GOP to ban divorce (so much for small government)

[Diogenes]

Every rational argument put forward by the opposition to try and deny gay couples the same benefits afforded to heterosexuals has been disproved.

There seem to be a lot of people who just keep repeating this mantra. I guess reality is just what we want it to be nowadays, at least as far as many people are concerned.

[hanelyp]

Some ideas to consider to reduce the incidence of marriage in the legal code:

In the tax code, replace "married, filing jointly" and dependents with "Household filing jointly". Household denoting financial commonality over the last tax period, and little else.

Publicly recognized declarations of Family. This could allow declarations recognizing godparents or your long time best friend. Would require consideration of benefits granted to family, particularly benefits which involve spending money.

The above seem to me to cover most of the legal qualifications of marriage, a major exception being sexual conduct legal in marriage but illegal otherwise.

[GIThruster]

The religious, and others, are the ones who are in fact trying to destroy that tradition for gay people, and instead insist to make it truly an "institution", like the kind you lock people up in. You can keep that for yourself, thank you.

There is no tradition of gay marriage that I'm aware of. Did you want to site one?

You didn't bother to read the part of my post you conveniently cut out of the quote. I know you probably won't read this one either, but I have a few minutes, so I guess why not try to explain it again for others. I am talking about the essence of marriage from the perspective of a gay person. I know you can't comprehend what that is. But if you are married, it should not be difficult for you to have empathy and see things from our perspective. You don't have to imagine being gay. Just imagine you hadn't been allowed to marry the person you did.

Surely you understand that a gay person would not, essentially by definition, derive the same emotional state if they married the opposite sex as a heterosexual would. According to the definition of "one man and one woman", the ONLY part of the tradition they would be following by doing so is being opposite sexed. Nothing else about that marriage would be genuine. So, to claim that a gay person can follow the tradition of marriage by doing so is, to me, disingenuous. Given that gay people actually exist , that definition is pitifully weak. What tradition is a gay person to follow? Well, all we need in that respect is with us already, the drive to pair in an emotional, and yes sexual, way passed down through generations. We try to follow the tradition with or without the law, or society, on our side. In this respect, the ONLY thing that "changes" is the combination of sexual parts; in the combination that feels natural to us. You can go on and try to figure out why there are gay people, but the reason is ultimately irrelevant.

Every rational argument put forward by the opposition to try and deny gay couples the same benefits afforded to heterosexuals has been disproved. Children: single parents, childless couples, to adoption, surrogacy, etc. These must resort to a double standard between gay/straight couples, and a hypocritical attitude, to defend. Others were debunked 50 years ago in the fight against interracial marriage. What's left are those that resort to calling us pedophiles and animal rapists. And still others who can't even think of a way to argue that gay marriage is bad, and instead argue about how bad man-tree marriage is. And finally, the bible thumpers who can't even take the personal responsibility to admit their own views, and instead hide behind selective quotes from "god's word" to do it for them, and cry that they're "just following orders" when they go after the gays. All that's left is simply that they think it's icky. Well, that's tough. I have to live with their existence too.

Not badly said except that if you want people to sympathize with your plight, you should not start out by insulting them.

As it turns out, I am ambivalent about gay marriage. It seems obvious to me that it does not deserve to be called "marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman. And there are no "gay traditions". Sorry but that whole concept strains credibility. The homosexual community is just a couple decades out of the closet. How could it possibly have traditions?

However, I have had gay friends since before this was cool, back in the 70's before "coming out of the closet" was the norm. I already sympathize with those who are gay and I agree, it doesn't matter if they're gay because of some as-of-yet undiscovered genetic influence or as a result of being sexually molested in their youth. I do sympathize with the plight of those who are gay.

At the same time, you should sympathize with those whom you think you should force to sympathize with you. I'm not sympathetic with those gay folks who think their sexuality needs to be in my face. I don't want to see gay couples kissing on TV. Doesn't matter why. I don't want to see a pair of men making out down at the corner coffee shop, especially in front of a 5 year old. I don't have to explain why. I don't want to see it. I object to it and I don't have the same kinds of objections to normal, healthy, acts of affection between men and women. You need to understand that when these things are shoved in my face because some idiot thinks that's going to make homosexuality more acceptable, all they're doing is alienating me.

Too, you need to recognize that we have a whole life worth of data that the best start a person can make in this life is with a pair of parents, one of each sex. I object to gay couples adopting because they do not meet the criteria for what makes good parents. It doesn't matter that they might make a better pair of parents than a twisted pair, or a single parent. What matters when you adopt is you prove you can be the best parent possible and gay couples cannot ever meet that criteria.

Too, in your cries for acceptance, you should note that if you are gay or lesbian, you are placing the rest of us at risk. We here in the US are considered "The Great Satan" not because we support Israel, but because we support the kinds of liberty that rub jihadists the wrong way. The expression of our liberty here in the West is no more exemplified than when we have gay marriage. Hundreds of millions of people hate us, because we have gay marriage. Out of the 19 guys who flew those planes into the towers on 911, probably 19 hated America and Americans more for our tolerance of homosexuality than for our political involvements. Expressing your liberty and sexuality openly if you are not part of the norm, places all Americans at great risk.

That all said, I will note to you that IMHO, there is no religious basis for ostracizing or stigmatizing gay and lesbian folks. There was never a real religious basis for judgements about interracial relations either. Anyone can open a bible and find that Moses, God's main man in the middle east; married someone of a different race. IIRC, she was Ethiopian, which would have made her very black. In any case, there are no admonitions against interracial marriages and yet here in the west, racism hid behind religion for many decades. Likewise with the persecution of homosexuals.

Anyone who understands anything of what Christianity is all about understands that with Jesus' death on the cross "it is finished". Just as is explained in the NT book of Hebrews, and illustrated in the discussion between Peter and the risen Christ where Jesus tells Peter to "take, kill and eat" that which had been considered "unclean", it should be obvious that the mosaic law is over. It does not apply to Christians. As explained in Galatians 5, it was a tutor intended to lead one to Christ, but it is ended. Christians have no excuse to judge others based upon what they believe is proper sexuality. They might admonish their brethren about what they believe is proper public behavior, but that is an entirely different issue. Sexuality is private behavior by any decent definition of the term, and Christians have no place judging others for their sexual orientation.

All that aside, now that you've turned this into a thread about gay marriage instead of marriage, do you get it carter, that you never needed to make an emotional appeal for sympathy, and that if we disagree, it's based upon our views of the facts, not some emotional knee-jerk reaction?

I object to gay adoption for the same reasons I object to no-fault divorce; because it does not place the good of the child as top priority.

[Stubby]

Not badly said except that if you want people to sympathize with your plight, you should not start out by insulting them.

As it turns out, I am ambivalent about gay marriage. It seems obvious to me that it does not deserve to be called "marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman. And there are no "gay traditions". Sorry but that whole concept strains credibility. The homosexual community is just a couple decades out of the closet. How could it possibly have traditions?

However, I have had gay friends since before this was cool, back in the 70's before "coming out of the closet" was the norm. I already sympathize with those who are gay and I agree, it doesn't matter if they're gay because of some as-of-yet undiscovered genetic influence or as a result of being sexually molested in their youth. I do sympathize with the plight of those who are gay.

At the same time, you should sympathize with those whom you think you should force to sympathize with you. I'm not sympathetic with those interracial folks who think their sexuality needs to be in my face. I don't want to see interracial couples kissing on TV. Doesn't matter why. I don't want to see an interracial couple making out down at the corner coffee shop, especially in front of a 5 year old. I don't have to explain why. I don't want to see it. I object to it and I don't have the same kinds of objections to normal, healthy, acts of affection between men and women of the same race. You need to understand that when these things are shoved in my face because some idiot thinks that's going to make interracial couples more acceptable, all they're doing is alienating me. I changed a few words to show utterly bigoted you show yourself to be, notwithstanding your claim of having gay friends 'before it was cool'. YOU are the one who needs to understand

Too, you need to recognize that we have a whole life worth of data that the best start a person can make in this life is with a pair of parents, one of each sex. I object to gay couples adopting because they do not meet the criteria for what makes good parents. It doesn't matter that they might make a better pair of parents than a twisted pair, or a single parent. What matters when you adopt is you prove you can be the best parent possible and gay couples cannot ever meet that criteria. (WHAT ABSOLUTE BOVINE EXCREMENT)

Too, in your cries for acceptance, you should note that if you are gay or lesbian, you are placing the rest of us at risk. We here in the US are considered "The Great Satan" not because we support Israel, but because we support the kinds of liberty that rub jihadists the wrong way. The expression of our liberty here in the West is no more exemplified than when we have gay marriage. Hundreds of millions of people hate us, because we have gay marriage. Out of the 19 guys who flew those planes into the towers on 911, probably 19 hated America and Americans more for our tolerance of homosexuality than for our political involvements. Expressing your liberty and sexuality openly if you are not part of the norm, places all Americans at great risk. (WOW trying to guilt people to stay in the closet for national security) Seriously your self-described ambivalence towards gay people is a lie you keep telling yourself to hide your true nature.

That all said, I will note to you that IMHO, there is no religious basis for ostracizing or stigmatizing gay and lesbian folks (except the many passages in the old testament that say gay men should be put to death, see 47% below before you knee-jerk). There was never a real religious basis for judgements about interracial relations either. Anyone can open a bible and find that Moses, God's main man in the middle east; married someone of a different race. IIRC, she was Ethiopian, which would have made her very black. In any case, there are no admonitions against interracial marriages and yet here in the west, racism hid behind religion for many decades. Likewise with the persecution of homosexuals.

Anyone who understands anything of what Christianity is all about understands that with Jesus' death on the cross "it is finished". Just as is explained in the NT book of Hebrews, and illustrated in the discussion between Peter and the risen Christ where Jesus tells Peter to "take, kill and eat" that which had been considered "unclean", it should be obvious that the mosaic law is over. It does not apply to Christians. As explained in Galatians 5, it was a tutor intended to lead one to Christ, but it is ended. Christians have no excuse to judge others based upon what they believe is proper sexuality. They might admonish their brethren about what they believe is proper public behavior, but that is an entirely different issue. Sexuality is private behavior by any decent definition of the term, and Christians have no place judging others for their sexual orientation. (Nope no free pass on this either. You can't just brush the evil half of the bible under the rug. And even we were to let you, what about the 47% of americans who believe the whole bible to be literal and true? Don't you read through the garbage on the websites digot posts like American Research Council, Wallbuilders or American family association? You are in the minority amongst your fellow christians.

All that aside, now that you've turned this into a thread about gay marriage instead of marriage, do you get it carter, that you never needed to make an emotional appeal for sympathy, and that if we disagree, it's based upon our views of the facts, not some emotional knee-jerk reaction?

I object to gay adoption for the same reasons I object to no-fault divorce; because it does not place the good of the child as top priority.

[GIThruster]

I can't see much point in addressing most of stubby's concerns. I'll just take issue with one exception because it propagates a continuing misunderstanding:

. . .there is no religious basis for ostracizing or stigmatizing gay and lesbian folks (except the many passages in the old testament that say gay men should be put to death. . .

So far as I'm aware, the jewish law opposed to homosexuality was not really that but rather, as is often pointed out by gay activists; they were judgements against men being effeminate. What one needs to understand here is the cultural context of those admonitions. All serious interpretation of ancient texts requires what is called "contexualization" and requires one understand amongst other things, the cultural and historic context of the text.

The salient cultural and historic context of the ancient jewish admonitions against men being effeminate is that the jews were surrounded by enemies who sought their destruction. The only defense against this was the "macho men" whom acted out the Warrior role in that society. Ancient Israel couldn't afford the luxury of tolerance for men who want to wear dresses. They needed to raise a warrior culture if they were to survive, and the kind of personal liberty necessary to men acting effeminate was at odds with the survival of the entire race of Jews. So if you want to be taken seriously, you need to take the cultural and historic influences and needs to account. The Jews stoned to death men who did not meet the criteria of the Warrior, because their existence depended upon promoting the standard (now traditional) sexual role models.

There is no "evil half of the bible". It's primarily a collection of historical documents and as anyone who reads it can easily observe, it records more human failure than it does triumph. If you treat it as some magical text, you're not going to understand it.

BTW, history records almost no instances of the Jews stoning effeminate men. That's because the effeminate men of that time, just as the effeminate men today in Iran, adapted to the needs of their environment. After all, no one, man or woman has to act effeminate. That's a choice.

And obviously as I've already explained, the Mosaic law does not apply to Christians, as we demonstrate every time we eat shellfish, pork or fish without scales.

[Diogenes]

I changed a few words to show utterly bigoted you show yourself to be, notwithstanding your claim of having gay friends 'before it was cool'. YOU are the one who needs to understand

You are a disgusting little f*ck. I have black friends who would beat you senseless for making such a comparison. It's not enough that you are obsessed with race and f***ing, you have to manipulate other people's words to satisfy your weird little fetish?


I'm beginning to think French Canadians are just what the other Canadians say they are; Special classes of Pr*ck. I sure hope the rest of them aren't as bad as you.

[Stubby]

If your so called 'black friends' read the same bovine excrement websites you do, I have have no doubt they would turn to violence against people that believe everyone should have equal treatment under the law. Are they as rabidly homophobic as you?

[Diogenes]

If your so called 'black friends' read the same bovine excrement websites you do, I have have no doubt they would turn to violence against people that believe everyone should have equal treatment under the law. Are they as rabidly homophobic as you?

Several of them voted for Obama. (not all of them) They simply think homosexuality is disgusting, and they resent people comparing it to what they and their parents had to struggle through. They couldn't hide the fact of their color. They couldn't just act normal and be left alone. Homosexuals feel some compulsion to go out of their way making sure everyone knows what they want to do in their bedrooms.

Opposition to having this stuff shoved in our faces is not any sort of "phobia." Its more akin to disgust at someone feeling a fetish like need to exhibit their sordid lifestyle and demand approval for it.

That you want to compare what blacks went through to what people with a specific sexual fetish have to put up with, marks you as a person who is not to be taken seriously. Of course anyone with sense already dismisses your opinion anyway.

[Stubby]

Why should anyone care what a bunch of bigots think regardless of who they voted for?
You and your friends' thinking is disgusting.

Non-white people didn't demand approval, they demanded and still demand equality.
Women didn't demand approval, they demanded and still demand equality.
Same sex couples are not demanding approval, they are demanding equality.

[paperburn1]

popcorn time

[Stubby]

go grab the popcorn gif from the rossi thread

[Diogenes]

Why should anyone care what a bunch of bigots think regardless of who they voted for?
You and your friends' thinking is disgusting.

Coming from you, that means a lot to me. I regard you as a special class of idiot. You know nothing of value, and you make certain that everyone is aware of your condition.

Non-white people didn't demand approval, they demanded and still demand equality.
Women didn't demand approval, they demanded and still demand equality.

Boy, someone sure stuffed you full of liberal "sensitivity" crap. You are probably suffering from a Liberal radiation overdose and need an enema or something.

Same sex couples are not demanding approval, they are demanding equality.

As if "equality" has a d@mn thing to do with it. Look, you loon, Having a man pretend to be a woman does not make him "equal" to a woman. It makes him a man with a serious delusion.

No, what is going on here is a group of people who don't like the fact that society considers them sick, want to force society to pretend like they are not. Even YOU probably think they are sick. Let's find out.


Presumably you are a man. (Well, sort of, anyways) Assuming your are male, and assuming you have had sex, did you ever have sex with another male?

[Stubby]

Hope everyone is enjoying their popcorn.

I have not had sex with a male of any species. I do not find most males attractive except maybe that cute little bichon frise down the street.

Can't wait to see where you are going to go with this, digot.

[kcdodd]

I'm going to insert my comments on top of Stubby's as well. Pink for gay I suppose.

Not badly said except that if you want people to sympathize with your plight, you should not start out by insulting them.
I was just stating fact, not insult. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are simply glossing over what I write without really considering it since you have yet to actually address what I have said. Without that, I may as well not reply to you directly, but I do anyway only to those who might observe the discussion and for my own exercise. I could start insulting you if you'd like, though.

As it turns out, I am ambivalent about gay marriage. It seems obvious to me that it does not deserve to be called "marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman. And there are no "gay traditions". Sorry but that whole concept strains credibility. The homosexual community is just a couple decades out of the closet. How could it possibly have traditions?
Evidence to my last comment... Anyway, I am not saying it is a "gay tradition". I am saying that coupling is in general a human tradition. We are human. Therefore it is a tradition for us as well. Are you to argue also that wearing clothes is not a tradition if a gay person does it? Or to live in domiciles? Or are houses only for people to put their biological babies in?

However, I have had gay friends since before this was cool, back in the 70's before "coming out of the closet" was the norm. I already sympathize with those who are gay and I agree, it doesn't matter if they're gay because of some as-of-yet undiscovered genetic influence or as a result of being sexually molested in their youth. I do sympathize with the plight of those who are gay.

At the same time, you should sympathize with those whom you think you should force to sympathize with you. I'm not sympathetic with those interracial folks who think their sexuality needs to be in my face. I don't want to see interracial couples kissing on TV. Doesn't matter why. I don't want to see an interracial couple making out down at the corner coffee shop, especially in front of a 5 year old. I don't have to explain why. I don't want to see it. I object to it and I don't have the same kinds of objections to normal, healthy, acts of affection between men and women of the same race. You need to understand that when these things are shoved in my face because some idiot thinks that's going to make interracial couples more acceptable, all they're doing is alienating me. I changed a few words to show utterly bigoted you show yourself to be, notwithstanding your claim of having gay friends 'before it was cool'. YOU are the one who needs to understand

I am not attempting to force anyone to sympathize with me. I am not sure how I can, even in principle, force anyone to do anything by simply posting text into a bulletin board. You, and everyone else, are free read or not read this thread. You are free to watch or not watch the TV, or go to coffee shops. And no-one that I am aware of is proposing any laws that would force someone to do any of those things. If there are, then I do sympathize with them because I believe in personal freedom. However, that's not what you claimed. What are claiming is that I should hide myself from public view because you inexplicably don't like see us out. However, the thing Stubby's editing shows is that your statements have nothing to do specifically with gay people, other than the fact that you specifically don't like it. Why should anyone accept whatever argument you're making about gay people, but not when it comes to interracial couples? So if someone doesn't like to see interracial couples on TV, does that mean they shouldn't be there? Are they forcing anyone to do anything by being out in public anymore than I am? It's a double standard GIT.


Too, you need to recognize that we have a whole life worth of data that the best start a person can make in this life is with a pair of parents, one of each sex. I object to gay couples adopting because they do not meet the criteria for what makes good parents. It doesn't matter that they might make a better pair of parents than a twisted pair, or a single parent. What matters when you adopt is you prove you can be the best parent possible and gay couples cannot ever meet that criteria. (WHAT ABSOLUTE BOVINE EXCREMENT)

Stubby's comment reflects my own. You are claiming that the development of children depends on one parent having something dangle between their legs, and the other parent not having it. How could that possibly have any impact on the child? As to what "life worth of data" you are referring to, I don't know. There have been some studies, and if you would like to suggest the best one I could respond to it. Luckily I know how to read, and I have read some. What I have found is a basic error in understanding cause and effect. Not only that, but I can also see causes for the same effect in such studies other than a lack "one man and one woman". If you focus on families that have a single parent, or a parent that is gay, versus families that have "one man and one woman", and blindly apply statistics, then I can see how you could come to the conclusion you have. However, this ignores what I see as the obvious. Single parents are often single because of a blowout in the family, which creates stress, as well as other effects that could deleteriously affect child development. Also, studies that focus on children "with a gay parent" often only include families that were originally formed as "heterosexual coupling". This has the same end effect as I just described. However, that has nothing to do with gay marriage, or gay adoption. I propose that a stable gay family is just as healthy for a child as a stable heterosexual one. I would also argue that a stable single parent is no worse off in that regard either.

Too, in your cries for acceptance, you should note that if you are gay or lesbian, you are placing the rest of us at risk. We here in the US are considered "The Great Satan" not because we support Israel, but because we support the kinds of liberty that rub jihadists the wrong way. The expression of our liberty here in the West is no more exemplified than when we have gay marriage. Hundreds of millions of people hate us, because we have gay marriage. Out of the 19 guys who flew those planes into the towers on 911, probably 19 hated America and Americans more for our tolerance of homosexuality than for our political involvements. Expressing your liberty and sexuality openly if you are not part of the norm, places all Americans at great risk. (WOW trying to guilt people to stay in the closet for national security) Seriously your self-described ambivalence towards gay people is a lie you keep telling yourself to hide your true nature.

Would you ask Christians to hide themselves? Are you willing to ask your wife to hide herself? I think not.

That all said, I will note to you that IMHO, there is no religious basis for ostracizing or stigmatizing gay and lesbian folks (except the many passages in the old testament that say gay men should be put to death, see 47% below before you knee-jerk). There was never a real religious basis for judgements about interracial relations either. Anyone can open a bible and find that Moses, God's main man in the middle east; married someone of a different race. IIRC, she was Ethiopian, which would have made her very black. In any case, there are no admonitions against interracial marriages and yet here in the west, racism hid behind religion for many decades. Likewise with the persecution of homosexuals.

Anyone who understands anything of what Christianity is all about understands that with Jesus' death on the cross "it is finished". Just as is explained in the NT book of Hebrews, and illustrated in the discussion between Peter and the risen Christ where Jesus tells Peter to "take, kill and eat" that which had been considered "unclean", it should be obvious that the mosaic law is over. It does not apply to Christians. As explained in Galatians 5, it was a tutor intended to lead one to Christ, but it is ended. Christians have no excuse to judge others based upon what they believe is proper sexuality. They might admonish their brethren about what they believe is proper public behavior, but that is an entirely different issue. Sexuality is private behavior by any decent definition of the term, and Christians have no place judging others for their sexual orientation. (Nope no free pass on this either. You can't just brush the evil half of the bible under the rug. And even we were to let you, what about the 47% of americans who believe the whole bible to be literal and true? Don't you read through the garbage on the websites digot posts like American Research Council, Wallbuilders or American family association? You are in the minority amongst your fellow christians.

I won't argue against the general conclusion that religion is no basis for exclusion. However, because it is no basis for anything, and not because I have interpreted the bible any particular way.

All that aside, now that you've turned this into a thread about gay marriage instead of marriage, do you get it carter, that you never needed to make an emotional appeal for sympathy, and that if we disagree, it's based upon our views of the facts, not some emotional knee-jerk reaction?

How did I, and I alone, make this thread about gay marriage? I made my first post because it was already being discussed. And then you replied to my post of your own free will. And then I replied to yours. Others joined in as well. Again, you are free to do as you wish. If you don't want to talk about gay marriage, then by all means stop talking about it. Also, my goal was not to make an appeal to sympathy. My goal was to simply explain my viewpoint in regards to tradition and marriage.

I object to gay adoption for the same reasons I object to no-fault divorce; because it does not place the good of the child as top priority.

Again, there is really no basis that I am aware of that supports this. Again, if you wish to put forth your best case, then fine. But I do disagree with what you claim the facts to be.

[Diogenes]

Hope everyone is enjoying their popcorn.

I have not had sex with a male of any species. I do not find most males attractive except maybe that cute little bichon frise down the street.

Can't wait to see where you are going to go with this, digot.

You mean you discriminate ? What a f*$%^% bigot you are. AND a hypocrite! Here you are telling us all that you consider it normal, but your behavior says you don't.


You either need to fix your philosophy or fix your behavior. One is inconsistent with the other.