*DAMN R6 Forum

Does our government truly believe in the democratic process or not?  We just spent Billions, eventually Trillions, in US funds to oust a dictator "in the name of freedom."  Yet a dictatorship is what the Bush admin would rather rule by.  

Their stance on gay marriage says it all.  The Constitution is supposed to uphold rights and freedoms, and they propose an ammendment to do the exact opposite.  They're going to lengths to take away freedom.  Or dictate on the rest of us how they see a free society working.  That's not a democracy.  Same goes with the way Bush approaches the rest of the world.  No matter what world opinion is, we choose to forge ahead disregarding others views to change the world how we (or this administration) sees fit.  

Kerry and Edwards have it right.  You don't have to agree with gay marriage but you do have to respect the democratic system to decide what is right.  That's why they propose giving individual states respectful decision over the matter.  

Bush pushing his view and agenda on not only his own people but dictating to the world how things are going to be run is next to dictatorship.  Our way or the highway is not a democracy.  The consititution does not advocate or protect moral laws determined by the bible.  The very core reason settlers came to America was to live in a culture where they could live by their beliefs regardless of popular opinion.  The constitution was written to protect that, not dictate it.  The right wing is way wrong.  Bush has lost touch with what this country's constitution is all about.  And it's even sicker that he stomps around the world waving a democratic flag while destroying other sovereign nations.  Bad or not.  He's not the one to be calling the shots.  

I agree Ssick on the idea here. You don't have to agree with it but you respect what the democratic system decides is right. I have a feeling all of this has to do heavily with Bush and his "friends" trying to mix religion with politics again.

I stole this from another forum. ;D

12 Reasons Homosexual Marriages Should Be Illegal
1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not the courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.

10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marraiage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a 'separate but equal' instittution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays and lesbians.

     I tend to think that Bush's war on homosexuality is less due to his religion and more due to the fact that he's an intensely closeted faggot. "No one must ever know!"

 Well his wife does resemble a man....

Ah but Democracy is the last thing you want here - say that 51% of the people decide that gay marriage should be illegal?

The problem here is twofold:

The religious lobby wants to ban gay marriage (a contract between 2 women or 2 men).

The gay lobby wants it to be legally recognized and to force hospitals, insurance companies, etc, to recognize it as a "marraige" in the sense of benefits etc.

But both take freedoms from people - in the first, the freedom of the gays to associate and make contracts. In the second, the freedom of a insurance company owner to NOT associate with those he/she believe (however wrongly) to be not married.

People often liken the "gay struggle" to the struggle of blacks during the jim crow era.

There is a flaw in this logic however.

During the jim crow era, white business owners were FORCED by the gov't to not allow blacks into their PRIVATEY owned establishements. The reason why the laws had to be passed was because some businesses would allow blacks (and why not, as they can make more money by doing this?)

Now we have the opposite - so called "anti-discrimination" laws that take away a persons FREEDOM TO NOT ASSOCIATE with those people he/she would rather not associate with.

The "gay struggle" is to try to force people to accept them and associate with them - which is completely anti-freedom.

If I am a business owner, I can hire whoever I like, it DOES NOT MATTER what reason, a MORAL government should not force me to accept those persons who I would rather not associate with - be it drug users, gays, blacks, whites, mexicans, etc etc.

"... the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or to forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because in the opinions of others to do so would be wise or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise."
-- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty [1859]

Me not hiring someone does not HARM them - they have no MORAL RIGHT to that job.

Back to the topic however -
I have no problem with gay marriage as a contract between 2 persons - i DO have a problem with it being specially recognized by government - just as I have a problem with the special recognition given to a heterosexual marriage.

Stop campaigning for special rights gay activists!

Hmm. The way I see it, it's their own business if they want to get married. Everyone's entitled to the pursuit of happiness, and the government can't take that away. Not letting gays get married is a slap in the face to our founding fathers and to the constitution itself. It's the whole "Everyone's equal, but some are more equal than others" bullshit all over again. Gays being married doesn't hurt me one bit. Hell, even homophobes should be for gay marriage. Once they have equal rights, they won't have anything to bitch about. Honestly, I don't even think it should be up to the states to decide if they can marry or not. That seems like an on-the-fence stand to me. Let them get their damn gay marriages so I can have my CNN back.  >:(

I agree with Mellow. Although CNN sucks.

Not that im supporting CNN, but what's better that you guys have up there? The Northwest Territories Daily New Report?  (Is it still under that name, or Nunavut(sp?)territory?)

Lonewolf, if you ever act so arrogant again I will be sure to block you forever and make some deals with GS so he will go and hunt you down.

whups forgot the </sarcasm> =P

Hrm, most of you are actually missing the entire point of this whole debate.  It's just not stated because it looks mighty evil. But the anti gay marriage platform is actually being paid by many industries and this is where the pressure comes from.

If you allow gay marraige you allow a whole bunch of more people a heck of a lot more rights and coverage by laws.

To name a few:
Insurance for your spouse
legal rights to pension when spouse dies
legal rights to property when spouse dies
legal right to social security when spouse dies
marriage tax breaks
Time off for family death

These are a few things that would swamp financial burden upon the states and the federal government on a whole new level.  Not only this, but the many companies don't want to have to pay for these extra people.

They feel they cannot truly verify a gay marriage attempt to receive these special exemptions that married couples do get. It is not the idea of a marriage that scares them, it is all of the shit that comes with it.  Just look at all of the laws and initiatives that it took to verify that people were not getting married just for citizenship.  This is the same can of worms, but it can be on a much larger level.  

How hard would it be to prove that two same sex people are actually in love and want to get married, compared to those who are exploiting the new loophole (so to speak).  It would take a whole bunch of new laws, government measures, and personnel to make this happen.

So please, it is not just the Republicans hate gays.  This is actually scaring some democrats that know these facts, but then again, we always think it is party bias.

It's not the governments place to say who and who you cannot marry (with some obvious acceptions) Is George Bush (the government) and the power-house industries really that afraid of being effected by the gays? Always has been and always will be gays in the world, if they get married and try to live a life as normal as they can without it being altered by the government so be it, let them get married and be happy. I also believe that any married couple, whether a gay or straight marriage, should have the same rights.

     HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh GS, you're a riot.

as I said before You or George Bush will not change the fact that gays are out there, why are you so afraid of letting them get married? I'm not talking about animals and women or Typhy and Elk in Alaska, I'm talking about people. You're comparing gay marriage to animals and women have sex... I'm sorry, but that is extremely low and I'm sure it would be extremely insulting to many people.

GS you need to tone that down a bit.

I'm so sorry, but the Bible I read says that a sin is a sin.  It says God looks on all sin the same, whether it is two people of the same sex having unnatural affections for each other, or animal beastiality, or murder, or even lying.  So don't say I'm being insulting....God said it, that settles it.  Doesn't matter if you believe in God or the Bible, or not.  It will come to pass that these people will go to hell for their sins (unless they get saved at some point).  So if you don't like it, take it up with him.  ;)

     How did you deal with being a soldier, knowing you would be damned if you did your job?

Like i said before, this is rediculous. As a marriage is a contract between 2 persons, said contract can be worded to allow for things like property transfers. As for the rest, well, you're SOL - and here's the reason.

A privately owned insurance company has NO obligation to provide for your "spouse" unless they put it in the insurance contract - so if a person is gay, then they need to find a company that treats their "marriage contract" the same as a heterosexual couples.

The problem here is not that gays want to be married, its that SPECIAL PRIVILEGES exist in marraiges. Remove marriage from the government  - why does the government need to be involved in a private contract between 2 persons - and the problems go away.

Time off for family death - This is between the employee and the employer to work out, via the employment contract - No one has a "right to time off" (do you see it in the constitution) - hell, people see things like "right to a job" and "right to work" in there, Which brings me to
WESTAMASTAFLASH's RULE #1
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO HAVE A RIGHT THAT REQUIRES SOMEONE ELSE TO PRODUCE IT.

Thus, a right to a job (someone giving them a job), a right to healthcare (a doctor providing services), and a right to food (a farmer making food) do NOT exist.

The SAME applies to marriage. "Legal right" to pension? Please! Pension is part of a contract between an employee and employer - NOT the province of government.

I agree with you on marriage tax breaks, but that can be easily remedied by just requiring that everyone file seperately.

As for social security - Its wrong to begin with (They've stolen thousands of dollars from me already that I will NEVER see - and I'm a poor college student).

A person who is gay in most cases probably cannot and probably does not want to change him/herself . . . and in many cases I'm sure that it's not their fault that they are gay. Do really believe God meant for the government to in some cases make life miserable for any person. I'm sure that was not his intension. And do you think that justifies the comparing of gays to women having sex with animals? if so you have a pretty twisted way of thinking.

Why does one need to find a "fault" with someone who is gay? And how is the government not granting special rights to someone make life miserable for them? As for the comparison of gays to women having sex with animals - that was kinda low GS.

lol, now we got down to the gist of the argument.  You see how the actual facts turn the arguement into so much more.  

This thread is finally not about republicans and democrats, but more deep down about business, the role of government and personal beliefs.  Now you are beggining to argue the true facts of the issue and not just this, "I hate GW bullshit".  

I am happy you are beggining to be enlightened


BTW, GS this one is for you.  The bible does condone Incest.  So does that mean it would be okay for our government to pass a statute saying marriage between siblings is okay?  I am just opening up more debate on the bible issue.

     Well, let's set aside the fact that God gave permission for Israel and only Israel to commit war in His name, and the corollary that America is not listed in the Bible as among God's chosen. Strictly based on that passage of the Bible, we'll say that God unconditionally likes war and thinks it's hunky-dory. Therefore, He also digs the mass murder of infants (Psalm 137:9) and children (II Kings 2:23-24) and pregnant women (Hosea 13:16). Since I've never driven past a church with a sign out front that said, "Friday Night Infanticide -- Bingo After", I deduce that not everything in the Bible is considered acceptable in these enlightened times.

     If the Bible is wrong about things like that, it must be wrong about other things, too. Liiiiiiike homosexuality! Here's a little piece of news: the societal mor?s needed by a small tribe of Israelites are not identical to those needed by a society of millions. For instance, in a small tribe, reproduction is life for the tribe. The more babies, the more people to fight the tribe's enemies, and therefore the more succesful the tribe. In a society of millions, more people are entirely superfluous, they are not needed for the survival of the society in any way, shape, or form. In the situation the small tribe is in, harsh prohibitions against homosexuality are pragmatic and make excellent sense. In the situation the society of millions is in, those same prohibitions are without utility.

     One last thing, if you want to respect the word of Leviticus, how about respecting all of it?

     EDIT: fixed a dumb spelling error.

Loth, how about stoning to death rebellious children? [Deuteronomy 21:18-21]

The whole bible thing seems to me a bit presumptious - we're taking a book that has been compiled over the ages, with passages written about Jesus by persons who never met Jesus (all the gospels), and parts put in / left out by the politics of the early Christian Church, and accepting the entire thing on faith!

How about we start living according to man's mind - REASON. Truth is not derived from emotions - I know many people talk about "finding Jesus" and the emotional experience it was for them.

At one point in my life, I had thought that I had this experience too. Then I got a little older, and as I started to think, reason, and use my mind,  I realized that this is ridiculous.

Call me a atheist republican, libertarian, what you will - but I try every day to use facts and logic to work through problems - not some misguided belief in a deity thats pissed off at me becuase of what a man 5000 years ago did.

EXAMPLE:
Reperations for slavery.
Many republicans think that this is crazy - after all, blacks living today never were slaves, why should they get anything?

Its the same with Original Sin - why should God care what someone else did? Its not MY sin - I didn't do it - Adam did. If God feels that I should be responsible for the sins of my father - screw him.

And the bible can't even agree on it:
(Exodus  20:5) - "You shall not worship them or serve  them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the  iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the  fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
(Exodus  34:6-7) - "Then the Lord passed by in front of  him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate  and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and  truth; who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who  forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means  leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on  the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth  generations."
(Deuteronomy  24:16) - "Fathers shall not be put to death for their  sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone  shall be put to death for his own sin."
(Ezekiel  18:20) - "The person who sins will die. The son  will not bear the punishment for the father?s iniquity, nor will  the father bear the punishment for the son?s iniquity; the  righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the  wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself."


So what do I do? Not think about. If God's out there, and he shows up at my doorstep in person, maybe i'll belive. Not till then.

Oh I suppose this was a little off topic - but I think its important  - it IS possible to be a lover of freedom and responsiblity and not be religious.

Or follow your heart sometimes and know better than to compare any couple to women having sex with animals . . . I truthfully don't care if it refers to that in the bible, I would have thought that anybody especially a grown man like GS would no better than to even say something so stupid and ridiculous.

This is what it comes down to:

Believe what you want, but get you beliefs out of my life.

I've had premartial sex -- where is my fire and brimstone? How many people are adulterious? Look at the rash of divorce in America.

But, in the end, all these things are effectively normal. Premartial sex, adultry, divorce -- they are all to some distasteful. But they are all legal, though they have differing repercusions.

How is Gay sex significantly worse than divorce? Than premartial sex? Than adultry? In fact it's wonderfully better, because it will allow people to be more truly faithful to each other. In a land of broken families and sexual debauchery, the beauty to be found in sincere love and commitment is something we should cherish -- and support.

vote Bush, Jesus 04

I don't see how you can compare a woman marrying a dog and two guys/girls marrying eachother. The dog cannot consensually agree to marriage, nor can it propose to a woman. That whole arguement is ridiculous.

how do you arrogant miserable human being know what "God" says or think ?

Or the word of a lier who has made billions of dollars by faking the whole thing.

It's so interesting to me see how those that read the Bible often claim it is the word of God, then among themselves disagree so vehemontly on what he's trying to say that they murder each other.

I sit back and feel for their losses and laugh at their foolishness.

If it was gods word there would be no question about what he means.

hum.... i smell a religious debate coming. Long time no see !

Hmmm now if I remember correctly your stance on drugs was: "If people want to destroy their bodies and minds on drugs, let them".  So why isnt gay marriage a simmilar issue?  I mean if people want to commit "immoral" acts why not let them?  A gay couple getting married isn't hurting anyone, so why care?

GS, reply to my real debate before picking out the only things you can reply to.

That you need to step back and take a look at what you are basing your beliefs on. Do you see god's signature on the bible? I don't care what people believe in (religiously) as-long as it doesn't affect politics.

You may change your mind on that someday when you stand before the Judgement Seat of God and have to answer for your actions.  Then it will be too late.  Just remember that I told you so.[/size]

I can answer to every action I can make and justify it. Until I see proof I don't see why I should listen. And to force your beliefs into politics is wrong.

It's called FAITH.  And when you finally see the proof you seek, it will be too late for you.  For it will be then that God casts you into the Lake of Fire.  It doesn't matter that you don't believe.  Your name will not be in the Lamb's Book of Life and you will therefore be condemned to Hell.

The way I see it, better safe than sorry.[/size]

The what's book? The way I see it God should give me some sign to show that he's up there and that the Bible is what he wants us to follow.

The Lamb's Book of Life.  That is the book that God has in Heaven where he writes down every person who is saved in.  If your name is not found in the book, you will be cast into the Lake of Fire.[/size]


God works by Faith.  He expects you to find the word....he even sends out people to show you (churches, missionaries, etc).  If you don't find the word, especially in an area like North America where it is so readily available, it is your own fault.[/size]

I see that you must speak for god GS. The churches  are not founded by god or the priests picked by god. Proof is all I ask.

Well, my parents are missionaries and my wife's father is a preacher.  I was pretty much raised in church and have been going all my life.  I got saved when I was 12, and although I'm not perfect, I'm also not going to hell.   ;)

All I can tell you is the majesty of the universe is the proof you seek.  Whatever idiot came up with the "big-bang" theory is just that, an idiot.  How can you look at the universe around you and not believe that God exists?[/size]

Very easily especially when we see solar systems forming.

You don't see anything forming.  You take the word of astronomers that that is what is happening.  Nothing is created without the hand of God.  And who's to say that God isn't the one forming the solar system anyway?[/size]

Another thing I always found funny... People will believe an invisible bearded man in the sky controls everything in the universe, but they won't believe in atoms and molecules and such forming? Oh well. I think someday GS will tell us he's been pulling our legs, and he sure did fool us good.  ;) If not, then please do not take offense to that statement, I meant no disrespsect.

Thank you mellow.

No, I'm just saying that you people that think these things just "form" due to laws of nature that YOU defined, are also the people that will not believe that it is God that allows them to do that.[/size]

No GS. We didn't define the laws of nature. They defined themselves, we interpreted them and put them into words.

Sounds to me like a bad interpretation.[/size]

You seem to be the one getting scammed GS.

Not from my point of view.[/size]   ;)

Well, regardless of your religious beliefs, they hold no value in U.S. politics (Or shouldn't, anyhow.). There is a seperation of church and state for a reason. While I don't know if there are any religions that revolve around homosexuality, you can't outlaw homosexual marriage in the United States just because a single religion supposedly dictates that it is immoral. The U.S. has no state religion and therefore cannot be told what to do by the hardcore Christian community.

Good post mellow. Mysterio bids you all good night.

gay people shouldnt have kids and need to go live with people that are not included with the rest of the world. like those people that wear funny clothes and live in middle east america and do not use modern things like cars. and think buttons are evil. what are those people called?

If that was a joke, t'wasn't a good one.

     This country was founded by Deists, not Christians. More specifically, Deists who strongly believed in the separation of church and state. You may be able to bleat that "it was the Lib'rals" on other issues, but not this one. The Founding Fathers knew well what an admixture of church and state led to, and they wanted no part of it. So again, if you're against homosexual marriage (and homosexuals in general), you personally are free to hate them based on the mor?s of a nomadic tribe from millennia ago, but you may not cite those, your personal religious beliefs, as valid reasons why the government of this nation should enact policy.

     I have yet to see a defensible secular reason for discrimination against gays.

[sarcasm] Loth, it's all a part of God's plan. He put them on the earth to be tortured and belittled by His holy people. They're on earth only to be made fun of. Didn't you learn that in Sunday school? [/sarcasm]

[sarcasm] Thats the truth mellow, exactly how it is. [/sarcasm]

Sigh. America was founded WITH a belief in A god. It was not founded on God, or on Christianity, or the Bible. It was a hogpog of the best ideals of all humankind -- some from the Bible, most from elsewhere.

In other words, the founders were men of faith but the institution they founded was not founded on their faith.

AHEM SIXHITS!

hi guys, it's precious roy.  I know I haven't posted in over a year, but I was looking for wraths e-mail and happened upon this thread.

I haven't read your previous comments and I'm a bit drunk.  Moreover, there is some drunk girl who I don't know who has vomited white wine and thai food all over my bed. *sigh*

However, what I'm about to say is worth reading. Maybe.  So listen up, kiddies.

There are two types of arguements against gay marriage a) religious and b) non-religious (for those logicians out there: p V ~p)

I'll cover the second group first.

As i see it, there are two "non-religious" arguments against gay marriage.  there is the biological argument and the "sanctity of marriage",  If there are more, I haven't been exposed to them.

the biological argument:  man and woman are meant for eachother and for marriage, as they are the only ones who can procreate.

refuting this: most mammel species have shown evidence of homosexuality.  Moreover, it looks like man is biologically only supposed to stay with their partner for a few (3-6) years and move on; thus defrauding the idea of marriage as biologically neccessary "to death  do we part"

"the sanctity of marriage" argument: marriage between man and man or woman and woman degrades the sanctity of marriage that man and woman have.

refuting this: marriage is a social construct based on a judeo-christian ideal.  thus the "sanctity of marriage" is in fact the sanctity of judeochristian marriage, and thus collapses to a religious argument.

now, the religious argument: gay marriage goes against the teachings of [insert deity or messiah here]

Anyone who argues the whole "sure there is seperation of church and state, but the founding fathers didn't intend this, really" is right.  However, despite what the founding fathers wanted, the constitution and subsequent ammendments have taken on new meanings.  There are many rights now implied by these ammendments that were never intended.  However, the courts have decreed these implications as law, and so they are law.  You don't like it?  Then do what the founding fathers wouyld have done and lynch a slave, see where that gets you.

What it comes down to is that there is no defensible non-religious anti-gay marriage position, nor is there a leg to stand on in a court of law for the religious anti-gay marriage proponent.

So why are you so uncomfortable with it? Homophobia? maybe.  Fear of the unknown, of the misunderstood?  probably.  If you are uncomfortable with the idea, consult your convictions.  You'll find they either lie in your insecurities or your misplaced moral convictions.  Because honestly, if some man is fucking another man in the ass in the privacy of their home, how does that trample on your rights?  Or if a man kisses another man in public, why does that offend you?  Gay coupling happens regardless of the laws that condone or forbid it.  Let them have the same rights that you hold so dear.


Sorry to get preachy at the end.  Remember: me = drunk.

Love,
Precious Roy

gay people should be given the same rights than straight couples, but their union should not be called marriage. Call it whatever you want, but not marriage.

     Freedom for all, but for some more than others, eh?

Is that the American way Loth?

     Most times, it seems that way.

Indeed.

For whoever it was that said that gay marriage would be "special rights"... IT'S NOT SPECIAL RIGHTS, IT'S EQUAL RIGHTS. Jeez... and it's not like people would be forcing you to hire gays or associate with them, it means merely treat them as equals and not a underclass of moral society.

@Ghost sniper: are you comparing gays to dogs or any kind of animal? Funny logic there. I don't see why we can't draw the line at humans. Equal rights for all men, right?

It seems most arguments against equal marriage rights stem from ignorance, prejudice, and the like... it's a pity. =\

Blufire - my argument was that ALL marriages are "special rights" - special tax benefits, special recognition, etc. The idea was to get rid of BOTH kinds of special rights and allow people to set their marriage contract however they wished.

Yep. And even the religious whackos shouldn't be all uptight about gay marriage. If Jesus were alive he'd be pretty pissed off, I reckon. Jesus Christ's teachings were about tolerance and not judging your fellow man. Not quite sure how it got spun into hating gays and arabs. People who are prejudiced and have the balls to call themselves true Christians make me sick.

Right, but remember there's a contradicting passage in the Old Testament... "if a man lies with another man as he does with a woman, he shall be put to death" Most religious people dismiss that passage, picking and choosing which verses they adhere to. THAT would be something Jesus would get pissed off about.

Why can't we all just get along?

:o   ::)

Cause we have different views.

Damn. Well, time to start the eradication of everybody who has a different view then me. Wait, hasn't that been tried? Oh shit, now i'm arguing with myself.  :P

You are.