociation crap is quite old and quite boring. Tell me Dale, are you aware that opposition to homosexuality is a stated goal of the Westboro Baptist Church, the Christian Identity movement, Al Qaeda, Nazis, etc. etc. Seems like a bad idea to support any of their goals, don't you think? I hear that Kim Jong Il is a huge fan of Daffy Duck. Daffygirl is now part of the Axis of Evil, I guess. Did you know that Nazis sometimes wear...socks! No decent person will ever wear socks, right? Oh, and in case you can actually be bothered with facts (doubtful) as someone who was born and lived in the now defunct USSR, I can tell you that homosexuality was a crime, one that you went to prison for.

You've already illustrated quite effectively that you don't even really know the facts, part-time grasshopper, let alone if they're on your side. I'm still waiting for the "file on your computer" that was supposed to show that the Evans study I referred to didn't say what I thought it did. Any luck on that one, part-time grasshopper?

You're credibility on this topic is nil. You quote articles that you haven't even really read. You post an article that, in the section relevant to the debate, mentions a study done by a woman named Hooker. And then, you say, you thought I was making a joke when I mentioned the Hooker study, thinking I was referring to a study about prostitutes. It was the first time you'd ever heard of a study by a person named Hooker despite the fact that you'd already claimed this article as proof. I realize this information was buried deep in the first sentence at the top of page 5, but I mean, really. You could've read at least a little bit of it, part-time grasshopper.

You quote Dr. Cameron, but acknowledge that you know very little about his reputation.

So, I really don't think you'd know a fact if it came up to you and said, "Hi, I'm a fact."

Hello Looms,

“Ahh, the wonders of a seminary education” – Looms

Strange. It seems to be a problem with you, BoF and entspeak that I’ve been to seminary.

I wonder why?

Or, to say it another way, I wonder why ya’ll don’t bother to hide your Christian-bigotry any better than you do?

“This guilt by asociation crap is quite old and quite boring. Tell me Dale, are you aware that opposition to homosexuality is a stated goal of the Westboro Baptist Church, the Christian Identity movement, Al Qaeda, Nazis, etc. etc. Seems like a bad idea to support any of their goals, don't you think?” – Looms

Ahh, the wonders of name-calling…

Never mind the fact that I’ve spoken against each of these!

“Oh, and in case you can actually be bothered with facts (doubtful) as someone who was born and lived in the now defunct USSR, I can tell you that homosexuality was a crime, one that you went to prison for.” - Looms

Fact-check time!

Please show me where I’ve ever once suggested that homosexuality should be a crime!

Show me where I’ve ever suggested it should be persecuted!

It hasn’t happened!

But I don’t suppose facts are something that you can be bothered with, now are they?

I never stated that I had a problem with you being in the seminary. I most certainly have no problem with you being Christian. I do have a problem with you using your "part-time" seminary student" status as a means of justifying your arrogance. I find your ignorance particularly disturbing, considering your station.



So guilt by association is only fine when you do it.



So you would persecute them without saying that they should be persecuted... not surprising, part-time grasshopper.



You don't seem to be bothered by your lack of them.

Dale,

If you hadn't told us you were a part time seminarian we wouldn't have known.

Not all seminaries are "created" from equal cloth. From what you have been writing, I doubt you attend Harvard Divinity School or Union Theoloigical Seminary in New York or for that matter anything like Brite Divinity School at TCU or Perkins School of Theology at SMU, both in my area. A seminary is ok if it educates rather than indoctrinates. I see no evidence that yours does the former. It doesn't appear that we have a budding Reinhold Niebuhr or Paul Tillich in the house.

I love divinity, though - the kind my mother used to make from Karo Syrup and some good Texas pecans around Christmas time.

Huh? I never said you supported these groups. I was responding to YOUR statement:
Even though I am pretty sure you got my point, and this was just a weak strawman, I will reiterate it: Being acceptant of homosexuality no more makes one a commie than not being acceptant of it makes you a nazi. Also just because something might coincide with what communist want doesn't inherently make it bad. If communists announce tomorrow that their number one goal is to promote washing your hands after using the bathroom, would you stop doing it?



Grrrr.... Someone PLEASE give me a cyanide pill. This is like the second coming of Fluteplayer.

I NEVER SAID THAT YOU SAID ANY OF THAT! Quote the part of my post where I accused you of wishing for homosexuals to be imprisoned. My point was that your statement about communists promoting homosexuality is FALSE. As an example of that, I illustrated how homosexuality was dealt with in an ACTUAL COMMUNIST COUNTRY. Is any of this making sense at all?

Entspeak

Entspeak again


How could the laws be worried about illegitimacy if man were legally allowed to make bastards?? And procreation was procreation what matter to the State how it happened?? No men made laws because Fathers don't want their daughter to be the skank on the block, and husbands don't want to be the one stuck with town whore.



Again, iligitamcy of a child has nothing to do with procreation. The only reason why illegitamacy matters is because of morality. If a baby is or is not my biological child the State has one more body to help its growth.



Was this definition supposed to prove a point. Was it supposed to bolster your claim that sodomy laws dealt with procreation?? It doesn't. All sexual acts that are not actual sex are acts that do not lead to procreation.



Why would something be banned that did not exist?? If marriage is between a man and a woman, why would you ban same-sex marriages?? There was no such thing. And yes I can prove that sodomy laws were not is not the reason homosexuals were allowed to married, you just won't accept it, because it throw a monkey wrench in your argument.

-Sodomy laws deal with sex.
-There is no prerequisite or requirement to have sex in a marriage
-Homosexuals were not allowed to marry prior to the 1970's

There you have it again, proof enough??



O.K. We're going back and forth on this... Yes the government would expect it... that doesn't change the fact that there was NO requirement. The government did not ordain it for sex to happen in marriage.

Let's try a different angle:

Back to homosexuality and same sex couples... even IF the government expected sex to happen in marriage, it would only expect it in heterosexual relationships, because those are the ONLY people that can procreate. So it would not expect sex in homosexual relationships, thereby there would be no implicit reason why Gays would have to have sex breaking the laws. So why would sodomy laws prevent gay marriage.

Come on Entspeak, how many angles I have to hit you from before you admit, sodomy laws were not the reason Gays could not marry prior to the 70's. As a matter of fact when did the demands for Gay marriage develop??



But Entspeak, it is not because same sex couples can't procreate that they are not allowed to marry each other. They can't marry each other because they you need 1 man and 1woman to marry. If you are the same sex you don't fit the criteria


But that doesn't change the fact that if there is a state interest; the only interest could be procreation. Cousins already met the criteria and they were banned because they were family. The laws that allow them to marry are not an exception to marriage, they are an exception to the ban placed on them by the law. You see??



Yes I can say it. As I've shown marriage did not happen between homosexuals prior to 1970. Sodomy laws is not the reason. Marriage legally assumed man and woman because that is what marriage was. What you want is not marriage, you want same-sex marriage. A newer version of marriage.



You just need to put your comprehension helmet on, then I would make sense. Prior to the 1970's you believe that the definition of marriage allowed for same sex couple because it did not specify one man and one woman. I am telling you the reason that it did not specify is because man and woman were the only thought of marriages. It was FUNDAMENTAL. More so than differing blood line or monogamy, husband and wife were the core of what marriage is about. The reason i brought up the past is to further illustrate my point that there would be no need to specify male/female in the definition of marriage when you didn't even have public homosexual coupling.



Homosexuality can not me criminalized and never was. Sex that was not penis/vaginal was.



No, they had no idea that someone would say marriage can be between people of the same sex. Because that's not what marriage was. So you wish to redefine in it.



Unlike sex... man and woman is a prerequisite to marriage.




It does not matter what changes for heterosexuals you are changing the definition of marriage, thus restructuring it. It was an institute that REQUIRED a husband and a wife. You want to restructure it so that it does not. Correct??



The requirement was NEVER...NEVER... NEVER EVER necessary. It is what marriage was. Man and Woman. If two men or two women were to marry in the 1700's 1800's, 1900's or now it would have had the exact same effect.



That's not my argument. You continue to want to sway in the wind with this idea that prior to the 70's marriage was gender neutral. It wasn't. It was very specifically between a man and woman. So let's not pretend that gays were excluded from marriage in the late 70's and that marriage was redefined to make marriage between men and women. So yeah things change... but the fact that the definition of marriage was a male and female has not.





If 2000+ years of history can't convince you that marriage is between a man and a woman what will?? It is as necessary and warranted as any restriction on consenting adults.




Do you understand this saying?? If I gave you a rose and I gave you carnation. Would they be the same because they are both flowers??

Civil Unions is a way to give homosexual similar rights to marriage since they DON'T fit the definition of marriage.

They were worried about the legitimacy of the children born of their wives - as the Plutarch statement illustrates.

You have yet to show any actual evidence to back up your argument. You just keep offering conjecture.



Provide some evidence. Not just your theory without support, please.



Not actual sex. That's genius, droop. Why didn't I think of that. So sodomy is actually a sexual act that is not actual sex. Stunning. Genius. The elegance of a sledgehammer. Do you meant that these acts were not coital sexual acts? That's true, but why would it be important to have only coital sex legal and the remaining acts illegal? "Just cuz"? That seems to be your mantra in this debate.



Or did it not exist because it was banned?

The legal definition of marriage is not gender specific, droop. Therefore, legally, the term marriage was not defined as being solely between a man and a woman, but between two persons of unspecified gender. So, what legally prevented same-sex couples from marrying pre-1970's, droop.

Nothing is illegal if there is no law against it, droop. If marriage is defined legally, that is the definition used. You can't read into it.

So, what law prevented same-sex marriage pre-1970's, droop. Back up your argument.



Nothing is illegal without a law making it so. Provide the law that made same-sex marriage illegal. You say it was the definition of marriage, but I've already shown you that the legal definition of the term was not gender specific. So, what law made it illegal?



There was no requirement that it be between a man and a woman either, droop. Yet you seem to have no problem making leaps in that regard.



You've yet to explain the necessity of this. The right to marry includes the right to choose who we marry - with necessary government restriction.

The criteria appear to have no meaning then. It appears to be an arbitrary distinction. You need to have 1 man and 1 woman. Why? Because you do. Why?



Just because it was never allowed before doesn't mean you can assume that marriage must be between a man and a woman.



More ignorance to the point of absurdity.



Why? Simply because it always has been?



If civil marriage is defined by a network of laws imposing and granting benefits and obligations, and the legal definition of civil marriage was not specific to gender, how does returning the legal definition of civil marriage back to what it was pre-1970's restructure anything? It doesn't. Nothing changes to civil marriage - again, an institution defined by a network of laws. Nothing. You may have more choices in who you choose to engage in civil marriage with, but civil marriage itself does not change. In order to change, that network of laws would have to change. But they don't.



No. Marriage was a personal relation arising from a civil contract between two persons. That's what marriage was. You have yet to provide the law that made same-sex marriage illegal pre-1970's, droop.

You just keep saying that it was, without providing the evidence as to how that illegality existed. Now, I'm not saying it wasn't illegal... but I've provided evidence as to why it was and why it doesn't need to be now.

So, please... back up your argument. If same-sex marriage was illegal, there had to be some law making it so. Marriage was not defined with gender in mind, so... the legal definition of marriage did not make same-sex marriage illegal. What did?



2000+ years of history only convinces me that homosexuals were ostracized and persecuted and kept from marrying. It doesn't positively prove that marriage currently needs to be between a man and a woman. You've yet to provide any evidence for that need.



Of course I understand that saying. Civil Marriage by any other name is still a network of laws imposing and granting obligations and benefits. Whether you call that network of laws civil unions or civil marriage. When you create civil unions you are creating all those obligations and benefits (or most) and simply calling it something else. Why? Well, according to your argument, its because marriage needs (for some reason you have yet to provide) to be between a man and a woman.

They don't fit the current legal definition of marriage. They do fit the pre-1970's legal definition of marriage, however. Which is why the change to the current legal definition of marriage that occurred post-1970 is being challenged on the constitutional grounds that it was