hmmm maybe we have currently not advanced(evolved) enough to accept the fact that same-sex relationship is acceptable in our culture???
Maybe society is evolved enough to know it wants nothing to do with approving same sex marriage. I mean why should society say "hey your behavior is just grand, here have the same privileges we give to those who's behavior we actually do approve of."
Jethro, who is we? The "moral" majority? Please... this country was founded on the principal of separation of church and state to keep people like you from deciding acceptible morality for people like me! Do you think that it is morally correct to dictate what behavior is acceptable? Or to dictate that all people must have the same belief system... ie: the Christian Bible? Who do you think you are to determine who is right or wrong? If gay marriage is not for you... fine. Don't marry a man. End of story. But for others... live and let live. If you want to forge a secure monogomous union with a person and share your life... the more power to you!
Jethro, who is we? The "moral" majority? No society as a whole. That is why most states have explicit statutes preventing same sex marriage. Also it is society as a whole that have given privileges to married folk.Please... this country was founded on the principal of separation of church and state to keep people like you from deciding acceptable morality for people like me! You need to go back to school. Because society, every society, has always imposed its morality on its members.Do you think that it is morally correct to dictate what behavior is acceptable? Society has that prerogative. What do you think all the laws are about?Or to dictate that all people must have the same belief system... ie: the Christian Bible? No this society doesn't dictate what beliefs one must have. But it can and has decided to extend privileges to social arrangements that it deems beneficial. Up until now that has not been extended to same sex couples. If that is to occur the proper method to achieve that end is through the legislature. That is not happening. Why? Because the people don't want it.Who do you think you are to determine who is right or wrong? You confuse my specific beliefs with the collective beliefs of the society.If gay marriage is not for you... fine. Don't marry a man. If opposite sex marriage isn't for you fine don't marry at all.End of story. But for others... live and let live. That is your view. And you are entitled to your view. But what makes you think you should impose your view on society?If you want to forge a secure monogamous union with a person and share your life... the more power to you! There is more power to the instituion of marriage when society recognizes as legitimate only opposite sex marriage.
Main Entry: established church Function: noun : a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority
Hey Jethro... looks like the society in San Francisco isn't on the same page as the rest of your society... can it be that people are starting to accept the monogamous union of two human beings as benefiting society?
The people of San Francisco are subject to the laws of California. California, at this time, still says no to same sex marriage
Well then, what exactly is your definition of the separation of church and state?
Is one needed? I mean the term isn't in the constitution so it should be irrelevant.
I know that this is your little fall back on the decline in morality and why samesex marriages shouldn't exist....
The problem with this statement is that both parties involved in a same-sex marriage is consenting...where an animal is impossible to prove consent.
You miss my point. Consent or lack of it is irrelevant. Both a ban on same sex marriage and a ban on bestiality are based on society's collective sense of morality. If you believe society can enforce a certain law because society deems it to be the right thing to do then, to be consistent, society can also enforce other laws for the same reason. That doesn't mean you have to agree with society on an particular moral issue but you should accept that it has the authority to those laws. The real question is does society think it is right to allow gay marriage. At this time the answer is no. That may change, but if it does it should be changed by society through its legislatures saying we are going to accept it and not by a court or a mayor.
so bodine, are you saying that you aren't a hetrosexual? That you are mearly choosing to behave like one?
That the only thing that prevents you from being a homosexual is that you have chosen to not act like one?
because I could go my entire life without having sex and I would still KNOW that I AM a hetrosexual. It's not a choice for me. I'm a hetrosexual regardless of if or who I behave sexually with.
But you are as much a gay as a straight, only the actual having of the sex tells you which one it is today?
here's a clue, homosexual and hetrosexual are nouns, not verbs...it's what you are, not what you do.
President George W. Bush announced his support for a similar amendment on February 24, 2004. So maybe 3/4 will approve of the Constitutional amendment.
maybe this is why NO VOTE has taken place on it on prior indroductions? we have a different situation now.
well, since 3/4 of the states already have laws on the books, why do we need a constitutional amendment on the matter?
Why can't a person do what they want with their property? What gives society the right to say they can't mutilate their dog or have sex with it?
in this case it is entirely about the rights of other living things, jethro, and you know it.
thx, incest laws exist because they serve a very good societal purpose, they keep the gene pool diverse, so to speak. anyone who would argue that family breeding with family need look no further than the rampant hemophilia among european royalty.
so bodine, are you saying that you aren't a hetrosexual? That you are mearly choosing to behave like one? What I am saying is that no one has to engage in sexual activity. They can abstain.
here's a clue, homosexual and hetrosexual are nouns, not verbs...it's what you are, not what you do. You are an jackass. Do you like that noun. I thought that gays wanted to be the same as everyone else. Why must they insist we recognize their homosexual activities as good behavior?
well, since 3/4 of the states already have laws on the books, why do we need a constitutional amendment on the matter?
Why? Because some activitist judges say Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will do everything to thwart the will of the people. They will intentionally mischaracterize the equal protection reference in the 14th amendment in an attempt to impose their morality on the nation.
me: Why can't a person do what they want with their property? What gives society the right to say they can't mutilate their dog or have sex with it?
ares: in this case it is entirely about the rights of other living things, jethro, and you know it.
I can't disagree with that. The question is what is the basis for that determination? It is morality. So the question is: why can't society if it chooses decide what moral path it wishes to take? I mean if they can impose their collective will to protect animals because society thinks it is right, why can't it impose its collective will to prohibit what it sees as wrong?
me: "Why must they insist we recognize their homosexual activities as good behavior? "
Rick: Maybe they just want you to recognize it as none of your business.
Well they have a funny way of going about that. What those that are pushing this want is to make sure everyone knows what they are doing. If they want it to be their business, keep it at home. If they want societal approval and recognition for their behavior then they should expect society to take a very close look at the issue.
What I am saying is that no one has to engage in sexual activity. They can abstain.
that isn't what you said.
you said that it's the act of having sex that defines if one is homosexual.
You are an jackass. Do you like that noun. I thought that gays wanted to be the same as everyone else. Why must they insist we recognize their homosexual activities as good behavior?
again, it's not the activities we are recognizing, it's the people themselves. the noun, not the verb.
if a man and a woman never have sex, does society not recognize their marriage? Do you think society should force itself into newlywed's bedroom and make sure that they "do it" so we know they are actually married?
There are a lot of grounds for annulment. It's being abused of late and I disagree with that 100%. I know a couple who had been married for almost 30 years and had six children. They conveniently got an annulment and both remarried. Claimed the marriage had never been amicable!
by this logic, because we let straight humans marry, we should let hetrosexual animals marry as well.
Sad thing is, I see on tv shows about dogs or monkeys or other animals getting "married". I would think that makes more a mockery of marriage than homosexuals getting married.
this whole "if we let gays get married, next they will want to let people and animals get married?" deal is to laugh at.
There will be some because there are lot of crack pots out there, crabs. I mean just look at you. But there are already suits wanting polygamy approved.
by this logic, because we let straight humans marry, we should let hetrosexual animals marry as well. No some people want to draw a line. That line being marriage between one man and one woman. It is an arrangement that strengthens the society. What gays propose is marriage just because people want to do it. Well there will some, granted a few, people that will want, or at least claim to, to marry an animal.
aren't most polygamists people who base their argument on their Religious beliefs?
doesn't matter. the argument for gay marriage is becuase they want to get married. they also say it is an violation of equal protection. well polgamist are discriminated against on the same grounds, if you buy in to that rubbish.
tell me why are we even talking about this? it is because they say they are discriminated against because they prefer to have sex with someone of the same sex.
The whole point here is whether the courts -- and a few mayors -- have the legal right to make law. They don't. Only the people, through their representatives, have that right.
rofl
Race and behavior are two different things.
crabs: "unfortunately bigotry and ignorance are not."
Well, crabs, since you have both in abundance I guess you would know. That doesn't change the fact that behavior and race are different.
Civil disobedience is a proper procedure.
No it isn't. Go to your legislature.
hmmm maybe we have currently not advanced(evolved) enough to accept the fact that same-sex relationship is acceptable in our culture???
Maybe society is evolved enough to know it wants nothing to do with approving same sex marriage. I mean why should society say "hey your behavior is just grand, here have the same privileges we give to those who's behavior we actually do approve of."
Jethro, who is we? The "moral" majority? Please... this country was founded on the principal of separation of church and state to keep people like you from deciding acceptible morality for people like me! Do you think that it is morally correct to dictate what behavior is acceptable? Or to dictate that all people must have the same belief system... ie: the Christian Bible? Who do you think you are to determine who is right or wrong? If gay marriage is not for you... fine. Don't marry a man. End of story. But for others... live and let live. If you want to forge a secure monogomous union with a person and share your life... the more power to you!
"Separation of Church & State" is never mentioned in the Constitution or its Amendments.
It merely states Congress can't make laws respecting an establishment of religion. The Church of England for example.
It then goes on to say: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
"those whose behavior we actually do approve of."
Jethro, who is we? The "moral" majority? No society as a whole. That is why most states have explicit statutes preventing same sex marriage. Also it is society as a whole that have given privileges to married folk.Please... this country was founded on the principal of separation of church and state to keep people like you from deciding acceptable morality for people like me! You need to go back to school. Because society, every society, has always imposed its morality on its members.Do you think that it is morally correct to dictate what behavior is acceptable? Society has that prerogative. What do you think all the laws are about?Or to dictate that all people must have the same belief system... ie: the Christian Bible? No this society doesn't dictate what beliefs one must have. But it can and has decided to extend privileges to social arrangements that it deems beneficial. Up until now that has not been extended to same sex couples. If that is to occur the proper method to achieve that end is through the legislature. That is not happening. Why? Because the people don't want it.Who do you think you are to determine who is right or wrong? You confuse my specific beliefs with the collective beliefs of the society.If gay marriage is not for you... fine. Don't marry a man. If opposite sex marriage isn't for you fine don't marry at all.End of story. But for others... live and let live. That is your view. And you are entitled to your view. But what makes you think you should impose your view on society?If you want to forge a secure monogamous union with a person and share your life... the more power to you! There is more power to the instituion of marriage when society recognizes as legitimate only opposite sex marriage.
so what is that?
Main Entry: established church
Function: noun
: a church recognized by law as the official church of a nation or state and supported by civil authority
can it be that people are starting to accept the monogomous union of two human beings as benifiting society?
What about a monogomous man and a monogomous sea otter? Or a monogomous woman and a monogomous dog...
Don't mean to hit and run, but I gotta go. Catch you all later maybe.
Well then, what exactly is your definition of the separation of church and state?
Where the state doesnt' establish an official state religion.
animals can't consent
Maybe you just don't know how to talk to animals?
:-)
Throw that away, and let's say brothers and sisters? Uncles and nieces? Mothers and sons?
I really gotta run.
Later.
Hey Jethro... looks like the society in San Francisco isn't on the same page as the rest of your society... can it be that people are starting to accept the monogamous union of two human beings as benefiting society?
The people of San Francisco are subject to the laws of California. California, at this time, still says no to same sex marriage
Well then, what exactly is your definition of the separation of church and state?
Is one needed? I mean the term isn't in the constitution so it should be irrelevant.
that is why bestiality laws exist ;p
Why can't a person do what they want with their property? What gives society the right to say they can't mutilate their dog or have sex with it?
Why can't a person do what they want with their property? What gives society the right to say they can't mutilate their dog or have sex with it?
I know that this is your little fall back on the decline in morality and why samesex marriages shouldn't exist....
The problem with this statement is that both parties involved in a same-sex marriage is consenting...where an animal is impossible to prove consent.
I know that this is your little fall back on the decline in morality and why samesex marriages shouldn't exist....
The problem with this statement is that both parties involved in a same-sex marriage is consenting...where an animal is impossible to prove consent.
You miss my point. Consent or lack of it is irrelevant. Both a ban on same sex marriage and a ban on bestiality are based on society's collective sense of morality. If you believe society can enforce a certain law because society deems it to be the right thing to do then, to be consistent, society can also enforce other laws for the same reason. That doesn't mean you have to agree with society on an particular moral issue but you should accept that it has the authority to those laws. The real question is does society think it is right to allow gay marriage. At this time the answer is no. That may change, but if it does it should be changed by society through its legislatures saying we are going to accept it and not by a court or a mayor.
because your fairy tale says so?
so bodine, are you saying that you aren't a hetrosexual? That you are mearly choosing to behave like one?
That the only thing that prevents you from being a homosexual is that you have chosen to not act like one?
because I could go my entire life without having sex and I would still KNOW that I AM a hetrosexual. It's not a choice for me. I'm a hetrosexual regardless of if or who I behave sexually with.
But you are as much a gay as a straight, only the actual having of the sex tells you which one it is today?
here's a clue, homosexual and hetrosexual are nouns, not verbs...it's what you are, not what you do.
well...it's a handy way to see that you don't actually have an argument.
President George W. Bush announced his support for a similar amendment on February 24, 2004. So maybe 3/4 will approve of the Constitutional amendment.
maybe this is why NO VOTE has taken place on it on prior indroductions? we have a different situation now.
well, since 3/4 of the states already have laws on the books, why do we need a constitutional amendment on the matter?
Why can't a person do what they want with their property? What gives society the right to say they can't mutilate their dog or have sex with it?
in this case it is entirely about the rights of other living things, jethro, and you know it.
thx, incest laws exist because they serve a very good societal purpose, they keep the gene pool diverse, so to speak. anyone who would argue that family breeding with family need look no further than the rampant hemophilia among european royalty.
animals can't consent...
Ever seen a dog hump a persons leg? Looks pretty consensual to me.
well...it's a handy way to see that you don't actually have an argument.
Just wondering why you think we should discuss the subject with a simple combination of matter, time and energy.
so bodine, are you saying that you aren't a hetrosexual? That you are mearly choosing to behave like one? What I am saying is that no one has to engage in sexual activity. They can abstain.
here's a clue, homosexual and hetrosexual are nouns, not verbs...it's what you are, not what you do. You are an jackass. Do you like that noun. I thought that gays wanted to be the same as everyone else. Why must they insist we recognize their homosexual activities as good behavior?
"Why must they insist we recognize their homosexual activities as good behavior? "
Maybe they just want you to recognize it as none of your business.
well, since 3/4 of the states already have laws on the books, why do we need a constitutional amendment on the matter?
Why? Because some activitist judges say Breyer, Ginsburg and Stevens will do everything to thwart the will of the people. They will intentionally mischaracterize the equal protection reference in the 14th amendment in an attempt to impose their morality on the nation.
me: Why can't a person do what they want with their property? What gives society the right to say they can't mutilate their dog or have sex with it?
ares: in this case it is entirely about the rights of other living things, jethro, and you know it.
I can't disagree with that. The question is what is the basis for that determination? It is morality. So the question is: why can't society if it chooses decide what moral path it wishes to take? I mean if they can impose their collective will to protect animals because society thinks it is right, why can't it impose its collective will to prohibit what it sees as wrong?
me: "Why must they insist we recognize their homosexual activities as good behavior? "
Rick: Maybe they just want you to recognize it as none of your business.
Well they have a funny way of going about that. What those that are pushing this want is to make sure everyone knows what they are doing. If they want it to be their business, keep it at home. If they want societal approval and recognition for their behavior then they should expect society to take a very close look at the issue.
that isn't what you said.
you said that it's the act of having sex that defines if one is homosexual.
again, it's not the activities we are recognizing, it's the people themselves. the noun, not the verb.
if a man and a woman never have sex, does society not recognize their marriage? Do you think society should force itself into newlywed's bedroom and make sure that they "do it" so we know they are actually married?
it's not about the act, it's about the people.
In the Catholic Church a marriage isn't valid until it's consummated. That's one of the grounds for annulment.
I have no business being here and will sit back now and wait to be bashed.
I know a Catholic family who had four or five kids, and then had an annulment.
What's with that?
fortunately our government isn't the Catholic Church.
There are a lot of grounds for annulment. It's being abused of late and I disagree with that 100%. I know a couple who had been married for almost 30 years and had six children. They conveniently got an annulment and both remarried. Claimed the marriage had never been amicable!
this whole "if we let gays get maaried, next they will want to let people and animals get married?" deal is to laugh at.
by this logic, because we let straight humans marry, we should let hetrosexual animals marry as well.
by this logic, because we let straight humans marry, we should let hetrosexual animals marry as well.
Sad thing is, I see on tv shows about dogs or monkeys or other animals getting "married". I would think that makes more a mockery of marriage than homosexuals getting married.
What I am saying is that no one has to engage in sexual activity. They can abstain.
that isn't what you said.
I think that is what I said and have said it on several occasions.
again, it's not the activities we are recognizing, it's the people themselves.
It is their activities they want recognized because that is how they define themselves.
this whole "if we let gays get married, next they will want to let people and animals get married?" deal is to laugh at.
There will be some because there are lot of crack pots out there, crabs. I mean just look at you. But there are already suits wanting polygamy approved.
by this logic, because we let straight humans marry, we should let hetrosexual animals marry as well. No some people want to draw a line. That line being marriage between one man and one woman. It is an arrangement that strengthens the society. What gays propose is marriage just because people want to do it. Well there will some, granted a few, people that will want, or at least claim to, to marry an animal.
no it isn't. they want recognized as homosexual people, not as people who engage in homosexual acts.
they define themselves as homosexuals. Again, nouns, not verbs. People are nouns.
so, you are saying that if you abstain, you are no longer a hetrosexual?
aren't most polygamists Mormans who base their argument on their Religious beliefs?
the polygamy argument is a moral one based on the Bible, isn't it?
I'd think you would be for it.
It is their activities they want recognized because that is how they define themselves.
no it isn't. they want recognized as homosexual people, not as people who engage in homosexual acts.
Yes that is how they define themselves.
aren't most polygamists people who base their argument on their Religious beliefs?
doesn't matter. the argument for gay marriage is becuase they want to get married. they also say it is an violation of equal protection. well polgamist are discriminated against on the same grounds, if you buy in to that rubbish.
no, that's how YOUdefine them.
isn't that "rubbish" based on the Mormon view of morality and the Bible?
Yes that is how they define themselves.
no, that's how YOU define them.
tell me why are we even talking about this? it is because they say they are discriminated against because they prefer to have sex with someone of the same sex.
isn't that "rubbish" based on the Morman veiw of morality and the Bible?
damn, crabs, can't you follow a simple sentence? the rubbish is the claim that there is a violation of equal protection.
actually, their claim is a violation of their religious freedom.
well they may make that claim, too. but they claim a violation of equal protection.
actually, their claim is a violation of their religious freedom.
Then why are they citing a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law?
The whole point here is whether the courts -- and a few mayors -- have the legal right to make law. They don't. Only the people, through their representatives, have that right.