Gay marriage debate

[JUGGERNAUT]

The SC of US has decided not to block the decision of the SC of MA to allow gay marriages. Scalia warned a year ok when the USSC stuck down sodimy laws that marriage would be next. No one dreamed a year later that the sanctity of marriage would be a major issue in the 2004 election but here we are roughly 6 months before election time & MA is about the become the first state to legally grant gay marriage licenses.

 

Inevitably you can not debate gay marriage w/out including a debate on homosexuality itself. But before doing so I will say this: traditionally in America marriage has been equated with child bearing. A man & woman get married to bring new life into world together. Not life they purchased through adoption or invitro insemination but life they created together in their own images. Of course there were exceptions but that was by & large the standard of what marriage meant.

 

On that basis our insurance laws, tax laws, & all other laws pertaining to unions were formed. IMHO, this is were the human rights violations occur towards not just gays but others in this country who have strong personal relationships with others outside of the traditional context of marriage. These relationships do not have to be sexual in nature. Therefore I believe in upholding the sanctity of marriage to remain as a union between a man & woman but I likewise believe in allowing persons to form other civil unions for tax & insurance purposes in the same manner that credit agencies allow for co-signers on loans. The state should recognize any such union when it comes to insurance, tax, or other money & health matters. Gays, straights, whatever should be able to support one another in these matters regardless of their being single, married, adolescent, etc. What could be more important than the ability for people to help one another in money & health matters?

 

Unfortunately that is not the heart of the matter for the gays themselves. This is about changing the culture through effective media pressure to endoctrinate Americans towards acceptance of their lifestyle. When they are interviewed the issues I spoke about above seem all but oblivious to their need for social acceptance above all else. They want their lifestyle to be seen as being no less normal than heterosexuals. You can't really blame them for that, because that pretty much pertains to any minority group in America. Whether it be tax-paying S&M enthusiasts or gays & lesbians they all want to be accepted.

 

Unfortunately the jury is still out & is leading towards their being classified as abnormal when it comes to science. Nothing is conclusive yet, but recent research studies out of the UK have led to new studies being conducted in the US & scientists world wide are putting more resources into this most-controversial matter. The studies from the UK suggest that Testerone levels in the woman during pregnancy play a major role in determining their sexual preference. Basically the research suggests that sexual preference is made up primarily of 2 parts: biological development & exposure to the lifestyle. Biological development addresses abnormalities during the development of the fetus such as T levels. Exposure to the life style addresses media, parental/guardian guidance, school guidance, workplace guidance, & peer pressure. With a sample size greater than a 1000 they found a direct correlation between T levels & exposure. Higher T levels required greater exposure to the lifestyle to guide the child to a gay lifestyle. Lower T levels required less exposure. These findings where significant enough to where several other universities are now conducting their own research in this area not just because of the controversial issue but more so the science one in which a fetus can be both manipulated genetically or chemically by altering the chemical physiology of the mother.

 

But all that being said, science has just tapped the tip of the iceberg on this issue

and a LOT more information will be available to reach a conclusion in the near future.

Until then we do have the biological argument that the human body is naturally designed for procreation & given that the homsexual population in humans has remained no greater than 10% for 10's of 1000's of years it certainly would seem to be more of an abnormality than anything else. That's just basic science.

 

There is another recent finding popping up all over the world that lends greater credence to the 2 part correlation study in the UK. Thousands of new cases among therapists are being documented for the so-called confused gender persons.

These are people in their 30+ years who regret their lifestyles & regret not having a strongly developed reverse-sex ego. Therapists are documenting these cases while still upholding the client-patient privacy rights. The majority of cases seem to stem from the parent-wishes syndrome. By parent I mean parent or guardian. Cases where the mom strongly wanted a girl & got a boy or strongly wanted a boy & got a girl. In these cases the mom desire was so strong that she raised the child to fit that desire. Boys dressed up as girls & encouraged in girl activities & vice versa. It appears that the years where individuals feel the strongest pull to fatherhood & motherhood is where these persons are feeling the regrets.

 

Now this is far too-controversial a matter to suggest that any of these findings are conclusive. The fact of the matter is that science is still in it's infancy on the issue.

However; in the area of science the benefit of the doubt falls on abnormal. Science is rigorous in it's acceptance of any theory or hypothesis being classified as normal or predominant or worthy of being treated as a law. The demographics only support this classification. My own personal opinion is that exposure to the life style will be the GCF when the studies are complete. But that doesn't condemn gays & lesbians any more than alcholics or chain smokers. Repeated exposure to any alternative way of life in America will ultimately lead to acceptance of it. Every behavioral study confirms this. It is not the job of government to legislate morality but it is the job of government to teach it & endoctrinate it's citizens in it. My own personal belief is that a homosexual lifestyle is an immoral one. But that does not mean that it should be treated as such in schools. No that is not the moral question surrounding the issue. The moral question is deals with taking a bias to teach that it is a moral one.

That is the problem. Teaching related to homosexuality should be matter of fact & this includes all data pertaining to it being a MINORITY life-style. It should be taught in the context that it applies to less than 10% of the population. Period. I personally believe it should be taught in the context of a sexual fetish because that's really what it is.

 

It is the agenda of school officials, media, & others that use every measure in their power to equate the life style as being no less normal than a heterosexual one is what I find both offensive & immoral & counter-productive to society as a whole.

[EvilJester99]

I know this is kind of a stretch but when everyone says you can't get married unless you are a hetrosexual. It kind of reminds me of when they use to say you can't vote unless you are white and a man or a land owner. Women and Blacks or other minorities had no rights. Who is to say homosexuals shouldn't get married? If they care for each other then let them marry. Who is it hurting? People need to just stop getting into everyone elses business all the time. If people would worry more about themselves and less about everyone else I believe things would be much better. IMO.

[Queen Prawn]

I know this is kind of a stretch but when everyone says you can't get married unless you are a hetrosexual. It kind of reminds me of when they use to say you can't vote unless you are white and a man or a land owner. Women and Blacks or other minorities had no rights. Who is to say homosexuals shouldn't get married? If they care for each other then let them marry. Who is it hurting? People need to just stop getting into everyone elses business all the time. If people would worry more about themselves and less about everyone else I believe things would be much better. IMO.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I know this is kind of a stretch but when everyone says you can't get married unless you are a hetrosexual. It kind of reminds me of when they use to say you can't vote unless you are white and a man or a land owner. Women and Blacks or other minorities had no rights. Who is to say homosexuals shouldn't get married? If they care for each other then let them marry. Who is it hurting? People need to just stop getting into everyone elses business all the time. If people would worry more about themselves and less about everyone else I believe things would be much better. IMO.

Since I'm still logged in I'll answer. There is nothing today that prevents two homosexuals from declaring their love for one another & getting married in vegas or otherwise. At a private level they can indeed marry one another & they can even create the legal framework to make the union binding.

 

Granting marriage licenses to gays is not about their private lives but rather recognition of that union by society as a whole. And not just recognition but recognition equated to that of traditional married persons. Marriage is founded upon a traditional standard of being a union of a man & a woman for the primary purpose of bringing creating a family & bringing life into this world. A minority of individuals representing less than 10% of the population do not have the right to re-define what that definition means to the greater of society. If their numbers were ever to grow to 40-50% then you could make the argument but not at less than 10%.

 

Introducing civil union legislation is the right way to go because it provides equality on money & heath matters for people who wish to help one another through life. That's the only public recognition that is warranted.

[BrandoFan]

It is the agenda of school officials, media, & others that use every measure in their power to equate the life style as being no less normal than a heterosexual one is what I find both offensive & immoral & counter-productive to society as a whole.

 

I don't think school officials or the greater media are doing anything that isn't outlined in the Protocols of the Elders of Fabulous.

 

The gays sure are coming and there is no stopping them. Save yourself a heartache, Jauggs, don't resist what is inevitable. Conform or die trying.

[flippedoutpunk]

I dont have a problem with gays getting married. All i have to say is i hope they all have great marriages and i hope they have lots of kids together.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Doh! I wish we could edit polls.

 

That should read ...

YES

YES - but allow for civil unions outside of marriage

NO

OTHER

 

Hopefully it was obvious for those who have already voted.

[The Beast]

Gays should be allowed to marry. Seriously its not fair that you may live your life to the fullest when many cannot because of laws that are insecure. All I would be concerned about it a pedophile like couple adopting a child and molesting the child. That would be utterly chaotic.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Most pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual.

 

Also, the whole "protecting the institution of marriage for a man and woman". I think straight couples have done more than enough damage to the institution of marriage with crap like "Married by America", "The Littlest Bride", Gingrich giving his wife divorce papers while she is recovering from cancer, Neil Bush getting divorced after catching herpes from orgies with Hong Kong prostitutes while married, OJ murdering his wife, etc. In short, until the pro-marriage folks do something about their own, who have been wiping their backsides with their marriage vows, they have absolutely no business talking about anybody else's marriage threatening whatever sanctity that the institution of marriage may still possess. Any couple, straight or gay, that can make and honor marriage vows is upholding the sanctity of marriage. Period.

 

Never have I heard a line in a marriage vow that includes a requirement that the couple have children. The vows typically consist of stuff about love, honor, cherish, in sickness and in health, well, you know the rest. While many expect a marriage to produce offspring, the legitimacy of an American marriage is not measured by the number of children produced by the couple participating in it. Therefore, anybody who argues that marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because homosexual couples can't reproduce is wrong vis-à-vis marriage and reproduction. This argument would necessitate the denial of marriage licenses to infertile couples, and I'm guessing that movement isn't gathering much steam. When gay marriages are allowed, a bunch of guys are not going to stand up and go "You mean I could have married a guy? Goddamnit!"

 

As Ayn Rand says, the smallest minority is the individual and the majority cannot revoke the basic rights of the minority. And if we want to bring the Bible into this for the traditionalist view of marriage then I have a few demands as a heterosexual. Marriage in the US shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women (Gen. 29:17-28, II Samuel 3:2-5). Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives (II Samuel 5:13, I Kings 11:3, II Chronicles 11:21). A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut. 22:13-21). Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden (Gen. 24:3, Numbers 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Nehemiah 10:30, II Corinth. 6:14). Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce (Deut 22:19, Mark 10:9-12). If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow or deliberately does not give her children, she shall take off his shoes and spit in his face in the presence of the Elders (Gen. 38:6-10, Deut. 25:5-10). If we wanna get technical with the Bible condemning homosexual marriages then lets go hog wild with everything the Bible says about marriage.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Not to trivialize this debate, cause there are people, myself NOT included, that care about this, but I was watching Leno the other night and he said something that really made me laugh.

 

He said that if gay people having sex offends people then they should let them get married, then they'd never have sex again!

 

[JUGGERNAUT]

Doh!  I wish we could edit polls. 

 

That should read ...

YES

YES - but allow for civil unions outside of marriage

NO

OTHER

 

Hopefully it was obvious for those who have already voted.

Daily reminder of my typo.

[BrandoFan]

Daily reminder of my typo.

Daily reminder of the fact that humans have a varying disposition towards

bi-sexuality.

[Spiff]

I fixed the poll for you.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Most pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual.

 

Also, the whole "protecting the institution of marriage for a man and woman".  I think straight couples have done more than enough damage to the institution of marriage with crap like "Married by America", "The Littlest Bride", Gingrich giving his wife divorce papers while she is recovering from cancer, Neil Bush getting divorced after catching herpes from orgies with Hong Kong prostitutes while married, OJ murdering his wife, etc.  In short, until the pro-marriage folks do something about their own, who have been wiping their backsides with their marriage vows, they have absolutely no business talking about anybody else's marriage threatening whatever sanctity that the institution of marriage may still possess. Any couple, straight or gay, that can make and honor marriage vows is upholding the sanctity of marriage. Period.

 

Never have I heard a line in a marriage vow that includes a requirement that the couple have children. The vows typically consist of stuff about love, honor, cherish, in sickness and in health, well, you know the rest. While many expect a marriage to produce offspring, the legitimacy of an American marriage is not measured by the number of children produced by the couple participating in it. Therefore, anybody who argues that marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because homosexual couples can't reproduce is wrong vis-à-vis marriage and reproduction. This argument would necessitate the denial of marriage licenses to infertile couples, and I'm guessing that movement isn't gathering much steam.  When gay marriages are allowed, a bunch of guys are not going to stand up and go "You mean I could have married a guy?  Goddamnit!"

 

As Ayn Rand says, the smallest minority is the individual and the majority cannot revoke the basic rights of the minority. And if we want to bring the Bible into this for the traditionalist view of marriage then I have a few demands as a heterosexual.  Marriage in the US shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women (Gen. 29:17-28, II Samuel 3:2-5).  Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives (II Samuel 5:13, I Kings 11:3, II Chronicles 11:21).  A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut. 22:13-21).  Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden (Gen. 24:3, Numbers 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Nehemiah 10:30, II Corinth. 6:14).  Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce (Deut 22:19, Mark 10:9-12).  If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow or deliberately does not give her children, she shall take off his shoes and spit in his face in the presence of the Elders (Gen. 38:6-10, Deut. 25:5-10).  If we wanna get technical with the Bible condemning homosexual marriages then lets go hog wild with everything the Bible says about marriage.

Are you an extremist? What is your point in making OT references when there are clearly NT ones that refute them? Is it hard for you to understand that though God inspired the words of the Bible that mankind corrupted them? Is it hard for you to understand that the reason Jesus came into the world was to set things right? The NT references to Jesus himself clearly define marriage as the union between a man & a woman. One man & one woman. He goes on to say that anything else be it a thought or an act with another outside of that union is adultery. On the issue of divorce Jesus makes several references to the distinction between God & state. Clearly he indicates there is a much higher standard with God than the state. So even though the state might recognize your no-fault divorce God will not. Your references to St Paul are misunderstood as well. Paul simply makes the argument that a union between a non-believer & a believer will make things very hard on the believer to devote his/her life to God. That is why he says it is not a good idea. He does not define it as being forbidden as you suggest & furthermore since belief is both in word & deed this very passage is sometimes use to suggest that Paul is defining a grounds for separation. There are other passages as well.

 

The fact remains that YOU are trying to re-define the traditional/original definition of what marriage is & has represented since the dawn of man. It was not created out of a civil context but rather a religious one. It is only later when it took on a civil definition. There is simply no basis for expanded it to homosexuals. This is not about minority rights. This is about a small minority (< 10% of voters) trying to force the majority to recognize their existence.

 

The establishment of civil unions allow gays to be treated the same as married persons when it comes to matters of health & money. Those are the only rights that are unjust at this time. Just because you don't like the tradition of marriage doesn't give you the right to both ignore it & re-define it. Over 66% of Americans are against being forced to recognize the union of gays in the same venue as the union o f straights. That's enough to establish a constitutional amendment on the issue. The majority is an overwhelming voice on this one & because it remains headline news might just tip the scales of the Nov election.

 

============================

 

As for pedophilism it's a disease that is rooted in child-porn. There have been very few cases documented where child-porn has not been involved. Child-porn is not illegal in all countries & the age for defining a child is equally unequal. Some civilized countries define consent as early as 12. The French try to push the envelope every year with controversial ads. This is an entirely different issue & has no real point to the debate. By & large the majority of gays seeking marriage recognition are not active members of socieity's underworld.

 

And since you mentioned it I will complete the thought: marriage that produces an off-spring is valued greater in our society than one that doesn't. That's a plain simple fact. It's valued greater than one that adopts as well. Most infertile couples do not get married knowing that such an abnormality exists between them. A marriage union between a man & woman always leaves the possibility open for producing an off-spring. Both science & nature have a say in that outcome. Same sex unions do not have that possibility. Invitro requires another adult entering into the union. Not to mention the psychology of invitro babies has yet to be studied as to whether it is benefit or harm to society in general.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The majority of Americans were against giving women the right to vote for a long time. The majority of Americans were against interracial marriage. The majority of Americans were against civil rights for African Americans. If we kept listening to the majority then we'd be really f***ed.

 

Having the US Constitution codify discrimination is disturbing. I really fail to see how homosexual marriage of people that love each other destroys the institution of marriage any more than the s*** job that heterosexuals have done to it already.

 

The day heterosexual couples decide to "respect the institution of marriage" then they can really open their mouths about protecting it.

 

Also, I'd love to see those verses that show Jesus codifying marriage.

[BrandoFan]

. A minority of individuals representing less than 10% of the population do not have the right to re-define what that definition means to the greater of society. If their numbers were ever to grow to 40-50% then you could make the argument but not at less than 10%

 

Oh it will grow alright, Juggs. Just give it time, 4-7 decades perhaps. Kids across this wonderful nation are being recruited and endocrinated by "them" as we speak.

 

[Spiff]

The majority of Americans were against giving women the right to vote for a long time.  The majority of Americans were against interracial marriage.  The majority of Americans were against civil rights for African Americans.  If we kept listening to the majority then we'd be really f***ed.

What the hell do you think democracy is? I'm not saying anything on gays and marriage cause I really don't give a s*** either way, but listening to the majority is what this country is all about.

[Wong & Owens]

1)The fact remains that YOU are trying to re-define the traditional/original definition of what marriage is & has represented since the dawn of man.  It was not created out of a civil context but rather a religious one.

 

 

 

2)As for pedophilism it's a disease that is rooted in child-porn.

1) Wrong

 

http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/marriage/marriage.html

http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistor...iagehistory.htm

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567

 

 

2) Wrong

 

http://cms.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia.html

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?d...efid=ency_botnm

http://www.mhamic.org/causes/causesbiblio.htm

[Texsox]

I read an interesting essay by a gay woman who proposed that the government get out of all recognition of Church sponsored unions and only recognize a civil union.

 

Interesting perspective.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It helps to read your own links

 

1a: discusses a union of a man & woman.

http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/marriage/marriage.html

The average age difference between husband and wife was fifteen years. Hesoid's advice was that "A man should marry at about thirty, choosing for his wife, a girl of sixteen" (quoted in Flacelière 59). Although there were no formal laws governing a specific age to marry, Flacelière (59) also mentioned that girls could marry as soon as puberty hit. As Powers notes,

 

1b: discusses a union of a man & woman.

http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm

The oldest male relative was the caretaker of the girls and the prospective husband would ask the father for the girl after first bringing him gifts to win his approval.

 

1c: discusses a union of a man & woman.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistor...iagehistory.htm

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

 

1d: discusses mostly the union of a man & woman.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567

Gay marriage is RARE in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives

 

Oh Yes. Nero is the prime example of an ideal citizen to follow. In 342 A.D. after his rule came to an end, Rome outlawed gay marriages.

 

 

After reading those 4 links I definitely would have to say ...

 

1)The fact remains that YOU are trying to re-define the traditional/original definition of what marriage is & has represented since the dawn of man. It was not created out of a civil context but rather a religious one.

 

is definitely RIGHT!

 

============================================

 

TEXSOX, I am inclined to agree with her. It is the government's say on these issues

that is legitimizing the causes. Not just wrt to gay marriage but abortion as well. It is one thing to say the abortion procedure is not a criminal offense & quite another for the government to subsidize the abortion industry. Yet in a recent case in Texas where a girl lied about her age to get an abortion the truth of that industry was made open to the public. She is suing the doctor on the basis that he didn't bother to follow procedure as the law states to check for proper identification. She had a pretty lousy fake id at the time. During the case, it was made known that he has performed 30000 abortions in his professional tenure & at an avg pop of $600.00 per that's

a pretty nice chunk of change. Especially when the govt is financing about 1/2 of it.

 

But that's another issue entirely. I agree with that pov that the government should

try to distance itself from having to legislate moral issues but I think it's in a catch-22

right now. Just like striking down the sodomy laws last year, each one of these actions by the US SC has the effect of legitimizing an act when it repeals an antiquated law. In other words once you make something illegal & then later on declare it legal it has a psychological effect of the government sanctioning & supporting the now legal act. There lies the biggest problem as we go forward as

a nation. Most of us agree that there are antiquated laws in the states that should

be struck down. The problem is that when striking them down the US SC should be clearly defining their summaries in such a way that it does not condone the act.

Taken to the extreme & referring to the infamous billy goat curse on the cub, one day the US SC might strike down some laws referring to sleeping with horse or goats. These laws do exist on the books in some states. If they carelessly strike

down these laws like they have abortion & sodomy & possibly marriage, then that

decision will in effect legitamize sex with beasts. Now some of you moral relavists might argue that's acceptable but I think by & large the majority still feel it to be offensive.

 

And the list goes on when you dig up the illiterate past that created laws based on the moral majority opinion of the community at that time. Legal scholars always emphasize the importance of defining the law in as general the terms as possible to avoid the psychological effect of legitimizing an overturned decision. That's why it's

doubly important for the US SC when striking down these laws to firmly indicate that

the majority opinion of Americans believes such acts to be heinous & immoral in nature & that by striking down such a law the court does not believe such acts should

be recommended or encouraged. In otherwords the morality of the act should be addressed by the court in their opinion & not necc the law itself. Unfortunately this nations past 40 years has shown members of the bench who either have forgotten

that importance or have used it to encourage their own agendas irrespective of how the majority of Americans feel on an issue.

 

============================================

 

How did you change the poll options? Is that something only an admin can do?

In any case, thank you.

[Wong & Owens]

It helps to read your own links 

 

1a: discusses a union of a man & woman.

http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Greeks/marriage/marriage.html

The average age difference between husband and wife was fifteen years. Hesoid's advice was that "A man should marry at about thirty, choosing for his wife, a girl of sixteen" (quoted in Flacelière 59). Although there were no formal laws governing a specific age to marry, Flacelière (59) also mentioned that girls could marry as soon as puberty hit. As Powers notes,

 

1b: discusses a union of a man & woman.

http://ks.essortment.com/historyofmarri_rimr.htm

The oldest male relative was the caretaker of the girls and the prospective husband would ask the father for the girl after first bringing him gifts to win his approval.

 

1c: discusses a union of a man & woman.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistor...iagehistory.htm

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

 

1d: discusses mostly the union of a man & woman.

http://www.theweekmagazine.com/briefing.asp?a_id=567

Gay marriage is RARE in history—but not unknown. The Roman emperor Nero, who ruled from A.D. 54 to 68, twice married men in formal wedding ceremonies, and forced the Imperial Court to treat them as his wives

 

Oh Yes. Nero is the prime example of an ideal citizen to follow.  In 342 A.D. after his rule came to an end, Rome outlawed gay marriages.

 

 

After reading those 4 links I definitely would have to say ...

 

1)The fact remains that YOU are trying to re-define the traditional/original definition of what marriage is & has represented since the dawn of man. It was not created out of a civil context but rather a religious one.

 

is definitely RIGHT!

 

============================================

 

TEXSOX, I am inclined to agree with her.  It is the government's say on these issues

that is legitimizing the causes.  Not just wrt to gay marriage but abortion as well. It is one thing to say the abortion procedure is not a criminal offense & quite another for the government to subsidize the abortion industry.  Yet in a recent case in Texas where a girl lied about her age to get an abortion the truth of that industry was made open to the public.  She is suing the doctor on the basis that he didn't bother to follow procedure as the law states to check for proper identification.  She had a pretty lousy fake id at the time.  During the case, it was made known that he has performed 30000 abortions in his professional tenure & at an avg pop of $600.00 per that's

a pretty nice chunk of change.  Especially when the govt is financing about 1/2 of it.

 

But that's another issue entirely.  I agree with that pov that the government should

try to distance itself from having to legislate moral issues but I think it's in a catch-22

right now. Just like striking down the sodomy laws last year, each one of these actions by the US SC has the effect of legitimizing an act when it repeals an antiquated law.  In other words once you make something illegal & then later on declare it legal it has a psychological effect of the government sanctioning & supporting the now legal act. There lies the biggest problem as we go forward as

a nation.  Most of us agree that there are antiquated laws in the states that should

be struck down.  The problem is that when striking them down the US SC should be clearly defining their summaries in such a way that it does not condone the act.

Taken to the extreme & referring to the infamous billy goat curse on the cub, one day the US SC might strike down some laws referring to sleeping with horse or goats.  These laws do exist on the books in some states. If they carelessly strike

down these laws like they have abortion & sodomy & possibly marriage, then that

decision will in effect legitamize sex with beasts. Now some of you moral relavists might argue that's acceptable but I think by & large the majority still feel it to be offensive.

 

And the list goes on when you dig up the illiterate past that created laws based on the moral majority opinion of the community at that time.  Legal scholars always emphasize the importance of defining the law in as general the terms as possible to avoid the psychological effect of legitimizing an overturned decision.  That's why it's

doubly important for the US SC when striking down these laws to firmly indicate that

the majority opinion of Americans believes such acts to be heinous & immoral in nature & that by striking down such a law the court does not believe such acts should

be recommended or encouraged. In otherwords the morality of the act should be addressed by the court in their opinion & not necc the law itself.  Unfortunately this nations past 40 years has shown members of the bench who either have forgotten

that importance or have used it to encourage their own agendas irrespective of how the  majority of Americans feel on an issue.

 

============================================

 

How did you change the poll options?  Is that something only an admin can do?

In any case, thank you.

It also helps to take a step back from pompous idiocy to understand the point I was making by posting those links. I was not making any reference to anything other than the quote I attached, which was:

 

The fact remains that YOU are trying to re-define the traditional/original definition of what marriage is & has represented since the dawn of man. It was not created out of a civil context but rather a religious one.

 

The institution of marriage was NOT created out of a religious context, since "the dawn of man."

 

I will also note that you didn't have anyhting to say about the links I posted to refute your ridiculous claim that pedophilia is rooted in child porn.

 

Maybe you should review your posts before you make them.

[JUGGERNAUT]

It also helps to take a step back from pompous idiocy to understand the point I was making by posting those links.  I was not making any reference to anything other than the quote I attached, which was:

 

The fact remains that YOU are trying to re-define the traditional/original definition of what marriage is & has represented since the dawn of man. It was not created out of a civil context but rather a religious one.

 

The institution of marriage was NOT created out of a religious context, since "the dawn of man." 

 

I will also note that you didn't have anyhting to say about the links I posted to refute your ridiculous claim that pedophilia is rooted in child porn.

 

Maybe you should review your posts before you make them.

In the spirit of encouraging nice debate I will ignore your remarks & simply address your points. Not one link you provided refuted the basis of marriage existing since the dawn of man. Nor do any of the link you provide refer to the religious context of marriage since the dawn of man. Now why is that?

 

Because you apparently believe the dawn of man begins with the Greeks. When that is clearly not the case. Likewise you must believe that the origin of religion implies the origin of established religion on a grand scale & that is not true either. The origin of religion dates to the first time man pondered anything grander than himself. The moon, the stars, his place in the universe. At that time there was no distintion between philosophy & religion & that any sign of worship towards something constituted religion.

Well we have history of such things on cave writings dating back millions of years before the Greeks.

 

Now if you believe finding links that support the basis of another person's argument somehow increases the pompous nature of that argument well I question your logic. When you strengthen the basis of an opposing viewpoint it only weakens your own

 

As for the child porn reference, this is a gay marriage debate. My response clearly indicates that I feel it has no relevance in this debate. Now if you feel that strongly about it, create your own thread & I will gladly debate it there.

[Wong & Owens]

In the spirit of encouraging nice debate I will ignore your remarks & simply address your points.  Not one link you provided refuted the basis of marriage existing since the dawn of man.  Nor do any of the link you provide refer to the religious context of marriage since the dawn of man. Now why is that?

 

Because you apparently believe the dawn of man begins with the Greeks.  When that is clearly not the case.  Likewise you must believe that the origin of religion implies the origin of established religion on a grand scale & that is not true either.  The origin of religion dates to the first time man pondered anything grander than himself.  The moon, the stars, his place in the universe.  At that time there was no distintion between philosophy & religion & that any sign of worship towards something constituted religion.

Well we have history of such things on cave writings dating back millions of years before the Greeks.

 

Now if you believe finding links that support the basis of another person's argument somehow increases the pompous nature of that argument well I question your logic. When you strengthen the basis of an opposing viewpoint it only weakens your own

 

As for the child porn reference, this is a gay marriage debate.  My response clearly indicates that I feel it has no relevance in this debate.  Now if you feel that strongly about it, create your own thread & I will gladly debate it there.

For the last time. This was your statement:

 

"The fact remains that YOU are trying to re-define the traditional/original definition of what marriage is & has represented since the dawn of man. It was not created out of a civil context but rather a religious one. "

 

Every link I posted in relation to that shows quite clearly that the instituion of marriage was ABSOLUTELY NOT created out of a religious context.

 

Those same links show that YOU are the one trying to redefine "the traditional/original definition of what marriage is & has represented since the dawn of man."

 

The rest of your statement is mind-bogglingly off-target, and pointless. I've washed my hands(again) of trying to have a debate with you. Good luck with your next set of polls.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Every link I posted in relation to that shows quite clearly that the instituion of marriage was ABSOLUTELY NOT created out of a religious context. 

Again I will remain nice & objective & ignore another's offensive remarks.

 

My last post clearly refutes your understanding of "dawn of man" as well as your understanding of what religion is. Therefore if you belief that you have refuted the link between religion & marriage dating back to the "dawn of man" than that is simply a statement of the level of which you understand that relationship. As to whether your level of understanding represents the best level of understanding on the subject well I think the facts speak for themselves.

 

Thank you for weighing in & enjoy your day

[Spiff]

How did you change the poll options?  Is that something only an admin can do?

In any case, thank you.

Yeah.