Proposition 2

[JSteffen]

Let me put some insight on why gay couples do not have the rights and privilages that straight couples do. My partner gets benefits from the company that I work for. Would you be suprized to know that my eirnings are inflated by more that 400 dolars a month so I can pay extra taxes on the part that my company divies for his benefits. That is just punishment for being gay. Straight couples do not get taxed on their benefits. Dont even get me started on all of the home ownership thing, filing taxes, bank accounts, wills. I had to have myself adopted by a friend so my parents could'nt keep my partner from visiting me in the hospital, and all other sorts of hateful things.

We dont want to infring on your life. We just want to be allowed to live our own, without being punished. Its not your right to pass judgement. Before removing the splinter from someone's eye, remove the plank from yours. If you think its a sin, all sins are equal, make laws against all of them if you are so passionate about this one.

[CEHughes]

Ok, now that's just silly. "Two consenting adults" is the definition I would go with. Keep the current laws intact (no minors, no relatives, etc), and leave it at that. Take off the "man & woman" laws, make it a legal contract instead of a religious statement, let the churches define any blessings/sacraments/etc.

I'd be perfectly happy if we did it like a lot of countries in Europe and have people first get legally married in a JP type setting, then go to the church and have the religious part if they so choose. That way we keep religion 100% out of the legal contract part.

It's not completely silly. The term "consenting adults" can include two 30 year old brothers. Additionally, depending on how the term "adult" is defined, it can be a 13 year old girl. For example, the age of consent in Oklahoma is 13. Plus, why stop at two? Can't you love more than one person. Why not 3 or fifty? They're grown-ups, after all. They can make their own decisions. And plus they're in LOVE!

Mike is not saying that homosexual marriage would equal an incestuous marriage. He is not saying it would equal a pedophilia type relationship. He is saying that the logic used for homosexual marriage could also be applied to changing the marriage laws to include incestuous homosexual unions or pedophilia-type unions.
This logic could open the door to many other types of unions. It would make the term "marriage" meaningless.

However, who says that "two consenting adults" should be the standard? Who died and made that motto king? Why not allow dogs to marry? After all, if they can inherit from crazy aunt Sally they should be able to have community property with all the canines, fence posts and fire-hydrants that they have "relations" with.

[Columbus Civil]

We already have a law prohibiting homosexual marriage.

[RobertB]

So by what you stated A man should be able to marry a 12 year old girl if consent is given by all parties and a brother should be able to marry his sister.

right?

Um, did you like, leave yourself logged into the forum after you left the Internet cafe or something? 'Cause the reasoned, persuasive arguments you made in previous posts are in stark contrast with the fearmongering of a post like this... I just can't believe they're both by the same person. You'd better check your credit cards and eBay account.

[mikedsjr]

We already have a law prohibiting homosexual marriage.

Do you know where that law is found? I like to look at it.

[Columbus Civil]

This is the text of the bill as it was introduced in 2001:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-b...RSION=1&TYPE=B

By Chisum H.B. No. 496
77R1929 KSD-D
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
1-1 AN ACT
1-2 relating to the recognition of a same-sex marriage or civil union.
1-3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
1-4 SECTION 1. Subchapter B, Chapter 1, Family Code, is amended
1-5 by adding Section 1.109 to read as follows:
1-6 Sec. 1.109. RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OR CIVIL UNION.
1-7 (a) In this section, "civil union" means any relationship status
1-8 that grants to the parties of the relationship the same legal
1-9 protections, benefits, and responsibilities as are granted to the
1-10 spouses of a marriage.
1-11 (b) The state may not give effect to a:
1-12 (1) public act, record, or judicial proceeding that
1-13 recognizes or validates a marriage or civil union between persons
1-14 of the same sex; or
1-15 (2) right or claim asserted as a result of the
1-16 purported marriage or civil union.
1-17 SECTION 2. This Act takes effect immediately if it receives
1-18 a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as
1-19 provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution. If this
1-20 Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this
1-21 Act takes effect September 1, 2001.

[CEHughes]

And in case you missed that one, this is the one that has been on the books since 1997:

Texas Family Code § 2.001. MARRIAGE LICENSE.
(a) A man and a woman desiring to enter into a ceremonial marriage must obtain a marriage license from the county clerk of any county of this state.
(b) A license may not be issued for the marriage of persons of the same sex.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 7, § 1, eff. April 17, 1997.

[St-T]

^With all of that why do we need Prop 2?

[Columbus Civil]

Are there any other laws that need triple enforcing in the Constitution?

[CEHughes]

^With all of that why do we need Prop 2?

In case a court found that the above laws violated the Texas Constitution.

[Columbus Civil]

^With all of that why do we need Prop 2?

To put the queers in their place.

[Columbus Civil]

In case a court found that the above laws violated the Texas Constitution.

Which is always a concern with our appointed liberal activists judges

[effulgent]

It's not completely silly. The term "consenting adults" can include two 30 year old brothers. Additionally, depending on how the term "adult" is defined, it can be a 13 year old girl. For example, the age of consent in Oklahoma is 13. Plus, why stop at two? Can't you love more than one person. Why not 3 or fifty? They're grown-ups, after all. They can make their own decisions. And plus they're in LOVE!

Mike is not saying that homosexual marriage would equal an incestuous marriage. He is not saying it would equal a pedophilia type relationship. He is saying that the logic used for homosexual marriage could also be applied to changing the marriage laws to include incestuous homosexual unions or pedophilia-type unions.
This logic could open the door to many other types of unions. It would make the term "marriage" meaningless.

However, who says that "two consenting adults" should be the standard? Who died and made that motto king? Why not allow dogs to marry? After all, if they can inherit from crazy aunt Sally they should be able to have community property with all the canines, fence posts and fire-hydrants that they have "relations" with.

Here's what I said:

Ok, now that's just silly. "Two consenting adults" is the definition I would go with. Keep the current laws intact (no minors, no relatives, etc), and leave it at that. Take off the "man & woman" laws, make it a legal contract instead of a religious statement, let the churches define any blessings/sacraments/etc.

Let's look at that again:

• Two consenting adults, not multiple
• Keep current laws intact (no minors, no relatives, etc) EXCEPT take away the "man & woman" law so that the phrase "two consenting adults" could mean people of the same gender
• Make it a legal contract

This logic does not make it ok for children to get married, or animals to get married, or for brothers/sisters/moms/creepy uncles to get married. It's simply the ability for two people, be it man/woman or two people of the same gender, to be placed under a legal umbrella that is equal to that currently afforded to a man and a woman who enter into the contract of marriage. The law can say nothing about the word "marriage" or that a church has to perform the ceremony, or that people have to have same gender unions. It simply allows two people to have legal protection.

I think that most of the people who support legal rights for gay marriage don't necessarily want the Catholic church to stop considering it a sin or anthing specific towards any Christian religion. They simply want the legal rights afforded to legally married man/woman couples. It's equal rights, equal legal protection. It's as simple as that.

Using the "they'll start marrying donkeys" logic is simply a red herring to draw attention away from the basic issue, which is legal rights for two consenting adults who choose to form a union together.

[ksig121]

Here's what I said:


Let's look at that again:

• Two consenting adults, not multiple
• Keep current laws intact (no minors, no relatives, etc) EXCEPT take away the "man & woman" law so that the phrase "two consenting adults" could mean people of the same gender
• Make it a legal contract

This logic does not make it ok for children to get married, or animals to get married, or for brothers/sisters/moms/creepy uncles to get married. It's simply the ability for two people, be it man/woman or two people of the same gender, to be placed under a legal umbrella that is equal to that currently afforded to a man and a woman who enter into the contract of marriage. The law can say nothing about the word "marriage" or that a church has to perform the ceremony, or that people have to have same gender unions. It simply allows two people to have legal protection.

I think that most of the people who support legal rights for gay marriage don't necessarily want the Catholic church to stop considering it a sin or anthing specific towards any Christian religion. They simply want the legal rights afforded to legally married man/woman couples. It's equal rights, equal legal protection. It's as simple as that.

Using the "they'll start marrying donkeys" logic is simply a red herring to draw attention away from the basic issue, which is legal rights for two consenting adults who choose to form a union together.

^Well said.

[mikedsjr]

I would definitely agree that another law to go with a law on the books already is stupid. This is very similar to the Civil Rights Act amendment of 1991. There were already laws on the book against crimes. But this just added to the laws already on the books. Why not just enforce the law already on the book instead of adding to the laws.

[monogodo]

For example, the age of consent in Oklahoma is 13.

Check your facts before posting.

Every source I've found online lists the age of consent in Oklahoma as 16. And the youngest age of consent I've found on the lists is 14.

[mikedsjr]

Using the "they'll start marrying donkeys" logic is simply a red herring to draw attention away from the basic issue, which is legal rights for two consenting adults who choose to form a union together.

There are red herrings on both sides. And both have been used in this thread. Animals marry vs. Lets make all Bible laws legal then.

Both of these are to draw attention away to the others position.

[RobertB]

(anything)

Check your facts before posting.

You must not have gotten the memo... we don't believe anything CEHughes says, though we will fight to the death* to defend his right to say it.

* (and/or laugh ourselves to death)

[RobertB]

There are red herrings on both sides. And both have been used in this thread. Animals marry vs. Lets make all Bible laws legal then.

Both of these are to draw attention away to the others position.

You're right, but I think that one side's herring tastes better than the other.

Saying that the law will let men marry donkeys (the ladies already have this right, look at my wife) is a red herring that is ridiculous on its face.

Saying that the Bible forbids eating pork and that the next step is anti-bacon legislation is another red herring that is ridiculous on its face.

Saying that the Bible forbids divorce at least as emphatically as it forbids homosexuality is...

... ok, I'm trying for benefit of the doubt, but I'm not finding it. If the basis for Prop 2 is "morality", then why are we only attempting to apply that "morality" to those who are currently unpopular? If it's something to do with the "fabric of society", I'd say that society is more threatened by Britney Spears' 15-minute Vegas wedding than anything that happens between Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche.

[DalLove444]

Thanks, Monogodo for posting this. I've checked them all out, you're absolutly correct about the age of consent in OK. Why do people insist on posting things that they claim as fact, but are baseless??

Im sure that Mike and Hughes wood like 2 see something in Texas law that allows for INCEST if Prop. 2 is defeated!! JEEZ, this makes me ANGRY!!

[CEHughes]

Thanks, Monogodo for posting this. I've checked them all out, you're absolutly correct about the age of consent in OK. Why do people insist on posting things that they claim as fact, but are baseless??

Im sure that Mike and Hughes wood like 2 see something in Texas law that allows for INCEST if Prop. 2 is passed!! JEEZ, this makes me ANGRY!!

What was this Hughes fellow thinking!?! Was he intentionally stupid? Was this subtle parody? Would he let me caress his beard?

These are questions that have plagued man-kind for eons. (An eon is 13 years in the OK! state). These are answers we will never know.

[Columbus Civil]

There goes my weekend trip to Tulsa

[CEHughes]

Why change one law but not the other? Why stop? Why not equal rights for all sexual preferences?

Why is it wrong for two same-sex consenting adult relatives to marry? Answer: It's icky and changes the traditional understanding of family and marriage.

Why is it wrong for two consenting adult non-relatives to marry? Answer: It's icky and changes the traditional understanding of family and marriage.

[CEHughes]

There goes my weekend trip to Tulsa

You and me both. I can't go back until the end of the statute of limitations.

[monogodo]

Why change one law but not the other? Why stop? Why not equal rights for all sexual preferences?

Why is it wrong for two same-sex consenting adult relatives to marry? Answer: It's icky and changes the traditional understanding of family and marriage.

Why is it wrong for two consenting adult non-relatives to marry? Answer: It's icky and changes the traditional understanding of family and marriage.

But same-sex adult relatives already have rights that same-sex non-relatives don't have, i.e. hospital visitation & inheritance. There is no need for a law allowing them to marry.

For the sake of argument, let's say I'm gay, and my wife is male and we're not married. If I should be in a car accident, she can't visit me, but my brothers can. If I should die as the result of that accident, and don't have a will, and my brothers are my only living relatives, they will receive my estate, regardless of what my wishes might have been.

No one questions two siblings living in the same house/apartment as roommates. In fact, everyone assumes they are roommates. In reality, they could be involved in an incestuous relationship. We give them the benefit of the doubt and allow them their privacy. Why can't we do the same for homosexuals?

[mikedsjr]

Im sure that Mike and Hughes wood like 2 see something in Texas law that allows for INCEST if Prop. 2 is defeated!! JEEZ, this makes me ANGRY!!

I wish sometimes I could talk face to face with people when discussing these type issues so that they understand my intent. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence with my statements. It was stated by one person that they believe that government should not define marriage but protect the equal rights. I only was asking the questions to show that you do want government to define marriage and that there is nothing wrong with the government defining marriage.

I realize this is about civil rights. My question demonstrated that you do not want everyone to have civil rights. That's all. Nothing more. I'm not trying to legalize incest. I'm not trying to give brothers and sisters civil rights to incest. Taking more into my comments is trying to decide what I believe instead of letting me tell you what I believe.

[St-T]

Michigan court halts ruling on same-sex benefits



04:59 PM CST on Monday, October 31, 2005



Associated Press



LANSING, Mich. – The Michigan Court of Appeals halted a ruling Monday that allowed governments and public universities to provide health insurance to the partners of gay employees.

The dispute goes back to Michigan voters' approval almost a year ago of a constitutional amendment that made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan sued, and Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk ruled in late September that public-sector employers can offer domestic partner benefits without violating the amendment.

Republican State Attorney General Mike Cox is now appealing the ruling and requested the state.

Cox and conservative groups argue that the constitutional amendment prohibited Kalamazoo and other public employers from providing same-sex benefits in future contracts.

Health benefits were also included in labor contracts negotiated with state employees. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm put the benefits on hold while awaiting the ruling but now is asking the state Civil Service Commission to approve them.

A spokeswoman for the governor said Granholm was disappointed with the stay.

The parties' legal briefs are due in early December.

“It's possible a decision could be reached by the end of the year,” ACLU spokeswoman Wendy Wagenheim said.

The ACLU, representing 21 gay couples who filed the lawsuit over the issue of domestic partner benefits, argued the stay does nothing to prevent the state or Kalamazoo from providing same-sex benefits because same-sex benefits were allowed before Draganchuk's ruling.

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/110105dnnatmichbenefits.15fd3d46.html

[bshiker]

The line could be easily drawn against relatives marrying because close relatives marrying has negative biological implications for the gene pool.

The line could easily be drawn against marrying children because children are not viewed as having the mental maturity to enter into binding controacts.

No such simple and easy lines, other than morality, may be drawn to exclude homosexuals from marrying.

The above is why the marrying your brother, kid, etc is obviously a red herring that does not support intelligent debate.

[RobertB]

The above is why the marrying your brother, kid, etc is obviously a red herring that does not support intelligent debate.

"What he said." - Woody Allen

[CEHughes]

The line could be easily drawn against relatives marrying because close relatives marrying has negative biological implications for the gene pool.

So a purpose of marriage is to make babies? Homosexuals cannot have children -- naturally. Why should they be allowed to get married?

Homosexual incestuous relationships would be similar. They can't have children naturally either. Therefore, there would be no damage to the "gene pool."

P.S. Please send a photo of this "red herring." It sounds delicious!

[CEHughes]

The line could easily be drawn against marrying children because children are not viewed as having the mental maturity to enter into binding controacts.

It is true that over the last 100 years we have not allowed children to enter into these contracts. However, in the 19th century, many people were married before age 18. According to different cultures, adulthood is obtained at different ages. Why must we define adulthood as 18? There are people that are not old enough to get married when they are 78. There are perople that are mature enough to get married at 17. What is magical about the number 18? (Other than it is the perfect amount of beer to get a 78 year-old drunk).

We are talking about changing the laws here. Why are we just stopping at homosexuality? Is it because you have a vested interest in it? Do you have friends, neighbors or yourself as an openly gay? Don't dismiss it as "red herring." These are honest questions worthy of answers.

[CEHughes]

While we are changing the laws, we should analyze the reasons for the prohibitions on marriage.

Why are we stopping at two people? In ancient times, men were allowed to have many wives. More recently, in the sixties, everybody had many "wives." Why can't we go back to the "traditional" form of marriage where each man had 24 wives, 100 concubines, and a host of man-servants? There's no damage to the gene pool. We're all over age 18. Why stop us? Other than your draconian views on "morality."

[St-T]

KKK plans rally for gay marriage ban



Being Austin, a counterdemonstration is planned nearby




07:13 AM CST on Tuesday, November 1, 2005



By ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News



AUSTIN – A Ku Klux Klan group has booked a plaza outside Austin's City Hall to rally in support of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Opponents of the amendment announced Monday that they would hold a vigil several hundred yards away during the Klan's Pro Family Values Rally on Saturday afternoon.

"The Ku Klux Klan is bringing its message of hate to Austin," said gay rights activist Glen Maxey, campaign manager of No Nonsense in November, the main group opposing the amendment. "You cannot ever let it go unchallenged."

Last month, Jessica Edwards, state secretary of the American White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, notified Austin officials that the group intends to hold an anti-gay marriage rally – using banners and flags, but no robes and hoods – near City Hall.

On the Klan group's Web site, Grand Dragon Steven Edwards used an epithet for homosexuals in describing the rally, to be held from 1 to 3 p.m. Saturday. He also mischaracterized Proposition 2, which would prohibit same-sex marriage and bar state and local governments from recognizing a marriage-like status for same-sex couples.

"Texas is having a vote on Nov. 8 to legalize gay and lesbian marriages," Mr. Edwards wrote. "God commands us to fight Satan and his minions, and we shall do this, even if there are only 10 of us there."

Rep. Warren Chisum, the Pampa Republican who wrote the proposed amendment, said its supporters want nothing to do with the Klan.

"They weren't invited by me," he said. "They're not a part of our group."

The anti-Proposition 2 vigil will begin at 1:30 p.m. Saturday on the Drake Bridge over Town Lake, adjacent to the plaza.

"We will speak for ourselves and not engage the Klan in their rhetoric," said Mr. Maxey, a former state representative.

Jeff Lutes of Soulforce Inc., a group that resists "religious and political oppression" of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals, said each vigil participant would be asked to sign a pledge of nonviolence written by civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

The Klan rally is believed to be the group's first appearance in Austin since 1993, when it was greeted by 5,000 counterdemonstrators. About 75 of them conducted a "mass mooning."

"While some daredevils showed their bare behinds, others revealed boxer shorts painted with messages," The Associated Press reported then.

Spokesmen for the city and the Travis County sheriff's office said security would be heightened for this rally but offered no details. Austin allows any organization to use the plaza as long as no competing event has been scheduled and groups agree to respect property and not interfere with city business, said city spokesman Andrew Rivera.

Last week, Gov. Rick Perry reiterated that he supports Proposition 2 and remained philosophical that it's a position shared with the Klan.

"If they don't break any of the laws of the state or the city of Austin ... they have every right to state they are pro or con on a vast array of issues," he said. "That's how it works in America, and the First Amendment is a wonderful thing."

Staff writer Christy Hoppe contributed to this report.



E-mail rtgarrett@dallasnews.com

Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/DN-gaymarriage_01tex.ART.State.Edition2.18080952.html

[Columbus Civil]

[CEHughes]

KKK plans rally for gay marriage ban

The old guilt by association angle.

[CEHughes]

But same-sex adult relatives already have rights that same-sex non-relatives don't have, i.e. hospital visitation & inheritance. There is no need for a law allowing them to marry.

They do not have the benefits of "married filing jointly" status on United States income tax.

Visitation and inheritance rights can be established through private contract. Tax benefits can only be changed by government recognition.

[monogodo]

So a purpose of marriage is to make babies? Homosexuals cannot have children -- naturally. Why should they be allowed to get married?

Homosexual incestuous relationships would be similar. They can't have children naturally either. Therefore, there would be no damage to the "gene pool."

P.S. Please send a photo of this "red herring." It sounds delicious!

If we're banning homosexual marriage on the fact that they can't have children naturally, then we must also ban anyone who is infirtile from marriage. We must also ban firtile, heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children, and use contraceptives to guarantee it doesn't happen.

Some people seem to think that a child must be reared by two heterosexual parents. When they harp on that, it pisses me off, because, for the most part, I was reared by one parent (my parents divorced when I was 5). I turned out to be a mentally stable, productive member of society, as did my brothers. Lance Armstrong was reared solely by his mother, and he went on to achieve greatness. I'm sure I could find many other examples of children of single parents turning out just fine, as well as many examples of children reared by two parents who turned out extremely bad.

It is true that over the last 100 years we have not allowed children to enter into these contracts. However, in the 19th century, many people were married before age 18. According to different cultures, adulthood is obtained at different ages. Why must we define adulthood as 18? There are people that are not old enough to get married when they are 78. There are perople that are mature enough to get married at 17. What is magical about the number 18? (Other than it is the perfect amount of beer to get a 78 year-old drunk).

It's still legal to get married if you're younger than 18 in every US state and the District of Columbia. Most states at least require parental consent, either in person or in writing. Some require a court order. It's still legal, though.

While we are changing the laws, we should analyze the reasons for the prohibitions on marriage.

Why are we stopping at two people? In ancient times, men were allowed to have many wives. More recently, in the sixties, everybody had many "wives." Why can't we go back to the "traditional" form of marriage where each man had 24 wives, 100 concubines, and a host of man-servants? There's no damage to the gene pool. We're all over age 18. Why stop us? Other than your draconian views on "morality."

In ancient times, and even as recently as 140 years ago, slavery was legal. If we're going to base our current laws on ancient, or even old, laws, why do we pick and choose which ones we want? If the old laws are so good, why aren't they all good? That's why our government is set up the way it is: the Founding Fathers understood that they didn't know everything, and that the best form of government is one that is flexible enough to change with the times. This is one of those times.

[CEHughes]

If we're banning homosexual marriage on the fact that they can't have children naturally, then we must also ban anyone who is infirtile from marriage. We must also ban firtile, heterosexual couples who have no intention of having children, and use contraceptives to guarantee it doesn't happen.

I am glad we agree on that monogodo! People should not be prohibited from marriage because they cannot procreate. Homosexual incestuous couples cannot procreate. Therefore, why bar them from marriage?

I also agree that single family households can raise excellent children. But that's not the focus of my contention. I contend that we need to analyze the reasons for our current prohibitions on marriage. We need to look at all the prohibitions. Not just those with the most effective lobbying group. Therefore, I have focused on those groups of people still considered sexually depraved -- as homosexuals were thought of just a few years ago.

Incest and pedophilia are not politically popular groups. But if we are going to have gay marriage for the purpose of "freedom" why are we only bestowing this "freedom" on those who are today's politically popular cause? Why not bestow freedom on those who you also despise? Why are we barring anyone who wants to get married? What ever happened to freedom? Or to borrow some of your arguments, "why do you HATE?"

The religious right finds homosexuality repugnant. Therefore, they are all for the current ban on gay marriage. If you want to be free of hypocrisy, perhaps you should recognize the marriage of individuals that you find sexually repugnant also. After all, if all partners consent to the sexual activity, why is the government still in their bedroom?

Turnabout is not fair play?

It's still legal to get married if you're younger than 18 in every US state and the District of Columbia. Most states at least require parental consent, either in person or in writing. Some require a court order. It's still legal, though.

If we are allowing persons under age 18 to marry, then why not have a similar process for the incestuous non-procreating couples?

In ancient times, and even as recently as 140 years ago, slavery was legal. If we're going to base our current laws on ancient, or even old, laws, why do we pick and choose which ones we want? If the old laws are so good, why aren't they all good? That's why our government is set up the way it is: the Founding Fathers understood that they didn't know everything, and that the best form of government is one that is flexible enough to change with the times. This is one of those times.

In ancient times, men wore burlap sacks and onions tied 'round their belts. I think we should do that too! But this does not answer my question. Why are we limiting marriage to two people? Why can't these benefits be bestowed on all people that are in love. Not just two people who happen to fit your narrow interpretation of "morality."

[RobertB]

In ancient times, men wore burlap sacks and onions tied 'round their belts. I think we should do that too!

Should do? Who doesn't?

[incrediculous]

I find fat people who get married repugnant.

[bshiker]

Starting from my statements above, Hamilton's critiques dont work becuase he is not staying within the broader set of marriage.

The point of marriage is not anything (including kids), it is simply a right to get married adn recive the benefits of such status under law (any other reason seems to rely on morality). When the definition of marriage is changed to include homosexual couples, heterosexual couples will still be viewed as married and still have kids. Therefore, we want instill in the laws of marriage a prohibition that would be necessry to prevent harm to the gene pool. Just because you include another group does not mean you dont need the restrictions that appply to the smaller group. So becuase gays get married or an infertile couple gets married is irrelevant to the point of the prohibition which is to prevent damage to the gene pool in the event a married couple has kids.

As for the age of marriage, you are right that states often allow marriage at younder ages, but society has limited marriage to people at X age based on their ability to be mature enough to marry. That is a line that allowing homo marriages does not cross. I am not advocating that 12 year old homos be allowed to marry either. The point being that there is a societal reason why such things are limited that is based on a non-moral reason (debate can be had on where that line should be), but the fact is that it is not based on morality but based on the concept of consent.

Finally, anyone who throw out the "it used happen 1,000 years ago" line is using the largest red hering of all. Simply becuase something used be a certain way never means that something has to be a certain way.

Using any of the above "slippery slope" type arguments is nothing but a rhetorical gimmick that prevents a discussion of the true merits of any policy decision. People can in fact make judgments adn draw lines. People can decide that there is a line society does not want to cross. Slippery slope arguments result when no one can actually show the harm that can result from a specific change. Here the only harm to this specific change is "moral" adn that is why the promoters must use a slippery slop argument to com eup with non-"moral" reasons. The slippery slope serves merely to confuse and overwhelm an intelligent discussion (this is evidenced by how well the argument has taken us off-track from the question of whether it benefits society to allow gay marriages in this forum).

This is enough for me on the subject. Everyone here has made up there minds. We are all arguing for the sake of argument, not with the goal of resolving a societal concern.

[Lakewooder]

Mr. Hughes decries "guilt by association" with the KKK, then equates incest and pedophilia with gay marriage.

[CEHughes]

Mr. Hughes decries "guilt by association" with the KKK, then equates incest and pedophilia with gay marriage.

You're about as deep as the baby pool.

Of course gay marriage and incest are different. We are discussing prohibitions on marriage. Two of those prohibitions are incest and pedophilia (age). I wish to analyze your reasoning behind these prohibitions.

Apply the same rules (freedom, love, consenting adults) to different scenarios. If those rules apply to these facts, the rules are valid. If those rules do not apply to these facts, the rules are invalid.

[DalLove444]

Why must we define adulthood as 18? There are people that are not old enough to get married when they are 78. There are perople that are mature enough to get married at 17. What is magical about the number 18? (Other than it is the perfect amount of beer to get a 78 year-old drunk).

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that should be ignored at its face. I think by now, Hughes will conjure up ANYTHING to argue against civil rights for gay men like MYSELF!!.

Oh, JEEZ, what wood Hughes & Mike want me 2 do??? GO BACK IN THE CLOSET & NOT ENJOY LIFE??? I suppose if Hughes & mike had their way, they wood want to SHUT DOWN every gay bar & nightclub along cedar springs and tell every gay man/woman to stay home!!

[Columbus Civil]

You don't have to go to a bar to have fun.

[CEHughes]

Starting from my statements above, Hamilton's critiques dont work becuase he is not staying within the broader set of marriage.

The point of marriage is not anything (including kids), it is simply a right to get married adn recive the benefits of such status under law (any other reason seems to rely on morality). When the definition of marriage is changed to include homosexual couples, heterosexual couples will still be viewed as married and still have kids. Therefore, we want instill in the laws of marriage a prohibition that would be necessry to prevent harm to the gene pool. Just because you include another group does not mean you dont need the restrictions that appply to the smaller group. So becuase gays get married or an infertile couple gets married is irrelevant to the point of the prohibition which is to prevent damage to the gene pool in the event a married couple has kids.

As for the age of marriage, you are right that states often allow marriage at younder ages, but society has limited marriage to people at X age based on their ability to be mature enough to marry. That is a line that allowing homo marriages does not cross. I am not advocating that 12 year old homos be allowed to marry either. The point being that there is a societal reason why such things are limited that is based on a non-moral reason (debate can be had on where that line should be), but the fact is that it is not based on morality but based on the concept of consent.

Finally, anyone who throw out the "it used happen 1,000 years ago" line is using the largest red hering of all. Simply becuase something used be a certain way never means that something has to be a certain way.

Using any of the above "slippery slope" type arguments is nothing but a rhetorical gimmick that prevents a discussion of the true merits of any policy decision. People can in fact make judgments adn draw lines. People can decide that there is a line society does not want to cross. Slippery slope arguments result when no one can actually show the harm that can result from a specific change. Here the only harm to this specific change is "moral" adn that is why the promoters must use a slippery slop argument to com eup with non-"moral" reasons. The slippery slope serves merely to confuse and overwhelm an intelligent discussion (this is evidenced by how well the argument has taken us off-track from the question of whether it benefits society to allow gay marriages in this forum).

This is enough for me on the subject. Everyone here has made up there minds. We are all arguing for the sake of argument, not with the goal of resolving a societal concern.

I'm not exactly sure who you are referring to with your post. But I am not arguing that it is a slippery slope. I am not arguing that what ever occured 1000 years ago should occur today. I'm also not aruging for incest or pedophilia to be legal.

In sum, I am not arguing with your conclusion. I'm arguing with your analysis.

[Lakewooder]

Why argue when a personal insult will do...

[DalLove444]

You don't have to go to a bar to have fun.

I agree CC, just trying 2 make a point.

[mikedsjr]

The point of marriage is not anything (including kids), it is simply a right to get married adn recive the benefits of such status under law (any other reason seems to rely on morality).

That makes no sense. What are you trying to say? The point of marriage is simply a right to get married? huh?

This is enough for me on the subject. Everyone here has made up there minds. We are all arguing for the sake of argument, not with the goal of resolving a societal concern.

You are right. I just wish I had a clue how to define marriage that appeased homosexuals. If its not to procreate in a holy rite (simplistically stated), then I guess I have no clue what marriage is either. This is definitely about benefits and not the definition of marriage in my opinion.

[CEHughes]

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that should be ignored at its face. I think by now, Hughes will conjure up ANYTHING to argue against civil rights for gay men like MYSELF!!.

Oh, JEEZ, what wood Hughes & Mike want me 2 do??? GO BACK IN THE CLOSET & NOT ENJOY LIFE??? I suppose if Hughes & mike had their way, they wood want to SHUT DOWN every gay bar & nightclub along cedar springs and tell every gay man/woman to stay home!!

Where have I said that it is wrong to be gay or that gay marriage should not be legalized?

In fact, it is readily apparent that many of you don't read my posts. You have a very superficial view of this topic and make your decisions based on emotion. Show some depth.

I'm arguing with the analysis. Not the conclusion. I'm applying your rules to different sets of facts. If you can apply these rules to different groups of sexual practices, the rules are valid. If these rules do not apply, (1) you're being a hypocrite or (2) the rules are invalid.