NCAAbbs

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_133549.asp

...What right, responsibility, or obligation does the government have to "define", "license", "recognize", or "protect" marriage? Marriage is a religious institution. It is not a government institution. Where is it written in our Constitution that it is the role of the federal government to determine what is and what is not a "legal" marriage or to give benefits based on the nature of the relationship between two consenting adults?...

...Our horribly ill-conceived income tax system is partly to blame for this mess. As the tax system has morphed into a social engineering tool, the government has made available to married couples tax options that are not available to single couples living together, roommates living together, or gays living together. Why should the nature of the relationship with the person with whom you share a household have anything whatsoever to do with your income tax status? Why should it matter?...

From the article:

Well, if the writer wants to argue morals, then the first place to begin is the definition of "consenting adult." Why would the government be wrong for not legally recognizing relationships but it's OK from them to determine that reasonable intelligence begins at a certain age, an age, I might add, which also varies by state?

Here in California there's a ballot measure allowing the citizens of this state to determine the validity of same sex marriages - that's not the government speaking; it's the people.

Neither the government nor the people have the right to discriminate against any group, including the gays. Saying it is the will of the people confers no additional moral authority. Properly construed, governments are instituted to protect rights, not to promote morals. Allowing gays to marry (in the civil, not religious, sense) violates no one else's rights. Denying them the same benefits & penalties available to heterosexual unions does deny them equal treatment under the law.

Very well said JH. In law, it's called "the Tyranny of the Majority" when the majority violates minority or individual rights to promote majority values.

I prefer the Jesse Ventura solution.

Marriage is a religious institution and should be left to religious organizations.

Those matters in which the state has an interest (clarifying title to property, taxation, child custody, inheritance, etc.) can all be handled with civil unions.

So get the state out of the marriage business altogether.

You want to get married? Enter into a civil union through the state authorities. Replace the marriage license with a certificate of civil union that can be issued to any two consenting adults. Then if you can find a church to marry you, get married. If a particular church won't marry you, your remedy is to go to another church. If you don't like gay marriage, your remedy is to go to a church that doesn't do them.

I have no problem with that solution. Given the emotionally charged nature of the word "marriage", it's probably the only practical way to resolve the conflict.

OK. Let's do it your way.

If a teenager can't buy booze because he's under age then that's age discrimination.

If that same teenager can't get the same discount a senior citizen gets then that, too, is age discrimination.

Why does a handicapped person get preferred parking and seating and I don't? That's discrimination.

There are no fatso's on Playboys' centerfold. That's discrimination to the gravitationally challenged.

I can't live out my fantasy by having an orgy with the 16 year old high school cheerleaders down the street but a 17 year old male teenager could. That's age discrimination.

Affirmative Action. Now there's no way in the world you can say that ain't discrimination.

Most countries and religions deeply frown on homosexuality. The Pope hates it just as much as the president of Iran and it's been like this for centuries. When I walk along Laguna Beach and see gay men kissing and hold hands I'm so offended I want to puke. But if I said "Hey, Rock Hudson and Librace, I thought you guys were dead" I'd be arrested for offensive speech. Their freedom of expression is tolerated even though it makes me sick yet my freedom of speech is considered unlawful. Double standard?

Let's face it, the gays bring a lot of the heat they get onto themselves. The world isn't ready for gay unions and they want to force it down our throats. And how do they do this? Not by quietly integrating themselves into society, but by having gay pride parades where they dress up like sissy's, sadomasochists and drag queens. They do that and they think Joe 6-pack is going to accept them?

The day they let me park in a handicapped parking space while I'm having an orgy with highschool cheerleaders who are drinking the booze I gave them while we're looking at fat women in Playboy is the day I'll say discrimination ended.

Fixed.

Those are your best examples? I'll give you a bit on affirmative action, but the rest of those are weak. I can't believe you attacked handicapped parking and having fat people in Playboy.

What is your hostility toward gays for? Do you really think most of them flaunt their homosexuality or are you just imagining that? You would not be arrested if you called a couple of gay guys Rock Hudson or Liberace. That's quite a big overexaggeration. You might get asked to leave a store or a restaurant, but you wouldn't be arrested.

You and the insane side of the evangelical right that want to force their morality down on the country are the ones who aren't ready for civil unions. You may not like their lifestyle; it may give you chills or make you nauseous, but that should not limit someone else's rights. You complain about their choice in clothing or how they act in society and you want to limit their speech, their freedoms, but heaven forbid anyone discriminate against you (or your statutory rape filled fantasies) or your freedoms.

Good grief, what makes you so special that you deserve more freedom to choose that someone who happens to be gay? I'm not gay, but your bigotry makes me nauseous.

You are one twisted person.

I couldnt care less about what "the people" say. Using the force of government to achieve a politcal or social goal is evil and I choose revoke my consent to be governed in this manner. The fact that 51% of the population decide an issue, does not make that decision virtuous.

+1000

I didn't attack anyone. I merely pointed out that somebody somewhere thought that sex with minors is immoral and created laws against it which are backed by the state and federal governments. I feel homosexuality is immoral just as I do pedophilia. On one hand you lefties argue that a person can't be anything other than what he was born to be but when that person is born to be excited by a minor you seem change your tune and find it immoral. As for the handicapped parking, here's the definition of discrimination from dictionary.com:
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Do I think people with handicaps should get preferred parking? Yes. But it's technically discrimination nonetheless, yet the left, who champion the end of all forms of discrimination, is OK with it. You guys have no consistency. If you want to enforce it then enfoce ALL of it.

I am not hostile towards gays. I have a gay sister and cousin and my family respects their life style as long as they respect ours. We don't want to be offended or embarrassed by flagrant or flaming behavior that we consider outside the bounds of social decency. If they choose to do that elsewhere then that's their choice. Last I looked I do still have a choice of what I allow in my own home, or have the gays objected to that, also?

First of all, I'm not an evangelical anything. I'm an atheist who is also conservative. And yes, I despise the life style of gays and was much happier when they stayed in the closet. Here in California I meet lots of gay people, and believe it or not, I'm OK with it as long as they don't turn my meeting them into a limp wristed nipple piercing event. Act NORMAL and I'll get along with you. Act like a buffoon (gay or not) by trying to force me to accept something which I never will and we'll have problems getting along. And I don't have rape fantasies - actually, i said orgies - that's for liberals - I only used it as an example. I'm married to a WOMAN and I never cheated on her. That puts me in a moral class substantially higher than Willy Clinton and JFK....(plus a few morally crippled conservatives - to be fair.)

The fact that you felt the need to point out you weren't gay indicates you want to make sure everyone knows you weren't. If being gay is no big deal then why the need to make sure we know you're not? Did you just have an Obama moment?

Typical liberal response; disagree with a social issue of theirs and they call it bigotry as if some how they can have a protected opinion and I can't. You call it bigotry - I call it family values. Either way, what you're telling me is that gays can offend the living sh!t out of me and that's OK with you. But when I express my feelings, feelings expressed by a large majority of the world's population, then I'm the one that's wrong. Why, in a free country, are you telling me my opinion, which appears to offend you, can not be aired as loudly as the pro-gay movement airs theirs without being called a bigot?

Tell you what, Batman, who would you rather have baby sit your 3 year old son: a 16 year old high school girl or a 35 year old gay man? Don't bother responding because the whole world already knows your answer and if you choose the gay guy everyone would think you're lying.

It really shouldn't matter what your morality is on homosexuality because it doesn't affect you. In no way does someone else's relationship affect you. You argue that it's discrimination to make becoming intimate with a minor illegal, but not other immoral acts, but that drifts into the realm of deeming someone mentally competent enough to make their own choices. But in my opinion, no, minors aren't capable of making wise decisions yet, so they should have some level of protection. Consenting adults have the mental competence to make their own decisions. It is none of your business what two people of age do between themselves, period. No justification necessary.

Yes, preferred parking is technically discrimination, but who cares? I'm glad their okay with it. I will gladly park a few yards further out so someone with a gimp leg, a walker, or a bad heart doesn't have to walk as far to get into a store. You say that all discrimination should be ended if the government is going to promote it for certain groups. I say if some of us are going to have freedoms, then all of us should have those same freedoms.

Agreed. There should be a mutual understanding between homosexuals and heterosexuals that should center on what is socially acceptable and decent. Your original post, where you said that seeing a gay couple holding hands and kissing made you want to throw up, does not reflect this position of mutual understanding, because I highly doubt you would feel the urge to throw up at the sight of a heterosexual couple holding hand and kissing, unless they were ripping each other's clothes off and about to go at it right there.

Ah, the mutual understanding disappears. You "despise" their lifestyle. I thought you just said you respect your gay sister's lifestyle. Which smn am I talking to now? They shouldn't be forced to keep their lives secretive for your sake. Why should they sacrifice their happiness because your bigotry? Sounds like you're trouncing someone's unalienable rights because it makes you uncomfortable.

I said it to make clear that I'm not sticking up for my own rights, but the rights of others. I know that if someone else's rights are infringed upon and I don't advocate their rights, then I'm just as guilty as those who have taken their rights.

I call it what it is. As defined by dictionary.com, bigotry is "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." That sounds a lot like what you have. Your opinion can be aired as loudly as you like, but your opinion cannot and should not trounce the rights of others who happen to think differently. Tyranny of the majority is an awful system of government and I'd rather not live in it. No matter what you are in a minority in some way and by forfeiting the rights of another minority, you have opened the door for your rights to be stripped from you because you're different.

If I had kids, I would know the babysitter personally, so that would obviously be the main consideration. If the 16-year old has a boyfriend who is going to sneak over and have sex in my bed, then I'm going to go with the 35-year old guy. If the 35-year old brought ass-less chaps and is going to dance around half-naked in my house, then I'm going to go with the 16-year old girl. If they are both equally bad, I don't go out because I'm not going to leave my kid in one of those situations. If they are both apt for the job, I'll pick the girl because she needs the job more than the 35-year old guy who should have a steadier job than babysitting. Simple as that.

Your post has too much to respond to at this moment as my friggin' cat is driving me crazy for food.

I can see where you might think I'm taking two positions at once and I should have clarified that I despise the flagrantly offensive behavior displayed during gay pride parades. Even here in California, where a gay marriage ballot measure will be voted on this fall, PROponents of gay marriage say the image the gay pride paraders portray is often too extreme and hurts their cause - - - that's their words, not mine. Personally, gay marriage is HUGE step in this country and it needs to be taken in slow steps, if any. The ones that are forcing it down my throat are the ones I'm having problems with. The average gay guy who goes about his business is of no consequence to me.

I have to say I'm really intrigued. Your position is normally associated with the religious right. What is the moral standard that you use to judge the gay community?

The vast majority of child molesters are otherwise identified as heterosexual, not gay.

If you're honest and educated, you'd know that homosexuality is largely genetic. Given how society tends to treat homosexuals, especially in the evangelical areas, who in the world would choose to be one? What's the big deal as a heterosexual anyway? It's not like they'll be propagating their genes to the next generation. Besides ... without at least a dash of homosexuality, you'll never score that hot three way with two chics who are also into each other. And that's a crying shame.

I disagree with this as another married atheist in this thread. I think the tradition of marriage within Christianity is only a fraction of the existence of Christianity to begin with (I'm not as familiar with non-Judeo-Christian traditions).

I have to wonder if you've shared these feelings and comparisons with your sister (pediophilia ~= homosexuality in your moral scale? really?). I suspect not.

As a parent of a three year old son, provided there's no family history of pediophilia, I'd go with the more mature person. I think you overestimate the maturity of 16 year old high school kids in handling kids. I'd be more likely to go with someone over 30 for a 1 1/2 year old or so because they are extremely vulnerable kids, and very trying on one's patience. That said, I'm generally more likely to trust women with kids (both a cultural bias and because of the innate ability to inflict physical harm).

Also, pediophiles generally (1) try to find positions of trust and (2) try to make themselves look like 16 year old girls. Parading around like Big Gay Al generally doesn't fit that bill.

Really? What I've generally seen is that (1) trauma during pregnancy is a contributing factor to homosexuality in males, (2) 2nd, 3rd, 4th children are more likely to be homosexual than first children (in increasing degree) ... I think also for males. I'm not aware of correlations amongst females, but in my experience, sexual abuse seems to be a big factor. If you had made the arguement for biological causation as opposed to genetic causation, I'd agree.

Wow, I haven't seen this much homophobia since the days of Endzone.

All we need is for someone to ask why black people need Ebonics and it will be exactly like the good old days.

[ez2]Ebonics is due to God cursing black people with weak and stupid brains.[/stupid racist idiot]

More on the genetic link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21309724/
http://www.skeptictank.org/gaygene.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519

While I'm an atheist these days, I was born and raised Catholic, as was my entire family. Back in the day a homosexual family member would have been described as "the uncle we don't talk about" by the immediate family. Just because I've drifted from religion doesn't mean I don't have morals. When something is wrong it's wrong.

OK. You're probably right. But according to liberals homosexuality should be accepted because their born that way or it's some sort of free choice. Going back to my example of sex with a 16 year old, why would that be wrong if that's the way I was born? A lot of assumptions are being made by people who don't know the people involved. People are assuming a 16 year old can't make a good decision and the adult pays for it. How come the liberals aren't jumping all over that? Personally, I see sex with a minor and homosexuality as being deviant from the norm but somehow the gays managed to scream and yell their way into some type of acceptance. Will you still feel that way when people from the back woods of West Virginia lobby for the legalization of sex with minors?

Everyone seems to have a different opinion of how the definition of marriage should be decided. California has a ballot measure aimed at making that definition and someone in this thread it shouldn't be decided by the voters or the government. The only option left is the religious opinion. People of the Christian and Muslim faiths, the two largest religious groups on the planet, have already weighed in: one condemns homosexuality and the other kills them.

Her sexuality was tough to handle. My family lives in NJ and I moved far, far away many years ago and had to find out from my first wife that my sister was gay. Phone calls were made and it was soon apparent this was being kept secret from me. I discovered my parents were devastated when they found out.

I don't approve of her life style and she knows it. If she doesn't rub her gayness in my face I'll ignore the fact that she is. This is my sister and I can't turn my back on her and walk away. If you had a family member who commited murder you might be upset or embarrassed and may come to accept the life sentence he got but eventually you'll put that aside and still recognize him as a member of your family.

For many of you who don't live in California you might not realize what a pain in the ass openly gay people can be. I have a 10 year old son and I do not want him to see gay men walking hand-in-hand and kissing and all that other gay sh!t. If any of you disagree with that then come to California, Palm Springs or San Francisco in particular, and let your 10 year old eyeball all the things you've spent a life time protecting him from. Until you've done that you might not know where I'm coming from.

I understand that you don't have to believe in a religion to have morals (I'm also an atheist & consider myself to be a relatively moral person). What I'm asking is what makes it immoral, what makes it wrong? The only real justifications for oppositions to homosexuality I've ever heard have been religious in nature so I'm curious to see where you are coming from. Is it something in particular about homosexuality that makes it immoral, or is the attitude held over from your Catholic upbringing (opposition to abortion & premarital sex have been the hardest for me to let go of)?

Our entire system of government is based on the concept of the consent of the governed. Implicit in this concept is the idea of informed consent - the people must be in a position to understand & evaluate what they are consenting to. Age of consent laws are based on the belief that prior to a certain age people are unable to make an informed decision & therefore incapable of consenting. Unfortunately the law is a rather blunt instrument & can't be personalized to set the age of consent based on a person's actual maturity (the proper age is certainly something which should be reviewed). It is in cases like that where the police, prosecutors, and/or juries should decide whether the law should actually be enforced. There is no such conflict in the case of homosexual activities between consenting adults.

Finally, what is wrong with deviating from the norm? Many of our greatest advances have come from those who deviated from the norm. I read A Short History of Nearly Everything not too long ago & was struck by how many of our most brilliant minds were misfits, oddballs, & freaks.

My feelings towards homosexuality most likely comes from my Catholic upbringing, the way I was raised, etc...but recently, it's the gay folks from San Francisco and Palm Springs who openly display their sexuality and demand that me and my family accept a behaviour we were taught as being deviant.

Our entire system of government is based on the concept of the consent of the governed. Implicit in this concept is the idea of informed consent - the people must be in a position to understand & evaluate what they are consenting to. Age of consent laws are based on the belief that prior to a certain age people are unable to make an informed decision & therefore incapable of consenting. Unfortunately the law is a rather blunt instrument & can't be personalized to set the age of consent based on a person's actual maturity (the proper age is certainly something which should be reviewed). It is in cases like that where the police, prosecutors, and/or juries should decide whether the law should actually be enforced. There is no such conflict in the case of homosexual activities between consenting adults.

Finally, what is wrong with deviating from the norm? Many of our greatest advances have come from those who deviated from the norm. I read A Short History of Nearly Everything not too long ago & was struck by how many of our most brilliant minds were misfits, oddballs, & freaks.
[/quote]
I agree with you that age of consent laws are needed (although greatly ignored when I was a teenager) but what I'm arguing is that somebody some where decided a particular age a person can legally do something, essentially imposing their own morals on them, and the left says nothing. For the most part, an age limit is an arbitrary date that can, in actuallity, swing two or three years in each direction. While I feel these laws are needed, the left says nothing about decisions being made for people regardless of their own unique abilities.

Holy freaking homophobe batman!

It was utterly ridiculous when you tried to equate homosexuality to pedophelia, but did you really just try to equate it to ******* MURDER??? Two adults having consexual sex is equivalent to ******* killing someone?

Consent laws, unlike your drivel, are based on actual science. The science behind it is both observational and based on actual development of the brain synapses, etc.

I was trying to show a sliding scale of morality where some things are considered OK and others not, yet for folks like me all of them are wrong.

Really? Then perhaps you have the intelligence to explain why consent laws differ from state to state, country to country and religion to religion?

I'm done in this thread. It would seem gays have the right to express themselves and I'm condemned when I do. It just shows us once again how the left values free speech only when it agrees with their agenda. Most organized religions are anti-gay, only 2 states recognize gay unions and being gay will get you killed in certain countries and when I happen to agree with most of those religions, states and countries you say I'm wrong. You lefty's are all a bunch of hypocrites.

The group that doesn't like labels, labeled you a homophobe because you didn't agree with them. Funny eh!

...because of traditions, religious influence, and differing opinions on the science? You know, kinda like just about every other law on the books?

Do you have a point here? Are you trying to say that 1 or 2 year variances in consent laws somehow justifices your attempts to equate same sex intercourse with killing someone?

Since you are either trying to obfuscate or cannot comprehend the obvious:

Sex between two adults - consensual or its rape
Sex between an adult and a child - nonconsensual/rape
Killing someone - nonconsensual/murder

Is it really that hard, or are you just trying to be obtuse?

I'm the one that called him a homophobe.

You're taking me to task based on things you assumed??? With a straight face?

**** off. Really.

Do you honestly think that he equated murder with homosexuality? Or, do you think he was showing an extreme example of loving somebody even though you do not agree with something they have done?

Grow up!

He did. he said homosexuality is something you'd have to forgive them for, like murder.

Brother marrying Sister = consent
Father marrying daughter = consent
Mother marrying Son = consent
Father marrying Son = consent

1 man marrying multiple wives = consent

anything goes under this logic, starting with the foundation of Western Civilization and all the progress that has come with it.

The definition of consenting adult can change, just like the Definition of marriage is being attempted to be changed. "Consenting adult" would also include the marriage of sister and brother, mother and daughter, father and daughter, father and son, and any other combination you don't want to think about.....oh wait, at the moment we'd draw the line there, which is were our Evolving Standards haven't taken us...yet.

No one right now proposes marrying animals or children like no one thrity years ago thought there would be any consideration of homosexual marriages today. Things change/evolve under postmodern thought, gradually. It's taken thousands of years to get to the point of trying to redefine marriage, and its only coming now in the Western World because Fixed morality has been replaced with Evolving Morality(i.e. Humanism) by the Postmoderns. Nambla has already been arguing in Journals that Pedopholia should be legal because the Adult and the Child "Love each other".

SCOTUS has already dealt once with Polygomy in our country in Davis v. Beason (1890), after the definiton is changed it'll make a comeback though and be challenged.

Notice what is referenced by the decision:

If homosexual marriage is based by an evolving nature of the institution of marriage and the free-will consent of adults, then what arguments will be used against bigamy and polygamy? Or changing the age of consent to say....6 years old like one of Muhammed's wives, who he later had sex with at 9 years of age as Sharia takes hold in the west? Which in Saudi Arabia it is cited as an example to follow...

Nobody constructs an argument on bigger mountains of false assumptions and selective data better than GGNiner.

That first post there is an amazing series of logical leaps constructed on an Everest of bullcrap. It's awe inspiring.

If you want to debunk its idiocy, you have to spend a ridiculous amount of type just attacking the foundation, before you even begin to tackle the faulty logic.

It's an absolutely superb tactic. There's no way anyone cares enough to bother.

If I'm a homophobe then so be it. But then so would most Christians, Muslims, Republicans, the folks who put a measure on California's fall election to define marriage as union between a man and a woman and on and on. When looked at in that light I proudly find myself in good company. Are you going to attack Christians and Muslims now? Face it dude, you're in the minority and as is typical of liberals you're going to scream and holler until I can't be heard and then you'll call that a victory.

I just checked Obama's web site and couldn't find where he stands on gay unions, but when asked I believe he dodged the question by answering it's a state issue. How does it feel to be left of Obama?

Given basic statistics and the law of averages, I bet you at least one "homophobe" poster on the Spin Room during its existence here has secretly packed fudge brownies in their personal life.

With incest you've got to worry about deformities. Other than that, if they don't reproduce, then it should not be illegal. Consensual acts that do not harm others should not be illegal. That doesn't mean we have to like it!

We shouldn't have any laws based on morals! Laws should be based on consent and harm analysis!

Since you are not liberty minded... GG...Please dont try and speak for those of us that are. Free association between those "of the age of consent"....regardless of its nature...is the liberty minded position.
Of course...I understand those like you that support the state and its uses of force against its citizens to promote social or political means think you have the right to decide for everyone..what is moral and allowed in "your" society.
I reject the state and its violence. I would NEVER support violence against you for your free associations...Im sorry you would support hurting me if you didnt like my consentual choices.

I would prefer NO laws. I rather have a freemarket society that would use reputation ratings, restitution and ostracism to punish those that do harm to others.

How far are you willing to go in preserve "your" view of marriage?
Are you willing to use violence against those that differ from your view? If 51% of folks "that vote" come down on any side of an issue...Does that make the opinion of that majority virtuous?
I would never support the violence of the state in the free associations between people "of the age of consent".

I like that idea, but sadly I don't view it as possible. Eventually, those free association through the use of "moral codes" (ostracism, norms, reputation) will lead to de facto governments where the majority violate the rights of individuals because they don't follow new norms. Basically the tryanny of the majority will reign supreme.

We need a minimal amount of government to protect our rights; protect us from murder and violations of rights. This creates the problem of a government which will no doubt expand as courts make decisions about rights and violations. Government will grow too powerful.

It seems like we're in an destructive spiral either way. We need a society of enlightened people who respect the rights of others and who will do the right thing without the threat of punishment. Sadly, some A-Hole will always come along and ruin it.

Government can NOT be restrained. Freemarket voluntarism is the logical evolution.
Goto ruwart.com if you are intrested in this topic and read...Healing our World. Dr. Ruwart does a good job of covering this subject.

For me, I'd go about as far as the ballot box, a few donations and emphasizing the importance of family values. Violence is out of the question. And in a democracy 51% wins the brass ring.

I read in today's paper that Arkansas has a ballot measure which, if passed, would ban homosexual couples from being foster or adoptive parents. That's 2 ballot measures coming up for vote this year. Score 2 for the good guys.

Arkansas homosexual adoption ballot

He's saying that implicit in your stuffing the ballot box against homosexuality is "violence" or the use of force by the government. Through it's coercive authority, the police and law, the government will prevent gays from adopting children or getting married. The government is doing them harm through the threat of violence if homosexuals don't bend to the will of the moral majority. Therefore, your position on using the government to enforce "moral" law is immoral.

Well said....I could care less about peoples sexual orientation or their free associations. It seems sick to me that people would rather allow children to languish as orphans than to be see them in the care of loving parents.