Oh puh-lease. Carville's joke was a play on words and didn't belittle homosexuals in any way. A reference to a gay is very different than a dig on gays. I'd think someone with a Ph.D. and their very own published book could make the distinction.

That being said, I fear you are correct about the direction the Dem's might take to try to get votes. I hope to hell they don't abandon their values of tolerance and decency to play into the Republican's rhetoric of intolerance and self righteous morality.

Oh puh-lease. Carville’s joke was a play on words and didn’t belittle homosexuals in any way.

ok than, if that's true than why were Trent Lott's comment at Strom Thurmond's birthday bash considered racist? Because he's a Republican. Why aren't Carville's comments considered anti-Gay? Because he's a Democrat.

Aha!

Dude...you failed to see the "nuance" in Carville's joke.

Tolerance and decency? Which party you talkin' 'bout? The Byrd "I gots me a rope...let's string us up a ......" party?

Carvalles joke was told last Wednesday on Conan O'brien, so its already old to me.

Re 5: You miss the point. Much of what Carville says is stale. But it's not what he said--it's that HE said it. He sits in the upper eschelons of power in the Democratic party.

It wasn't an accident. It was a "tell."

Leaving the Rump-Wrangler question aside for a second, we should note that Bush does have the mandate of the entire country. This is the way the democratic system works. It pisses the democrats off but by winning an election, even by the slightest of margins, the candidate receives "The Mandate!" And Bush has it. He has a 100% mandate, because…he won. Case closed.

I must say, I will never understand why people find the idea of gay marriage so offensive. To say that gay marriage is an erosion of family values is a bunch of malarchy. Domestic violence is an erosion of family values. A divorce rate approaching 50% is an erosion family values. A society that places severe limitations on your ability to discipline your children is eroding family values. A society where personal debt is climbing at an uncontrolled rate is eroding family values. Parents allowing their children to watch extreme graphic violence on television is eroding family values. Children carrying guns into school and blowing away their classmates is eroding family values. Gay marriage is not even close. First of all, when I hear lawmakers testify before state and federal legislatures and say that one reason gay marriage should not be legal is because God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve…, well, I start to see red flags.

We should not be drafting laws based on religious beliefs… and marriage, at it’s very core, is a religious union. Sure, people today can get married before a judge or JP, but it wasn’t always so. Even a marriage before a judge or JP is still bound by the same principles as a marriage before God. Freedom of religion means that nobody should be forcibly bound by the doctrines of any religion, and therefore the argument of Adam and Eve vs. Adam and Steve is baseless. That is of course, unless we pick and choose who benefits from freedom of religion and who doesn’t. Oh, and Atheism is, by definition, a religion. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, “Atheism is the doctrine that there is no deity,” and “Religion is a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith,” and finally, “Doctrine is a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief.”

Therefore, Atheism is, by definition, a religion and, as such, freedom of religion protects a person’s right to deny the existence of God. I honestly believe that in 50 years, people will look back on our treatment of gay rights with the same contempt as we now have for our past treatment of blacks. Give me a better argument than the erosion of family values or biblical references.

Of course, you could argue that the Declaration of Independence explicitly states all men are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” It would thus, stand to reason that if one doesn’t believe in a Creator, then he or she had no Creator to endow them with rights. But alas, that’s pretty narrow minded and I pity the person who thinks that way.

Re 9:

Name a law that isn't based in a moral assumption.

Laws HAVE to be based on moral assumptions.

...and what did all that have to do with the hypocrisy of Carville's comment?

Twist it all you want, but "Freedom OF religion" ONLY means that you can choose to worship any religion you want or NOT...and that the government can't stop you (unless something you do to worship is illegal in other ways of society...sacrifice, for one)...and that CONGRESS will make no law establishing a State religion. You are NOT guaranteed Freedom FROM Religion.

As soon as the State recognized marriage (to promote family values)...it became a civil contract and not a matter of religion.

...and all that from a non-theist....which is NOT a religion.

Seat belt laws? Helmet laws? Based on Public safety.

....and what the frig does THAT have to do with Carville's comment?

I disagree with seatbelt AND helmet laws (I mostly wear the belt and will ALWAYS wear a helmet)....but, evidently, most Americans don't really care about those laws. ...and they have NOTHING to do with Carville and the "joke" he made.

Name a law that isn’t based in a moral assumption.

Laws HAVE to be based on moral assumptions.

Yes Sarge is a dumbass.

Why should anyone care about public safety?

It's a MORAL question, you dope.

Public safety is about morality? This coming from someone who doesnt believe healing the sick is moral?

See? She is both insane and not that bright, not let us ignore her ramblings. Amen.

Of course all laws have to come from some kind of moral assumption... but you cannot argue the validity of a law based on religion. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the argument about Adam and Steve in reference to gay marriage. That is a religious argument. You have to have some factual basis to establish law upon. You can't just say, we're not going to allow it because it offends our own principles. Furthermore, the exact wording of the 1st amendment is that "Congress shall make RESPECTING an establishment of religion." Ask any language professional what that means and they will tell you that it means Congress will make no law FAVORING any religion. "Establishment", as used in the context of the 1st Amendment, literally refers to an "Organization of Religion." Congress shall make no law favoring any religious organization. It does not once say that Congress shall make no law ESTABLISHING a state religion, although that is also implied

Therefore Sarge, and I don't mean this offensively or in support of Liberal views, I believe your interpretation of the 1st Amendment is incorrect. The 1st amendment grants the citizens of the United States freedom from the tethers of any religion unless they so choose to participate willingly. The historic basis of marriage is directly tied to religion. This is fact. Marriage today follows ALL the same principles that the bible dictates. One woman, one man. Adultery is bad, etc. I'm not twisting anything. I’m stating facts. Generally laws are established to prevent harm or inequality to anyone. The banning of gay marriage will not prevent harm to anyone or make anyone more equal. The only thing it will do is make people who disagree with homosexuality feel more comfortable knowing that they were able to impose their own belief structure on somebody else.

I apologize for my typo, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

See now Sarge, you've got me all flustered... One more time..."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" That's better.

Don't "interpret" it to mean what you want it to mean. It's quite simple: "Congress shall make no law..." Congress has made no law respecting ANY religion. Congress has made no law prohibiting the free expression of ANY religion.

Once the State entered into recognizing marriage, it stopped being a religious element of life and became a contract....easily broken/dissolved by 50% of the People.

Dum Yeah, name the "moral assumption" that seatbelt and helmet laws are based on....and I'll show you the insurance companies that paid off the politicians to get those laws enacted against the will of the People (as in Mass.)......all in the name of "public safety."

Ad hominem attacks are useless coming from you.

Care to comment on Carville's "joke" or can you NEVER comment on-topic? This "joke" disappeared from the scene immediately after it was uttered....just imagine if ANY Republican uttered something like this as a "joke"....the whole "It was just a joke" argument wouldn't fly with the MSM.

I'm not interpreting anything... I'm reading the 1st amendment in the context it was written. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." When legislatures argue that gay marriage is immoral and substantiate that claim with "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," then you are in fact arguing in favor of a particular religious establishment.

"Marriage is a vow between a man and a woman and God," said Gary Francoeur, a former Republican state senator from Hudson. "God created the first marriage between Adam and Eve" not "Adam and Steve."

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040218/REPOSITORY/402180347/1031

President Bush says we need to protect the "sanctity of marriage." and that marriage is a "sacred institution."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031003-12.html

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary: Sanctity is "the quality or state of being holy or sacred." Holy is defined as "set apart to the service of God or a god." Sacred is defined as "dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity," and "worthy of religious veneration."

Are we not arguing in favor of marriage as a religious union? Clearly President Bush sees marriage as a religious or "sacred institution."

You're taking the OPINION of Republican politicians as fact...which it certainly is not. When you see a legislature argue something...that's all you're seeing...an argument. When that legislature makes a LAW....THEN I will agree....but the wording of the Constitution is NOT optional. Congress means Congress...and LAW means LAW.

What the POTUS believes is irrelevant anyway...because he is neither Congress and CANNOT make a law...he can only sign a bill...or not.

According to the State recognizing marriage...it's limited to the union between a man and a woman. God has nothing to do with it....as far as the State is concerned....there's no mention of God in a marriage license (contract).

...and it's a horrible hypocricy that the MSM is NOT jumping all over Carville for his insensitive "joke".....but the People are used to it and are getting wise to it as well.

Listen, I voted for Bush so I don't care if Carville sucks shit out of his own ass. The man is a dick for making an assanine joke at the expense of another. As far as Carville hinting at the direction democrats will be taking to get more votes at the expense of the gay population..., well, that's their integrity for ya. There is a quote in Tom Clancy's "Hunt for Red October" that goes something like this, "I'm a politician, and that means when I'm not kissing little babies, I'm stealing their lollipops." You know what though, I can't do a damn thing to change that. But I can express my viewpoint with regards to gay marriage and that goes a lot further toward their cause than sitting and ranting about some dumb democrats off-colored jokes.

"Are we not arguing in favor of marriage as a religious union?"

I am not and never will....and any State legislation that makes a recognition of marriage as a "religious" institution is a violation of 1A...but you will not find such a recognition...EVEN in the voted on bans against gay-marriage...you will not see God or any religion mentioned in the legislation.

People can use it in arguments as THEIR beliefs, but the State cannot put it in their laws on a religious basis.

I know that this is seriously straying from the subject but, at the risk of incurring your wrath, another prime example of the pervasive nature of religion in the legislature is the prohibition of alcohol sales on Sundays. Now I know that this no longer affects every state, and I also know that each State Legislature is not explicitly bound by the 1st amendment with regard to religious freedom. While many states do have their own constitutions that reflect the United States Constitution in this regard, I cannot say whether or not they all do. Having said that, Sunday Laws are clearly a breach of religious freedoms that are largely overlooked because, for most of us who disapprove of them, they are little more than an irritation. I drink beer maybe two or three times a year and I live in a state that does not prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays, so, as I said, it impacts me only in principle. Anyway, I just wanted to throw that out there.

I cannot vouch for the integrity of this website as this if the first time I've ever seen it, but here it is.

http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/397/1/2

Of course Congress, nor any state, will ever pass a law that says, "Gay marriage is banned because religion does not permit it." Still, the predominant reason for most people arguing against gay marriage is religious in nature. Unless legislatures can give a clear reason why gay marriage is harmful to society, then the legislation is either baseless or based on religion, in which case, it's unconstitutional.

"While many states do have their own constitutions that reflect the United States Constitution in this regard, I cannot say whether or not they all do." All State Constitutions are superceded by the US Constitution...and by the 10A...anything not covered in the US Constitution is given to the State to deal with.

...such BLUE laws are hold-over laws that're being changed at the State level...when the People wanted them changed, not because they were violations of 1A...such as Mass. did recently. (I circumvented the law by buying on the nearest military base...or cruising up to New Hampshire).

However, I wouldn't think this is a violation of 1A rights...but would LOVE to see the fool that tried to bring this into a lawsuit against the State (if there even ARE States that prohibit Sunday booze sales any more.

My point is simply this, the President is trying to create legislation banning gay marriage. The President's reason for doing so is based on marriage being a religious union. Regardless of how the legislation is worded, unless there is a clear argument citing gay marriage as harmful to society, the basis for the legislation will be religious in nature. There is NO evidence indicating gay marriage is harmful to society. There is only speculation. Therefore the legislation will be open to challenges to it's Constitutionality. Judges will overturn it, as they should, and people will label those judges as "activist judges," which they aren't.

As you said, the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." This only applies to Congress and not to state legislatures which is why states have gotten away with Sunday laws for so long.

.....and THAT is why this is the greatest country with the greatest Constitution. If an unConstitutional law ever gets through...ONLY the USSC can overturn it. The lower Federal courts weed out the obvious cases...but the difficult ones get appealed to the USSC.

However, the POTUS CANNOT create legislation...it must be legislated in the legislature so that the People can see how their Pols voted...and vote their Pols in or out depending on their vote.

The POTUS only has the power to sign the pre-approved legislature...and if you're talking an Amendment...it'll never happen. He can also poke and prod legislation, but those he pokes can also tell him to frig himself....BUT in the end, it's still Congress doing the legislating.

...somehow the DoMA comes to mind....signed off by WJC, which gives the rights to the States...AND defines marriage as 1man+1woman.

"Congress shall make no law" applies to States as well...the US Constitution supercedes ALL State Constitutions....and States have a Congress as well that legislate State laws...which have to abide by the US Constitution.

States got away with no-booze "Sundays" for so long because the People didn't CARE. They got used to it and nobody challenged it. Plus, the State/City has a right to regulate alcohol sales through licensing...and THEY get to make the rules as they see fit. Which is why Boston bars close at 1am for most...or 2am for SOME...yet the subway stops at 12:30am...kind of like the City of Boston and the MBTA WANT more drunk drivers at closing.

...but the hidden reason why I think the States overturning Sunday booze-sales bans are only doing so because they realize they're losing tax-income to other states.

...the bottom line is usually in the money flow.

Re 19:

Your "language professionals" would be working on a 20th (or 21st) century assumption. At the time of the Founding, "respecting an establishment of religion" would have meant Congress shall not make a law aimed at establishing a federally-favored religion (such as was universally the case in the rest of the world).

Evidently there is some confusion concerning the Federal Marriage Amendment, which some assert President Bush is trying to legislate. First, no judge will be able to overturn it, because if it is successfully made law, it will be an AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION, which is an end-run around the Supreme Court. An Amendment to the Constitution is presumptively constitutional.

Second, the president can support the FMA, but it is passed by the Congress and ratified by the STATES. If the people don't want it (as they didn't want the Equal Rights Amendment), it won't pass the process.

But that's the national conversation gay rights groups want to avoid. They know that if they have to bring it to the people, they will lose.

Well, I'm fortunate that I'm not part of the gay community, because a lot of people certainly don't seem to give a damn about them. This proposed Constitutional amendment is not about protecting the American people..., it's about imposing personal beliefs on a minority group of honest Americans. Everybody knows that the gay community is virtually powerless to stop it. Americans are uncomfortable seeing two men holding hands in public. That's narrow minded in my opinion. 60 years ago, Americans were uncomfortable letting a black woman sit in the front of a bus. This proposed legislation is nothing more than bigotry disquised as morality. Unfortunately Kerry is right. If left in the hands of the general public, the gay rights groups will lose.

"60 years ago, Americans were uncomfortable letting a black woman sit in the front of a bus."

Let's be clear about this. You're talking about primarily American DEMOCRATS.

And let me remind you there is NO right that gays don't have equally with non-gays. NO ONE has the right to marry someone of their own sex--and, by the way, before you even say it, you don't have the automatic right to marry anyone you want to marry. There are any number of obstacles that can be put in the way of marriage.

Wanting something doesn't make it a right.

And re-defining something doesn't change what it IS. If gays want to have relationships, they can call them anything they want. They can call themselves husband and wife, or partners, or apple pies with cheese, but they still won't be MARRIED.

The right that I speak of is not necessarily the right to marry, but rather the right to be unencumbered by the beliefs of another person. As I have already said, this crusade to ban gay marriage is being waged in the name of religion. (see post #25 & #26) Congress will, for a certainty, not draft a law or Constitutional amendment stating as such, but the underlying reason is still about a religious belief that sodomy and homosexuality is wrong. Just because there is a large population of Americans who believe homosexuality is wrong, doesn't make the law or amendment any more just. And for the sake of argument, I can't name one person who was ever denied a marriage license, but since I'm not denying the truth of your statement, I'm willing to bet that there are at least 10,000 licenses granted for every one denied.

I didn't say anyone was denied a marriage license. I said people couldn't get married for a variety of reasons.

Maybe you're a child (and David Koresh is off the market). Maybe the person you want to marry is married already (though I'm sure the courts are working on that one). Maybe the person you want to marry doesn't really want to marry you, and even though you have a nice amenable right reverend tied up in the basement, your lady love just can't be persuaded to drop by for a quick chat and a hanky full of chloroform....

....I don't know. Pick your poison. The point is that if marriage is the union of a man and a woman, both gays and straights have to play by those rules. No one is disadvantaged by it. Gay people are free to marry other gay people, providing their dyad constitutes one (and no more) of each sex.

If they want to ask individual states to recoginize their "civil unions" or "sodomistic partnerships" or "gay groups" or whatever, let them ask.

But let them ask the legislatures, not the social engineers in the judiciary--because the people will just have to go make things clear again if they don't get permission first.

So it all comes down to who decides marriage is a union between a man and a woman and what the basis for their decision is. Give me one source, other than religion or stemming from religious belief, that proves same sex unions are damaging to society. Give me one source, other than religion or stemming from religious belief, that condemns same sex marriages as immoral.

This isnt even about marriage, they even want to block civil unions. It is simple bigotry.

Re 45:

From what source, other than religion, would you accept a pronouncement concerning "morality?"

It's a rather meaningless request.

Morality need not be defined by religion... it could and should be defined, for the purpose of government, as "Will allowing this legislation cause undue harm to society as a whole, or directly affect the lives of individuals negatively." The simple answer is NO. Gay marriage will make some people uncomfortable, but so does a tax increase. And I would be completely appeased if civil unions were a viable option to marriage, granting all the same privileges that comes with marriage.

That's nice. But you said:

"Give me one source, other than religion or stemming from religious belief, that proves same sex unions are damaging to society."

What kind of source would you accept? And, given the relative newness of the concept as an equivalent of marriage, it's going to be difficult to find anything that's not theoretical and therefore no more valid than religion.

..."the right to be unencumbered by the beliefs of another person."

I must've missed that right. Where'd it come from?

You have no right to walk around in Boston with no clothes on.....because the beliefs of OTHER people say it's lewd behavior....AND a crime. That's society pushing its beliefs on you.

I swear I hear a new "right" every day.

Society has a right to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the society. If society wants to recognize that the IDEAL is to have family units of a man a woman and their children...then so be it. It's about promoting the ideal, not punishing what some think is immoral.

...and it certainly isn't a "right".

When can I marry my sister? I love her, I love her daughter as my own....my rights are being violated!!!!!!

"When can I marry my sister? I love her, I love her daughter as my own….my rights are being violated!!!!!!"

Eeeew.

Sarge, you're way off the mark. I have said several things on my soapbox here... morality should be judged, not by religion, but by the affect toward on an individual or a group of individuals. Most states are moving toward making public smoking illegal because of the effect second-hand smoke has on those who choose not to smoke. This is not a decision based on religious morality, but a decision based on morality as I have described it. Secondhand smoke has a proven effect on others. Marrying your sister, while clearly has religious ramifications, also has proven to pose health risks to any children born of such a union. Again, by the standards of morality that I have outlined, this is clearly wrong. Public displays of nudity, such as in downtown Boston, clearly have a disruptive effect on society and therefore morally quetionable by the unbiased standards as I have outlined. I use the word belief generically to mean religious beliefs.

I have several typos in my last posting... Sorry.

"morality should be judged, not by religion, but by the affect toward on an individual or a group of individuals."

Who decides how to judge that effect, and based on what?

"Secondhand smoke has a proven effect on others."

Proven how, when, and by whom?

Your standard of "provable effect," if you will, is no standard at all. You have to have agreed-upon standards for proof, and you have to define harm. Is the harm as defined by the "harmed" person ("Your mean joke about Republicans offended me") or by the "harming" person ("You're just a sissy redneck.") Or do we reduce the penalty based on whether the "harmed" person could have avoided the harming action? Or not?....

....We already have basic moral codes, and everyone knows what they are. (Although apparently CBS does not.)

We are not going to sit around and make lists of all the possible definitions one might conceive of for "marriage" and then outlaw the ones we don't like. (No, you can't marry more than one person. No, you can't marry your sister. No, you can't marry your father. No, you can't marry a dog. No, you can't marry a fish. No, you can't marry a nice Italian dinner. No, you can't marry cement....)

We simply have to define it AS IT IS, as it has ALWAYS been, As God and government have ever been in agreement.

One man. One woman. (And, for the sacramental, One God.)

I can't believe you're questioning the proven effects of secondhand cigarette smoking, but here you go:

http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/healthrisks.html

Furthermore, "harm" would be defined both based on scientific evidence, not theological belief, and by a legislative body weighing the evidence. This is the way most laws are generated today anyway. Does the bible say anything about the affect of emissions in regard to global warming. No. Scientific evidence identifies the negative effects of emissions and a legislative body drafts legislation to attempt to correct the problem. Theology never comes into play. I'm saying, apply the same standards to marriage. Who does gay marriage hurt? Does the good outweigh the bad? We are not doing that! Instead, we apply our BELIEF, our SUPPOSITION, that gay marriage is morally wrong and say, make it illegal.

"Marrying your sister, while clearly has religious ramifications, also has proven to pose health risks to any children born of such a union."

....my whole point exactly. I never said I'd procreate with my sister. The coeffiecient of inbreeding would be too high, let alone, as Kerry points out, the "ewwwwwwwwwwwww" factor.

...but concerning the gay couple...childbirth is IMPOSSIBLE...so it's not a factor in the demand that a State recognize their union.

...and neither is it a factor in MY demand that the State let me marry my sister....with State recognition.

Hell, as far as the State is concerned, sexual relations is irrelevant in a marriage.

...AND my marriage to my sister would have zero harmful effect on society...which seems to be your defining argument.

I would be harming NO one...but ewwwwwwwwwwww!!!

The subject of gay marriage has never been questioned in the United States because the gay community has lived in fear of persecution. It is only in the last few decades that society has begun to accept the gay community. Before that, a person who was openly gay risked losing their job, being shunned, having their life threatened, etc. This is largely due to Christian persecution. History has not always persecuted the gay community though. The Roman Empire actually encouraged homosexual relationships among it's soldiers as did the ancient egyptians.

"The subject of gay marriage has never been questioned in the United States because the gay community has lived in fear of persecution."

Whatever the cause, the point stands. There is no a sufficient historical record to be able to definitively say that there is NOT a harmful effect....

...."History has not always persecuted the gay community though. The Roman Empire actually encouraged homosexual relationships among it’s soldiers as did the ancient egyptians."

And look what happened to them!

Meral degradation is not a good sign in any society. Certainly you can't expect us to accept the Roman emperors as decent role models????

Caligula, Tiberius, Nero, Herod....

Now there's a batch of guys I'd like to see in charge again.

Puh-leeze.

....and what the Romans supposedly did 2000 years ago is irrelevant to what is happening with the gay marriage issue in 21st century America.

...and I still want the State to recognize my marriage to my sister.

No matter how you could try, under your logic...I should be able to or my "rights" are being violated.

For over 200 years, most states have labeled oral sex as both immoral and illegal. Again, based on a Christian structure of beliefs. Oral sex is part of the sexual practice of, and I'm guessing here, more than 50% of Americans. I can cite one instance where a woman was actually penalized (1997), by a judge's own admission, for partaking in oral sex. http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/view/48

This law is based on an antiquated set of religious beliefs, but according to your own way of defining morality, "it has always been that way" and therefore should not change.

"Who does gay marriage hurt?"

Children.

"Does the good outweigh the bad?"

No.

I already said that there are proven health risks to children born of incest. Just because you say you're not going to procreate with your sister doesn't mean you won't. All that aside, Sex with your sister isn't the issue. Were it to become an issue, it would have to be decided based on scientific evidence brought before a legislative body and not by religious morality. I personally disagree with incest, both because of the "ewwwwwww" factor and because inbreeding is dangerous.

Prove it hurts the children! You can't! There is NO factual evidence substantiating that. It's supposition. Any child who's grown up with gay parents will refute your claim. Marriage promotes stability in relationships and reduces promiscuity. Promiscuity is higher among the gay community than the heterosexual community because of a lack of stable relationships. Anyone knows that a unmarried relationship is easier to disolve than a marriage is, both from a commitment standpoint and from a legal standpoint. Again, marriage promotes stability and reduces promiscuity which is BENEFICIAL to society. Ms. Jacoby, I challenge you to prove your claim.

My point was not that we should mimic the Roman Empire, or the Greeks or the Egyptians... my point was that homosexuality has not always been persecuted. You said it has always been this way..., I'm telling you it's only been this way since Christians began persecuting it.

And, much of our government structure is modeled after Roman Government. There are many, many similarities. Sure there were some bad apples, but then, we had Bill Clinton! The Roman Empire was the greatest empire of it's time, bar none.

How does gay marriage hurt children Kerry ? I've seen nothing to indicate that anywhere. On the other hand, the homosexual parents that I have known have been great parents to their kids. The children have been bar-none, well adjusted and good kids. ...I'm sure no demographic bats 1.000 but I've seen better parenting per capita in the gay community than in the Hetero community ..Please back up your statement with some facts.

Oh, John was posting at the same time I was, sorry for the redundancy ...

...except the State's recognition of Homosexual Marriage takes the entire idea of having children out of the institution of marriage. It's limited marriage to a contract that doesn't take sexual relations into account....or LOVE, for that matter. I still intend on marrying my sister....NOT having sex with her...and we can adopt a child and have a happy family....and the harm to society is ZERO. So why can't I?

I want a State recognized marriage contract with my sister...my rights are being violated!!!!

Yeah, and I'd like to carry my shotgun into the Bank of America. I don't want to rob the place. I just want to carry it. Or how about letting me carry my shotgun into a court room? Again, I don't want to hurt anyone. I just want to feel secure by carrying it. It's called "blanket" protection. The government can't guarantee that I won't try to rob the bank or that I won't try to shoot the judge in a courtroom, therefore, for everybody's safety, it's not allowed. Incestual marriage is no different. Nobody can guarantee that you won't have children, therefore "blanket" protection is required. I tell you what, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to have sex with your sister, chop your pecker off and I don't care who you marry. At least it will remove you from the gene pool.

How does gay marriage hurt children?

It sanctions and supports a family structure that deliberately deprives children of the opportunity to have both a mother and a father.

And that, as Dennis Praeger has said, is "morally indefensible."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1135901/posts

Sarge, it’s called “blanket” protection. Personally, I would like to carry my handgun on a plane. Not because I want to harm anybody or hi-jack the plane, but because it would make me feel more comfortable. So why can’t I carry my handgun on the plane? Obviously it’s because there is no guarantee that I won’t try to hi-jack the plane or hurt someone. It is no different than your silly argument about marrying your sister, which is obviously meant as ridicule. You cannot guarantee that marrying your sister won’t lead to procreation. Generally marriage involves sex and generally carrying a weapon on a plane is a bad idea. Thus, “blanket” protection applies to all, regardless of intention. GAY MARRIAGE SIMPLY DOES NO HARM TO ANYONE. It makes some of you squeamish and uncomfortable, but it DOES NO HARM. Call it a CIVIL UNION if you want to protect your views on marriage, but don’t deny the gay community the security that comes with a legalizing the union.

Right now, if one gay partner is hospitalized, the other can be denied visitation because they are not technically family. Right now, if one gay partner is on life support, the other has no legal right to affect their medical care. Gay couples do not receive the benefit of inheritance. They cannot file taxes jointly. They often are unable to cover each other on company plan health insurances. There are so many benefits that gay couples do not have because some people are uncomfortable with the notion of homosexuality. As I have already said, there are also tangible benefits to our Society as a whole by allowing gay marriages or unions. Refer to post # 65. I have heard nobody come up with a viable argument for why gay marriage is detrimental to society that is not religious in nature, but I can prove that it is beneficial. Again, refer to post # 65. So stop throwing silly hypothetical arguments at me about marrying your sister and argue your case based on its merits.

Dude...I'm friggin sterile...she's tuboligated...and we're not having sex....but we wanna get married and who the fuck are YOU to say we can't?

Sex has NOTHING to do with marriage just as LOVE has nothing to do with marriage(as far as State regonition goes). Talking about bringing guns into the public place has nothing to do with what my life-choice is behind my own friggin' closed door. To the State...under the homosexual marriage model, it's ONLY a business contract....sex is not implied nor is love, as far as the state is concerned.

Since I've removed the reason why the State says I cannot marry my sister....I DEMAND that my rights not be violated....for the reason that you keep coming up with is that MY UNION WITH MY SISTER WILL NOT HURT ANYONE (it's physically impossible for us to procreate)....it might make you squeamish and uncomfortable , but it DOES NO HARM.

Re. #72

Then I guess by that logic, former Vice President Dan Quayles ludicrous statement regarding Murphy Brown giving birth to a child out of wedlock has merit.

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0406_Quayles_Murphy_Brown.html

But since I'm asking you to argue your case based on its merit, so shall I. Dennis Prager studied Anthropology and History…, not Psychology or anything related to the rearing of children. Dennis Prager is an Orthodox Jew who is very heavily immersed in religious study and worship. In fact, since 1992 he has been teaching regular religious seminars at the University of Judaism. I’m sure Dennis Prager brings a lot of good into the world, but he doesn’t qualify as a source that is unbiased by religion.

In fact, Pope John Paul II has been more gracious to the gay community than Dennis Prager has by calling for Catholics to show tolerance to the gay community. In contrast, a recent study published by the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry reported that children of lesbian parents are no more likely to suffer from psychological disturbances or problems with their own sexual orientation than are children of heterosexual parents. Other studies with gay fathers have shown that as long as dad is present in his children's life, the children feel loved, and there is consistency in parenting and family routines/rituals (holidays, vacations, visitation etc.), the children adjust just fine.

http://members.aol.com/tjfronczak/featurenov.htm

You presented me with the lay opinion of a deeply religious man and I’ve presented you with scientific evidence based on case studies and published in a nationally recognized scientific journal. SHOW ME THE PROOF!

Sarge, you're being an imbicile. My analogy of carrying a weapon on a plane is exactly the same. Exceptions are not made for anyone because that sort of "blanket" coverage protects everyone and treats everyone equally. It doesn't matter that you say you won't have sex or that you're not physically capable of having sex. What matters is that, in most cases of incestual relationships, the possibility of pregnancy is possible and even likely. Therefore, in the interest of protecting everybody, nobody is permitted to marry their sister. How is that so hard for you to understand?

Sarge, you're a hard headed imbicile who can't see past his own nose!

My analogy of carrying a weapon on a plane is right on. Given that there is a possibility of harm in most cases (maybe not your own example, but most), "blanket" protection protects everyone and offers exceptions to nobody.

...and at this point I will just tell you to take your petty insults and go fuck yourself.

My rights are being denied...just the same as theirs are...well not any more.

Wow, these last few days, (post election) is the first time I've seen you conservatives disagreeing with each other....Now this site is getting INTERESTING ! Woo-Hoo !

"GAY MARRIAGE SIMPLY DOES NO HARM TO ANYONE"

Prove that. Since you are the ones who want to change the status quo, it is incumbent on you to demostrate that there is a SIGNIFICANT ADVANTAGE to having gay marriage over not having it.

And no one has addressed the question of why we should sanction and support an arrangement that DEFINITIONALLY presents a sub-optimal family situation on PURPOSE. (Unless you're just out there in cyberspace somewhere while the post gets around to showing up, in which case, sorry for assuming.)

I think John provided a good argument in post # 77 that says otherwise Kerry. The situation is neither sub optimal or harmful. Having heterosexual parents is no guarantee of having an "Optimal" family situation, especially in light of the 50 % divorce rate in our country ...How could gays screw it up worse that we have ? I believe the fact that they have had to fight this battle so hard would make them value and cherish marriage even more than heteros do, and you'd see a much lower number of "failed" marriages in the gay community since they'd be less likely to take it for granted.

Sarge, I can't explain it any clearer than I already have.

Kerry, I thought that's what I've been doing this whole time. I provided you with a link to scientific case studies that clearly indicate no harm is done to children. But since you are placing the onus of proof on me, here it goes. As I have said, the gay community has a higher rate of promiscuity. This is, in part, because there is no binding commitment in gay relationships, making them easier to dissolve. Marriages are harder to dissolve, both from a commitment standpoint and from a legal one. Marriage promotes stability and reduces promiscuity. Reducing promiscuity means a healthier society and reduces the spread of STDs. Again, marriage promotes stability within the family unit. Gay couples are going to have children whether gay marriage is permitted or not.

By allowing gay marriage and thus providing a more stable family unit, the child benefits from continuity within the unit and continuity of care. So, rather than hurting the child as some would suggest, the child actually benefits from the union. By allowing gay marriage, homosexuality becomes more accepted and people become less afraid to admit their sexual preference. Historically, many gay men and women have tried to live heterosexual lives because of their fear. Ultimately, most of these marriages fail. Often children are caught in the middle and suffer as a result. If you can reduce even some of these attempts at living false heterosexual lives, you effectively reduce the chances of marital failure. You reduce the chances of children suffering as a result of failed marriages.

I’ll give you more reasons why gay marriage benefits society tomorrow Kerry.

You've explained yourself quite clearly....and your opinion is wrong.

Under the guidelines that you've established in your pro-homosexual-marriage rants, there's absolutely zero reason why the State can violate my right to marry my sister. This whoel thing didn't start because of a big-ass lawsuit...it started by ONE couple believing that their rights were violated.

I am part of one couple that believes the same.

Ok, so I have given you some reasons why gay marriage benefits society. Now I’ll offer some evidence. Denmark has legalized gay and lesbian marriages since 1992. The divorce rate among gay marriages in Denmark is 17% compared to the divorce rate of 46% among heterosexual couples. Furthermore, the percentage of people living with HIV is 4 to 6 times greater in the United States than in Denmark. Certainly we can’t directly attribute all of these statistics to the legalization of gay marriage, but it is clear that Denmark is doing something right that we are not.

By some estimates, the homosexual population in America is as high as 10%. The basic belief in the United States is that all men and women are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the estimate of 10% is to be believed, then we are depriving roughly 3 million Americans of at least part of this entitlement. As I said in a previous posting, right now, if one gay partner is hospitalized, the other can be denied visitation because they are not technically family. Right now, if one gay partner is on life support, the other has no legal right to affect their medical care. Gay couples do not receive the benefit of inheritance. They cannot file taxes jointly. They often are unable to cover each other on company plan health insurances. These are certainly hinderances to the pursuit of happiness.

There are some tangible benefits to legalizing gay marriage as well. Right now, many people don’t realize they are HIV positive until they become ill. The federal government would have the option of requiring an HIV screening as part of the licensing for same-sex marriages. Such a requirement would go a long way to impeding the spread of AIDS.

Re 88-90:

It will take s bit of time to type in the demolition of these specious argments, so be patient. But let's start with your choice of Denmark as an example of a positive good. Actually, the separation of marriage from child-rearing in Denmark is DESTROYING marriage.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

I'll get back in a while. I have several other things to do today.

Stanley Kurtz’s article regarding the deteriorating institution of marriage in Scandinavia is interesting. He attempts to tie the legalization of gay marriage with the decline of marriage in Scandinavia. Scandinavian countries have traditionally had weak ties to the Christian religion, having traditional values that can be traced to their Nordic and Inuit ancestry. There are some who believe this is a key factor in the changing attitude toward marriage in Scandinavia. It should be noted that the increase in non-married co-habitation started long before the legitimization of gay marriage. Stanley Kurtz recognizes this in his article. Having said that, Scandinavia is not alone in this movement toward non-traditional family structures.

Most of western society has rapidly shown a trend toward non-married co-habitation. France, a country that does not recognize gay marriage, is considered to be in the same category as Scandinavia with regard to non-traditional family structures. Therefore, evidence suggests that this trend is occurring as a result of social evolution and not as a direct result of gay marriage. Keep in mind that the divorce rate among heterosexuals in Denmark is 46%. Among homosexual, the divorce rate is at a staggering low of 17%. Stanley Kurtz’s assertion that statistics are virtually useless in Scandinavia is misleading. Indeed, absolute statistics are meaningless, but relative statistics are not. Relative statistics allow you to see relative changes rather than raw, absolute data.

A 17% divorce rate means exactly the same thing in Denmark that it means in the United States. For every 100 marriages, 17 end in divorce.

Re 94:

Actually, that's not how they arrive at the "divorce rate." They compare the number of marriages and the number of divorces IN A GIVEN YEAR. They don't follow marriages and see which ones end in divorce. So, really, there is some question as to whether the statistic measures what it is intended to measure.

But, to be fair, there's no other way to do it. The government doesn't have time to follow everyone around to see if they got divorced yet.

Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to. Take divorce. It's true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting married first. -- Stanley Kurtz

Again, it doesn’t matter what the size of the pool of married couples is. Relative statistics and relative divorce rates will be relative to the size of the pool.

"Scandinavian countries have traditionally had weak ties to the Christian religion, having traditional values that can be traced to their Nordic and Inuit ancestry"

I think my husband's Danish ancestors and the population of Minnesota would be a bit irritated to hear you claim that. Have you ever heard of Lutherans? Until 2000, the salaries of Lutheran ministers were paid by the state in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. In those countries, there were other churches, but the Lutheran church was the OFFICIAL STATE church.

But, I guess that would qualify as a "weak" tie to government, given what wimps the Scandinavians are, right?

Sorry, I sent my last posting before I realized you'd already posted another. I'll take some time to consider what you said.

"Therefore, evidence suggests that this trend is occurring as a result of social evolution and not as a direct result of gay marriage."

How do you know the difference between social "evolution" and social "destruction?" I thought social Darwinism went out with eugenics. Does anyone still think like this?

"Most of western society has rapidly shown a trend toward non-married co-habitation. France, a country that does not recognize gay marriage, is considered to be in the same category as Scandinavia with regard to non-traditional family structures. Therefore, evidence suggests that this trend is occurring as a result of social evolution and not as a direct result of gay marriage."

"Therefore?"

How do you get a "therefore" on the evidence that France is like Scandinavia (and who in their right mind wants to be like the French, anyway?)?

We're about to lose this thread, and you've dumped so much specious nonsense into it, I don't have time or space to fix it.

Suffice to say, the purposes of civil marriage are to nurture children, protect women, and civilize men--none of which objectives are achieved by state recognition of same-sex relationships. Without meeting those objectives, the state has no use for marriage....

....Homosexual relationships are fundamentally about individuals, which marraige is not. "Gay marriage" is about rights, which marriage is not. The separation of marriage from parenthood renders marriage nothing more than a convenient living arrangement based on interlocking self-serving interests.

Marriage isn't a contract. It's not a certification of sexual behavior. And it's not a way to acquire government benefits. It's a sacred union between a man and a woman, for the purpose of raising and nurturing children. The state RECOGNIZES marriage, but God makes it happen.

Yes, that's religious, but marriage IS religious. If you want it not to be, then the state has no business in marriage at all.

Then the government is endorsing religious unions while denying the benefits of religious unions to others. How can you call my arguments specious when you can't prove otherwise.

I CAN prove otherwise, but there isn't enough ROOM or TIME to refute all the junk you've laden this argument wtih.

The government long ago determined that it had an interest in supporting these religious unions. Who are you to decide, after more than 200 years, that it should not?

If the government wants to claim an interest in something that is NOT marriage and recogize that, so be it. But it has no right to pervert the institution it claims to support and call THAT "marriage."

"As you said, the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…” This only applies to Congress and not to state legislatures which is why states have gotten away with Sunday laws for so long."

I had to get back to this, because it's just flat-out, Constitutionally wrong. Under the incorporation doctrine, which the Supreme Court began developing in 1925, the Bill of Rights' provisions also apply to THE STATES.

Yes...,I was incorrect, and I apologize. As I understand it, the 14th amendment made states have to follow the same rules that apply to Congress.

You know, everyone in the world will have differences of opinions. Evidence, no matter how clear it seems, will have it's supporters and it's critics..., and most of the time, both will be right to some extent. I don't disagree with most of what you say, but I see more benefit through my own reasoning. That doesn't make you right, nor does it make me right. It's not polite to describe one person's reasoning as "junk." I never described yours as such, although I did jump on Sarge's ability for deductive reasoning some. If you didn't like this little tirade of mine, wait to you hear my opinions on "Abortion: A Woman's Right to Murder" and "Death Row: Killing Innocent People Along with the Guilty."

The government long ago determined that it had an interest in supporting these religious unions. Who are you to decide, after more than 200 years, that it should not?

I'm a citizen of the United States of America, just as you are. I served in United States Navy for 7 years in defense of this nation. I have no less right to voice my opinion than you do.

And who was Abe Lincoln to decide that slavery was wrong after more than 200 years? Huh? With that kind of logic, black people would still be working the plantations.

I am an American!