And as far as i'm concerned you've proven yourself to be more of a waste to society just by display your lack of intelligence than 1 million gay couples. Reproduction is not the goal of society, it's the goal of the species and religion and marriage are not natural to our species. Marriage in no way hinders nor helps reproduction. The goals of society is to become more efficient, advanced, intelligent, peaceful, stable, and civilized. And a gay person can help with all these goals just as much as a hetero.

"""usfulness to society."""
___Do you even know what that means?

pssh, i love your answers, they get more ridiculous by the second. really, you're becoming extremely pathetic. It's like watching a comedy that isn't funny, you just want to change the channel.

quote:

---

Its a simple really, by declaring that marriage is no longer sacred, we are sending a message to the American people telling them marriage is no longer a sacred instituion, and we are opening a pandora's box, and once we decide that the different sex aspect of marriage is no longer sacred, what is to stop the government from declaring that the two-person, the unrelated, and the both human aspect of marriage from being no longer sacred?

---

Marriage never was sacred in the eyes of the law because the law is not religious. for clarity, i will now define sacred as according to the dictionary: Made or declared holy. Face it, you're a bigot who can't accept diversity and equality. All your statements prove it, don't even try to deny it, or you'll open up a pandora's box of your own. Again, marriage is not sacred in the eyes of the law because the government is secular and does not believe in anyone's religion. Therefore, I declare your statement wrong. YOU HAVE JUST BEEN OWNED.

quote:

---

'Bigamny and incest are not sexual orientations.'

Yes, but they are freindships that involve sex.

---

And my point still stands, you implied that they were sexual orientations, but they aren't. and heterosexuality is a friendship that involves sex. so you have no point. I also delcare this other statement of yours invalid as well.

quote:

---

but my point is that they are not discrimination on the basis of sexual prefence. A person who is gay can marry, just not to another man.

---

OMG, YOU ARE STUPID, that's just like saying, I'm a member of the kkk and we don't hate blacks, did i mention that we once hanged a black man because he's black?
"they are not discrimination on the basis of sexual preference"
"a person who is gay can marry, just not another man."
DISCRIMINATION! You wanna play it that way, fine. be retarded, and make yourself look absolutely moronic, it makes me laugh. Your arguments have gone from stupid to unearthly dumb. I could have a more intelligent argument with a bag of dirt.

quote:

---

'OH YES! I'M SURE LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE IS GOING TO BRING ABOUT THE END OF WORLD.'

Even though you don't agree that gay marriage is a disgrace, i'm sure you agree that multiple partner marriage is disgrace. Already in Utah, there have been lawyers using the same agruments as in Lawrence v. Texas, to legalize polygamy.

---

So, how exactly is it a disgrace??? and remember, don't use pathetic religious rhetoric. it increases reproduction, so it's a social interest. can't say it isn't that. hah! and it's just marriage twisted to make it more productive.

Bottom line: you discriminate based on sexuality and try to use logic as a pretext to justify and cover for your hatred.

quote:

---

'They are both sexual orientations. True, they are not the same, just as black is not the same as white...yet it is still discrimination all the same.'

That's not the same thing because a person's skin color doesn't affect thier usfulness to society.

---

Okay, then, if 2 infertile people want to get married, they shouldn't be allowed to using your logic because guess what? they are not usefull to society because they cannot reproduce. of course, you'll probably say that's not true because they can adopt and raise a child, but then again a gay couple could too. and a recent study just came out that said children of homosexual couples are made fun of, traumatized, or harmed anymore than a child of a heterosexual couple would be.

[This message was edited by icm91 on January 24, 2004 at 09:03 PM.]

'They are both sexual orientations. True, they are not the same, just as black is not the same as white...yet it is still discrimination all the same.'

That's not the same thing because a person's skin color doesn't affect thier usfulness to society.

A relationship between people of the same sex doesn't safe gaurd the socital interests that a hetrosexual relationship.

'hmm, last time i checked if a man and a woman go to a judge for a marriage license, he doesn't need to ask if they're hetero...it's kind of implied... same's true with a man and another man...DUH.'

but my point is that they are not discrimination on the basis of sexual prefence. A person who is gay can marry, just not to another man.

'Bigamny and incest are not sexual orientations.'

Yes, but they are freindships that involve sex.

'OH YES! I'M SURE LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE IS GOING TO BRING ABOUT THE END OF WORLD.'

Even though you don't agree that gay marriage is a disgrace, i'm sure you agree that multiple partner marriage is disgrace. Already in Utah, there have been lawyers using the same agruments as in Lawrence v. Texas, to legalize polygamy.

Its a simple really, by declaring that marriage is no longer sacred, we are sending a message to the American people telling them marriage is no longer a sacred instituion, and we are opening a pandora's box, and once we decide that the different sex aspect of marriage is no longer sacred, what is to stop the government from declaring that the two-person, the unrelated, and the both human aspect of marriage from being no longer sacred?

quote:

---

Why is homosexuality equal to hetrosexuality? I've illistrated through out the forum that same-sex relationships do not provide the same benifits to society, and that's all that it should matter to, society, because that is were the institution rests.

'Favoritism is not an excuse for anything. And humans can reproduce without being married. Not being married in no way renders a heterosexual impotent'

Yes, but I have shown you in an earlier post that that is the only way people should reproduce (in marriage), because of all of the benifits that it gives to raising of the child.

'therefore, reproduction of the species is by no means an excuse for discrimination.'

Therefore it is because of these advantages given to the child that giving hetrosexuals the benifits implied in the institution of marriage is justified.

---

They are both sexual orientations. True, they are not the same, just as black is not the same as white...yet it is still discrimination all the same.

heh, you're still trying to justify comparing apples and oranges...tsk tsk.

quote:

---

Secondly, it is not based on a person's sexual prefence because when a judge hands out a marriage liscence, he dosen't ask for the recipent's sexual prefeence.

---

hmm, last time i checked if a man and a woman go to a judge for a marriage license, he doesn't need to ask if they're hetero...it's kind of implied... same's true with a man and another man...DUH.

quote:

---

'while not allowing others to just because of their sexual orientation is discrimination, there is no arguing that,'

Are you going to apply that to those that have engaged in bigamy? relatives that are married to each other?

---

Bigamny and incest are not sexual orientations.

quote:

---

Furthermore, (and you would know this if you read the works John Locke) a society only takes away an indivual's rights in the intrest of self-preservation of its members,

---

OH YES! I'M SURE LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE IS GOING TO BRING ABOUT THE END OF WORLD.

'love is. my love won't be recognised. thats what marriage is, really, a recognition of love, publicly.'

Actually, that's what a wedding is.
---
'BUT OOOH, HOLD UP! gay's can't marry, so how the hell does this "author" know this. Simple, it's a made up statistic. Therefore, seeing as how gays aren't allowed to marry, your statistic is bs. You can't compare a heterosexual marriage to a domestic partnership, seperate but equal is not equal.'

That is Because they are refering to those that consider themselves to be married. (that's one of the reasons that it [word marriage when reffering to homosexuals] is in quotation marks)

'while not allowing others to just because of their sexual orientation is discrimination, there is no arguing that,'

Are you going to apply that to those that have engaged in bigamy? relatives that are married to each other?

Secondly, it is not based on a person's sexual prefence because when a judge hands out a marriage liscence, he dosen't ask for the recipent's sexual prefeence.

'it's a fact. In all, i'd say your case is extremely weak because you haven't proved anything. Marriage is a right.'

Why the hell is it a right? I have already shown that it does not exist to anyone outside of a society, therefore how can it be a right? Furthermore, (and you would know this if you read the works John Locke) a society only takes away an indivual's rights in the intrest of self-preservation of its members, anything granted to from the society is not a right, because it doesn't exist in nature, which is where mankind is the most free.

'and if a heterosexual person can marry in this country just because they're american, it only seem EQUAL that a homosexual be able to.'

Why is homosexuality equal to hetrosexuality? I've illistrated through out the forum that same-sex relationships do not provide the same benifits to society, and that's all that it should matter to, society, because that is were the institution rests.

'Favoritism is not an excuse for anything. And humans can reproduce without being married. Not being married in no way renders a heterosexual impotent'

Yes, but I have shown you in an earlier post that that is the only way people should reproduce (in marriage), because of all of the benifits that it gives to raising of the child.

'therefore, reproduction of the species is by no means an excuse for discrimination.'

Therefore it is because of these advantages given to the child that giving hetrosexuals the benifits implied in the institution of marriage is justified.

thank you. I try.

Point to icm.

ummm...no... slaves couldn't marry, infact, they couldn't marry until after the civil rights movement, and yes, marriage is a right sense we are all created equal.

I notice you didn't repsond about your made up statistic.lol

and you can have your marriage recognized by god, cause as far as i'm concerned your god is just a figment of your imagination. Discrimination is illegal and you can't deny that, and you also can't deny that allowing others to:

quote:

---

ability to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency.
petition for partner to immigrate.
up to 12 weeks leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner.
parenting responsibilities of children brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means.
ability to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

---

while not allowing others to just because of their sexual orientation is discrimination, there is no arguing that, it's a fact. In all, i'd say your case is extremely weak because you haven't proved anything. Marriage is a right. maybe you'd like to know what a civil right is...

quote:

---

rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including esp the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal and social and economic equality.

---

and if a heterosexual person can marry in this country just because they're american, it only seem EQUAL that a homosexual be able to. Favoritism is not an excuse for anything. And humans can reproduce without being married. Not being married in no way renders a heterosexual impotent; therefore, reproduction of the species is by no means an excuse for discrimination.

quote:

---

I've illistrated that marriage is not a right

---

love is. my love won't be recognised. thats what marriage is, really, a recognition of love, publicly.

Polietly, No. You can ask why too.

'This isn't about marrying just to **** you off, it's about treating others like human beings instead of dogs.'

Do I sense some anger?

You liberals are all the same you cannot disigish the difference between something that is given to you and something that isn't taken away. Marriage exists with society, and therefore no indivual member or couple has the right to demand it, because it is not thiers in the first place.

We are not treating people like dogs if we do not give them anything. That can only happen if we take something away from people.

'nwh, you disgust me.'

icm, you disgust me

'I deserve every right that a hetero does'

I've illistrated that marriage is not a right.

'we'd all be treated like slaves were back during the civil war.'

That's different because freedom exists outside of the society, where as marriages does not. apart from soceity, marriages is recognized by God and on paper alone, they hold no binding on any individual, apart from society, who has the capcity to exercise thier free will.

Freedom is different, freedom is inborn. One doesn't need to belong in a society, to be free, in fact an indivual outside a society always has more freedom than an indivual inside it.

quote:

---

"Each individual's journey through life is unique. Some will make this journey alone, others in loving relationships - maybe in marriage or other forms of commitment. We need to ponder our own choices and try to understand the choices of others. Love has many shapes and colors and is not finite. It can not be measured or defined in terms of sexual orientation." From the Statement of Affirmation and Reconciliation by the Quaker meeting in Aotearoa.

---

quote:

---

"Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." The Marriage Resolution, by the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

---

quote:

---

There are more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities denied to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families because they cannot legally marry in this country. Here are just a few:

ability to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency.
petition for partner to immigrate.
up to 12 weeks leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner.
parenting responsibilities of children brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means.
ability to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

---

This isn't about marrying just to **** you off, it's about treating others like human beings instead of dogs. nwh, you disgust me. I deserve every right that a hetero does and that is as plain as the nose on your face but i guess if you had your way, we'd all be treated like slaves were back during the civil war.

quote:

---

People in same-sex relationships are denied legal benefits including social security, adoption rights, immigration rights and shared medical insurance.

---

quote:

---

Marriage Matters

Marriage offers many legal benefits and responsibilities that protect families. Here are just a fraction of why marriage matters to those couples who choose to marry.

The Practical

Marriage offers 1,049 Federal benefits and responsibilities, not including hundreds more offered by every state.

In times of crisis, spouses have hospital visitation rights and can make medical decisions in event of illness or disability of their spouse.

Employers offer spouses sick leave, bereavement leave, access to health insurance and pension

The law provides certain automatic rights to a person’s spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists.

Married couples in elderly care facilities are generally not separated unless one spouse’s health dictates hospitalization or special care.

The dissolution of a marriage requires a determination of property distribution, award of child custody and support and spousal support. Absent divorce, there is no uniform system for sorting out the ending of a relationship.
The Finances

Financial issues are complex and challenging, no matter the couple. And when home ownership, kids and other assets are a part of the equation, planning for the present and especially the future is even more critical for greater security.

Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed.

The law presumes that a married couple with both names on the title to their home owns the property as “tenants by the entirety.”

A married couple, by statute, has creditor protection of their marital home.

Many married people are entitled to financial benefits relating to their spouses, such as disability, pension and social security benefits.

With marriage, a couple has the right to be treated as an economic unit and to file joint tax returns (and pay the marriage penalty), and obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies.

When a spouse dies, there is no need to prove ownership of every item in the household for taxable purposes.
Protecting Children

A child who grows up with married parents benefits from the fact that his or her parents’ relationship is recognized by law and receives legal protections.

Spouses are generally entitled to joint child custody and visitation upon divorce (and bear an obligation to pay child support).

The mark of a strong family and healthy children is having parents who are nurturing, caring, and loving. Parents should be judged on their ability to parent, not by their age, race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The Healthy Advantage

Studies show that people who are married tend to live longer and lead healthier lives.

For adults, a stable, happy marriage is the best protector against illness and premature death. Decades of research have clearly established these links. (Burman & Margolin, 1992; Dawson, 1991; Verbrugge, 1979).

Studies on marriages have found that married people live longer, have higher incomes and wealth, engage less in risky behaviors, eat more healthily, and have fewer psychological problems than unmarried people. (Waite, Linda J. “Why Marriage Matters.” Strengthening Marriage Roundtable. Washington, DC, June 1997)

Research shows that unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and well-being than married couples. (Popenoe, David and Dafoe Whitehead, Barbara, USA Today, July, 2000)

---

quote:

---

Higher Rates of STD’s
Contrary to what one would expect, homosexual "marriage" does not bestow better health to its participants. In conducting its national sexuality survey,2 Family Research Institute found that heterosexual marriage was associated with lower rates of Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD). But those who had been homosexually "married" had higher rates of STD than those who hadn’t been!

---

BUT OOOH, HOLD UP! gay's can't marry, so how the hell does this "author" know this. Simple, it's a made up statistic. Therefore, seeing as how gays aren't allowed to marry, your statistic is bs. You can't compare a heterosexual marriage to a domestic partnership, seperate but equal is not equal.

[This message was edited by icm91 on January 24, 2004 at 04:52 PM.]

[This message was edited by icm91 on January 24, 2004 at 04:54 PM.]

quote:

---

To Uptown: Lighten the F**K UP. DAMN!

---

Somebody has to stop skipping his anger management classes.

quote:

---

As uptown so eloquently put it "Typed as the fountain of irony overflows" But I�m sure the concept will completely fly over the simpletons head.

---

No, I think he was refering to how me saying "Once again...we're not supporting your argument, so why are you thanking us?". He sent me a NoiseMail thanking me for agreeing with him, when what I did was call him a hypocrite. I feel bad that thinking is too hard for him.

"I've never seen any thing in the bible prohibiting it, but yet the chatholic church does it any ways."
It's because Jesus was celibate (and priests should try to be as Christ-like as possible), and that if a priest has a family he may put his family before God. Right now though, some people are hoping the Catholic church may allow priests to marry and women to be deacons to "recruit" some more priests...apparently there's a shortage.

-rito

'Based on what studies, every single one of your sources, who you stole from Bridgette Maher, were only applicable vs. single parent homes. Like I said earlier to use them as evidence against a same-sex union is drastically abusing statistics.'

I brought up those studies to dispell the idea that marriage isn't a factor in child bearing, on the basis that it is way better for the child.

But any ways on the area of marriages...

Marriage in the tradtional idea has many health benifits, while on the other hand it seems to hurt homosexuals:

Higher Rates of STD’s
Contrary to what one would expect, homosexual "marriage" does not bestow better health to its participants. In conducting its national sexuality survey,2 Family Research Institute found that heterosexual marriage was associated with lower rates of Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD). But those who had been homosexually "married" had higher rates of STD than those who hadn’t been!

2 - Cameron, P. et al. (1985). Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease. Nebraska Medical Journal, 70, 292-299.

quote:

---

I see you are taking a tradtional Karl Marx stance on this

---

Oh come-on, Karl Marx wasn't the only person who said religion would fade away, that is just plain out ignorance on your part. But being the typical right wing extremist, you will go on witch hunts and label everybody as Marxist if the disagree with you.

quote:

---

But all this talk on the caltholic church is a diversion fromt the real issue which is the fact that homosexual couples cannot provide the things to society as hetrosexual couples, and therefore should not get government interference into thier freindships.

---

Based on what studies, every single one of your sources, who you stole from Bridgette Maher, were only applicable vs. single parent homes. Like I said earlier to use them as evidence against a same-sex union is drastically abusing statistics.

yes... a reason for everything. you know why spirit made mankind? so he/she would be amused. amused i tell you. spirit is probably wherever, laughing his/her asss off right now at this sh*t we've made for ourselves. if you believe that god did that, fine, but don't claim to comprehend what god is thinking. it is impossible and stupid.