Maryland Politics - Gansler: Effective immediately Md. recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2010/02/gansler_marylands_high_court_l.html)

It looks like our Attorney General has made the law for us.

I didnt know he had the authority to do this.

what's wrong with the law? It's about time. The old timers who oppose this are the same ones who oppose(d) minorities and integration. Everyone in theis country deserves equal rights. Things change, and sometimes those things make some people uncomfortable- get over it.

I believe that his answer was one of prediction, and not set in stone

I believe that his answer was one of prediction, and not set in stone

Right, it is his interpretation. I know the legislature can over rule him by being more specific, and I'm pretty sure the courts can say he is wrong too.

This is just a formal Attorney General Opinion (http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2010/95oag3.pdf). It in no way, shape or form means that Maryland now recognizes same-sex marriages from other states.

Writing and issuing AG Opinions is one of the functions of the Attorney General's office. A government official (e.g. the Governor, a state legislator) asks it for an opinion on some legal matter, and it researches (if necessary) and writes an opinion in response. In this case, a State Senator asked 'whether Maryland may recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions' and 'whether a Maryland Governor can issue an executive order concerning recognition of such marriages'.

The Attorney General issued a lengthy opinion discussing various aspects of the issue. The short answer to the first question was yes - same-sex marriages may be recognized under state law.

Such marriages may be recognized in several ways. First, legislation enacted by the General Assembly could provide for recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages generally, or for particular purposes. Second, in the absence of legislation, the Court of Appeals, applying common law choice-of-law principles, could decide that such marriages will be recognized in Maryland, either generally or in particular circumstances. Finally, a State agency may also address the recognition of out-of-state marriages on particular matters within that agency’s jurisdiction, so long as the agency’s action is consistent with any relevant statutes and court decisions, including federal laws that may govern the agency’s activities.

Speaking to how the Court of Appeals might rule on the issue:

While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction. In light of Maryland’s developing public policy concerning intimate samesex relationships, the Court would not readily invoke the public policy exception to the usual rule of recognition. You have posed the question in the abstract, but, of course, context matters. For example, to the extent that a particular matter is governed by federal law, the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which limits marriage for federal purposes to opposite-sex couples, would prevent recognition of the marriage for that particular purpose.

And, speaking to the second question:

Finally, with respect to your question concerning the Governor’s authority to issue an executive order, the Governor cannot legislate through an executive order. An executive order of the Governor must be consistent with existing Maryland law, as enacted by the General Assembly and construed by the courts. While the State Constitution and statutes accord the Governor broad powers in certain areas – for example, in matters concerning executive branch employees – many questions concerning recognition of out-of-state marriages arise in the courts and cannot be addressed in an executive order. The action of the New York Governor’s office in 2008 is not entirely analogous. In New York, the Governor’s counsel issued a memorandum to various agencies in that state directing them to comply with a state court decision concerning recognition of out-of-state marriages; there is no similar court decision in Maryland.


A few key points:

(1) The formal opinion offered by the Attorney General was in response to an inquiry (and offering such opinions is part of the AG's job).

(2) The opinion doesn't change state law or control Maryland policy on this issue.

(3) This isn't a suggestion as to what the Attorney General thinks Maryland policy should be, it is a legal analysis of the issue, and considered views regarding it.

(4) There is nothing 'effective immediately' to this - unless you mean, 'effective immediately' you will be able to read this opinion.

what's wrong with the law? It's about time. The old timers who oppose this are the same ones who oppose(d) minorities and integration..

That would be the Democrats. Now they have an agenda of economic slavery

What froglips doesn't understand is that this will bring us one step closer to gay marriages being legal and performed in Md. That will bring us all closer to the wrath of God just as we see happening in California.
Don Dwyer(R) is going to try to have Gaynsler impeached for this "opinion".
Sure froglips; only something for us "old timers" to worry about...:smack:

what's wrong with the law? It's about time. The old timers who oppose this are the same ones who oppose(d) minorities and integration. Everyone in theis country deserves equal rights. Things change, and sometimes those things make some people uncomfortable- get over it.

Yep, everyone deserves equal rights. In 50 years child molesters and sheep fuc*ers will be fighting for "equal rights." Society needs to draw the line somewhere. I can't believe we, as a society, think two gay men should be able to get MARRIED! WTF!!!

what's wrong with the law? It's about time. The old timers who oppose this are the same ones who oppose(d) minorities and integration. Everyone in theis country deserves equal rights. Things change, and sometimes those things make some people uncomfortable- get over it.
I see the problem here.

you look at discriminating against a skin color the same as discriminating against a choice.

You're statement above is not 100% correct. Not all that oppose gay marriage/special rights would have been against equal rights for minorities, and at the same time, not all that support gay marriage/special rights would have supported equal rights for minorities.

The two have nothing to do with each other.

That would be the Democrats. Now they have an agenda of economic slavery

:high5:

This was being discussed on that other radio station while driving in this morning. TB asked a caller "how does this have a negative impact on you personally", and true to form, the caller skirted the issue and never answered the question. Any response he gave was not indicative of an offense against his person.

This was being discussed on that other radio station while driving in this morning. TB asked a caller "how does this have a negative impact on you personally", and true to form, the caller skirted the issue and never answered the question. Any response he gave was not indicative of an offense against his person.

It triviliases any heterosexual relationship when it lowers the meaning of marriage.

Do heterosexuals not have the right to define a marriage as between a man and a woman. It takes away that right.

Why should a definition that has stood for over a thousand years be changed by people who simply want the monetary advantages of marriage .
What right do they have to define what the word marriage means?

We can call plugging in the electric cord on your toaster as a marriage, it involves male and female. We can call hooking up your garden hose a marriage
it requires a male and a female. It doesnt work any other way, you simply cannot connect two male ends or two female ends together and have it work without a lot of Duck tape ,because it isnt a marriage.

They can find another word, to describe their relationship, but it isnt marriage.

It triviliases any heterosexual relationship when it lowers the meaning of marriage.

Heterosexuals have already done that. Bzzt! Try again.

It triviliases any heterosexual relationship when it lowers the meaning of marriage.

Do heterosexuals not have the right to define a marriage as between a man and a woman. It takes away that right.

Why should a definition that has stood for over a thousand years be changed by people who simply want the monetary advantages of marriage .
What right do they have to define what the word marriage means?

We can call plugging in the electric cord on your toaster as a marriage, it involves male and female. We can call hooking up your garden hose a marriage
it requires a male and a female. It doesnt work any other way, you simply cannot connect two male ends or two female ends together and have it work without a lot of Duck tape ,because it isnt a marriage.

They can find another word, to describe their relationship, but it isnt marriage.


Well, lets see...when I worked in hospitality, we "married" the ketchups from two half empty bottles. How does one determine which bottle is male, and which bottle is female?

And your argument still doesn't explain how a same sex marriage personally impacts your life. It simply, in your opinion, makes something trivial.

This is just a formal Attorney General Opinion (http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opinions/2010/95oag3.pdf). It in no way, shape or form means that Maryland now recognizes same-sex marriages from other states.

Writing and issuing AG Opinions is one of the functions of the Attorney General's office. A government official (e.g. the Governor, a state legislator) asks it for an opinion on some legal matter, and it researches (if necessary) and writes an opinion in response. In this case, a State Senator asked 'whether Maryland may recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions' and 'whether a Maryland Governor can issue an executive order concerning recognition of such marriages'.

The Attorney General issued a lengthy opinion discussing various aspects of the issue. The short answer to the first question was yes - same-sex marriages may be recognized under state law.



Speaking to how the Court of Appeals might rule on the issue:



And, speaking to the second question:




A few key points:

(1) The formal opinion offered by the Attorney General was in response to an inquiry (and offering such opinions is part of the AG's job).

(2) The opinion doesn't change state law or control Maryland policy on this issue.

(3) This isn't a suggestion as to what the Attorney General thinks Maryland policy should be, it is a legal analysis of the issue, and considered views regarding it.

(4) There is nothing 'effective immediately' to this - unless you mean, 'effective immediately' you will be able to read this opinion.

So Tilted, I wonder if the AG would also answer in the affirmative if a Senator asked for an opinion on whether Concealed Carry Permits issued in other States had to be honored in Maryland? Especially since this is a Right protected by the Constitution. If McDonald is decided in our favor, would this be a good inquiry to make of the AG and could it possibly be answered in the affirmative? :elaine:

I think if McDonald is affirmed through the P&I clause of Ammendment XIV section 1, the AG would have no choice but to say Maryland would have to recognise all other States CCW permits. :starcat:

This was being discussed on that other radio station while driving in this morning. TB asked a caller "how does this have a negative impact on you personally", and true to form, the caller skirted the issue and never answered the question. Any response he gave was not indicative of an offense against his person.

How does a rape three counties away from you have a negative impact on you personally? Since it clearly doesn't, does that mean rape should be a legal, accepted practice?

Is that really the determination - immediate detrimental effect on me personally?

How does a rape three counties away from you have a negative impact on you personally? Since it clearly doesn't, does that mean rape should be a legal, accepted practice?

Is that really the determination - immediate detrimental effect on me personally?

Rape is against one's will. Homosexuality is consensual.

So Tilted, I wonder if the AG would also answer in the affirmative if a Senator asked for an opinion on whether Concealed Carry Permits issued in other States had to be honored in Maryland? Especially since this is a Right protected by the Constitution. If McDonald is decided in our favor, would this be a good inquiry to make of the AG and could it possibly be answered in the affirmative? :elaine:

I think if McDonald is affirmed through the P&I clause of Ammendment XIV section 1, the AG would have no choice but to say Maryland would have to recognise all other States CCW permits. :starcat:

Good argument :yay:

This seems like a no-brainer to me or does the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US constitution mean nothing?

And your argument still doesn't explain how a same sex marriage personally impacts your life. It simply, in your opinion, makes something trivial.In my opinion, there are a few effects:
Dilutes the meaning of "marriage" by adding new unions it includes
Dilutes the meaning of the union between two same gendered individuals, by calling their relationship something it is not
"Slippery slopes" to adding in consensual, adult incest and polygamy as "marriage", since every argument used in favor of same gendered unions being redefined as "marriage" applies to those unions as well
Will lead, over generations, to a lower societal standard and regard for what marriage is, which leads to worse parenting and more crime. This is evidenced in divorce becoming easy to obtain in the 1960's, lowering the societal regard for marriage, and the result increase in single parent homes, which is a strong contributing factor into most crime statistics and school problems. For the simple minded Nuck (not you, mAlice), this does not equate same gendered unions with divorce, it is used to show another example of how lowering the regard marriage is given effects society at large

Rape is against one's will. Homosexuality is consensual.

How does either one negatively impact you personally, if not performed on you?

In my opinion, there are a few effects:
Dilutes the meaning of "marriage" by adding new unions it includes
Dilutes the meaning of the union between two same gendered individuals, by calling their relationship something it is not
"Slippery slopes" to adding in consensual, adult incest and polygamy as "marriage", since every argument used in favor of same gendered unions being redefined as "marriage" applies to those unions as well
Will lead, over generations, to a lower societal standard and regard for what marriage is, which leads to worse parenting and more crime. This is evidenced in divorce becoming easy to obtain in the 1960's, lowering the societal regard for marriage, and the result increase in single parent homes, which is a strong contributing factor into most crime statistics and school problems. For the simple minded Nuck (not you, mAlice), this does not equate same gendered unions with divorce, it is used to show another example of how lowering the regard marriage is given effects society at large


Still doesn't explain how it impacts you personally. It's still an opinion, not a fact.

Still doesn't explain how it impacts you personally. It's still an opinion, not a fact.
Read the last bullet, that's how it negatively impacts society, in my opinion (I thought it was fully appreciated that we're all just offering opinion here, since there is no definative answer).

But, it is fact that it would dilute the meaning of the word marriage. This is why I, personally, am in favor of civil unions, or some other name being provided. Two men, two women, five people of varying genders.... I don't really care. If they need state recognition of their commitment to one another, and the state regulation and interference and responsibility that comes with that - bully for them. I don't call a motorcycle a semi, so I don't give a motorcyclist a Class A commercial driver's licence (and vice versa). That doesn't mean one cannot drive a motorcycle, one must simply get the license that fits the criteria they bring to the table.

Read the last bullet, that's how it negatively impacts society, in my opinion (I thought it was fully appreciated that we're all just offering opinion here, since there is no definative answer).

But, it is fact that it would dilute the meaning of the word marriage. This is why I, personally, am in favor of civil unions, or some other name being provided. Two men, two women, five people of varying genders.... I don't really care. If they need state recognition of their commitment to one another, and the state regulation and interference and responsibility that comes with that - bully for them. I don't call a motorcycle a semi, so I don't give a motorcyclist a Class A commercial driver's licence (and vice versa). That doesn't mean one cannot drive a motorcycle, one must simply get the license that fits the criteria they bring to the table.

I did read it, and by your own admission, it's still "your opinion".

I don't care one way or another, because it has absolutely no impact on me personally. Until someone can come up with a an argument that shows how it impacts me personally, I'll sit on the fence.

I did read it, and by your own admission, it's still "your opinion".

I don't care one way or another, because it has absolutely no impact on me personally. Until someone can come up with a an argument that shows how it impacts me personally, I'll sit on the fence.

Again, how does someone three counties away being raped negatively impact you personally? Are you on the fence with rape law?

But, it is fact that it would dilute the meaning of the word marriage.

What's your definition of marriage? Would you agree your view wouldn't necessarily be the same as mine - or someone else?

For consideration I will share a Supreme Court decision in Reynolds vs the U.S that ruled on polygamy in the late 1800s during a case against multiple wives based on religious values.

you can search and read the whole thing if your are beyond bored.

before I place the clip in here, I will say this. I'm tired of the fight. If they want to get married and play house for all legal intent/benefits, let them. However, because the state and Federal government recognize such unions as legal binding, does not force me to recognize two men, or two women as a legitimate marriage.

In Reynolds VS the Supreme Ct, it was by the court determined that religious law could not supersede federal law, religion had to comply with the law of the land. To a great extent this was a good finding.
The Supreme Court however did rule on the grounds that allowing polygamy would be changing long standing and accepted practice by civilization as a whole.


<H2>Reynolds V. United States

On 6 January 1879, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court said that the First Amendment did not protect polygamy, and based its decision upon historic American cultural values: Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of


Read more: Reynolds v. United States - Significance, Congress Strengthens The Anti-bigamy Law, The Supreme Court Destroys The Mormons' Hopes (http://law.jrank.org/pages/12602/Reynolds-v-United-States.html#ixzz0gYLaPV3I) http://law.jrank.org/pages/12602/Reynolds-v-United-States.html#ixzz0gYLaPV3I (http://law.jrank.org/pages/12602/Reynolds-v-United-States.html#ixzz0gYLaPV3I)

</H2> As indicated, the ruling was based on the fact that American Cultural Values would be in question should the act be allowed. Cultural Values won out over religious values in this case.

The cultural values argument could be applied the same way concerning gay marriage as it was during the polygamy argument.
If Gay marriage would be accepted as a norm, would that then based on the Cultural Values argument used to restrict polygamy, make it possible to then make polygamy accepted based on the same ruling.

Either way, I don't really care, personally I cant imagine coming home to 5 or 6 honey do lists, but if thats what someone wants, more power to them.

In short, allow gay marriage, and we MUST then accept that all marriages that are in essences no threat to society now become legal.


Change that ruling, Let the all marry and the best of luck to them.

What's your definition of marriage? Would you agree your view wouldn't necessarily be the same as mine - or someone else?

"Marriage", in reference to a relationship status, is one consenting, of age male, with one consenting, of age female, who are not too closely already related in some other fashion.

Yes, I would agree we could have differing views, but one of these views has been held in western society for hundreds if not thousands of years, and any other has not.

"Marriage", in reference to a relationship status, is one consenting, of age male, with one consenting, of age female, who are not too closely already related in some other fashion.

Yes, I would agree we could have differing views, but one of these views has been held in western society for hundreds if not thousands of years, and any other has not.

Thousands of years ago we didn't have computers or cell phones or vehicles. Thousands of years ago women were treated inferior to men. WE have changed through the years. Are you going to adapt or are you going to remain idle? :shrug:

Again, how does someone three counties away being raped negatively impact you personally? Are you on the fence with rape law?

Please refer to my last response to this question.

Again, how does someone three counties away being raped negatively impact you personally? Are you on the fence with rape law?



Dude, come on. This is a poor argument, and it has been from the beginning. Comparing rape to same sex marriage is comparing apples and oranges.



Rape is a crime and it is the active violation of one human being by another, and a heinous attack on their person.

In same-sex marriage there is no violation, and there is no crime. It's two consenting adults who want to enter into a relationship based on affection, sex and companionship.

Nobody is being violated, and no crime is being committed.

I'd say that's a huge goddam difference, and makes your comparison invalid.




So unless gay marriage has a negative impact on those not involved (which it does NOT), then this continued ban on it is nothing more than 'might is right' oppression.

Please refer to my last response to this question.

This_person is a freaking retard. He is actually comparing the rape of an innocent with two consensual adults getting married. WTF!!!

even in analogy it is retarded:yay:

mar·ry 1 (mr)
v. mar·ried, mar·ry·ing, mar·ries
v.tr.
1.
a. To join in marriage: They have been married for 25 years.
b. To take as a spouse: She married him two years ago.
c. To give in marriage.
2. To perform a marriage ceremony for: The rabbi married the couple.
3. To obtain by marriage: marry money.
4. Nautical To join (two ropes) end to end by interweaving their strands.
5. To unite in a close, usually permanent way: "His material marries the domestic and the exotic" (Clifton Fadiman).
v.intr.
*1. To take a husband or wife; wed: They married in their twenties.
2. To combine or blend agreeably: Let the flavors marry overnight.

* Does not null and void the other definitions.

Rape is a crime and it is the active violation of one human being by another, and a heinous attack on their person.


Prior to 1976, marital rape was legal in the US.

Prior to 1976, marital rape was legal in the US.

and according to the bible, many things that are illegal today, once were not only acceptable, but encouraged.

Thousands of years ago we didn't have computers or cell phones or vehicles. Thousands of years ago women were treated inferior to men. WE have changed through the years. Are you going to adapt or are you going to remain idle? :shrug:

I have a cell phone, and a few vehicles. However, I'm not sure how technological advances applies here.

I do not in any way find women inferior to men, simply different.

In terms of adapting to changing family structures, I'm willing to do that. As I said, I'm for civil unions. But, I'm not for changing what a parent is, or a husband or a wife is, or a grandmother or a cousin is, just because we have cars now. There are certain things that remain the same, consistent, throughout all of time.

I do not feel it is proper to deny someone the right to receive state recognition of their commitment to each other, or their group, or whatever. But, I equally feel it improper to call a club a spade - I call spades spades. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that same-gendered unions are inherently different, psychologically, to opposite gendered unions. When society finds a benefit of that different union that is equal to the benefits historically considered from opposite gendered unions, then they should recieve appropriate benefits in return. I've yet to see the study that demonstrates such benefit given to the societies that allow for same-gendered "marriages". Those benefits may exist, or they may not. There is simply no reason to assume they exist at this time, though.

I still say that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (Hetero or Homo). It's not their job. :shrug:

I have a cell phone, and a few vehicles. However, I'm not sure how technological advances applies here.



If you want to compare rape to marriage, I'll surely compare a lady bug to a garage door. Your opinion of marriage means nothing, just as mine doesn't mean anything. :smile:

Please refer to my last response to this question.

You talked about choice vs. non choice. This has nothing to do with whether or not it effects you personally.

If you are not raped, why is it a problem? If the only reason to have an opinion on something is if it effects you personally, why is rape against anyone else a problem for you?

In terms of adapting to changing family structures, I'm willing to do that. As I said, I'm for civil unions.



So basically you want to bandy about semantics, and nothing more.

I have a cell phone, and a few vehicles. However, I'm not sure how technological advances applies here.

I do not in any way find women inferior to men, simply different.

In terms of adapting to changing family structures, I'm willing to do that. As I said, I'm for civil unions. But, I'm not for changing what a parent is, or a husband or a wife is, or a grandmother or a cousin is, just because we have cars now. There are certain things that remain the same, consistent, throughout all of time.

I do not feel it is proper to deny someone the right to receive state recognition of their commitment to each other, or their group, or whatever. But, I equally feel it improper to call a club a spade - I call spades spades. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that same-gendered unions are inherently different, psychologically, to opposite gendered unions. When society finds a benefit of that different union that is equal to the benefits historically considered from opposite gendered unions, then they should recieve appropriate benefits in return. I've yet to see the study that demonstrates such benefit given to the societies that allow for same-gendered "marriages". Those benefits may exist, or they may not. There is simply no reason to assume they exist at this time, though.

Wow! They needed a study for that? Of course they're different. Just like any other individual relationship is different.

Why do I, as part of society, need to benefit from someone else's relationship?

You talked about choice vs. non choice. This has nothing to do with whether or not it effects you personally.

If you are not raped, why is it a problem? If the only reason to have an opinion on something is if it effects you personally, why is rape against anyone else a problem for you?

It's too bad you don't get it. Like someone else said, "apples and oranges".

Let me add, if a homosexual relationship is something that could be forced on me, then I would take issue with it. Rape is something that can be forced on me. Does that help?

I've yet to see the study that demonstrates such benefit given to the societies that allow for same-gendered "marriages".

Why do you need a study regarding something that is consentual between two individuals? :confused:

Dude, come on. This is a poor argument, and it has been from the beginning. Comparing rape to same sex marriage is comparing apples and oranges.



Rape is a crime and it is the active violation of one human being by another, and a heinous attack on their person.

In same-sex marriage there is no violation, and there is no crime. It's two consenting adults who want to enter into a relationship based on affection, sex and companionship.

Nobody is being violated, and no crime is being committed.

I'd say that's a huge goddam difference, and makes your comparison invalid.




So unless gay marriage has a negative impact on those not involved (which it does NOT), then this continued ban on it is nothing more than 'might is right' oppression.I wasn't comparing the acts of rape and same gendered unions. I was saying that the attitude of "it doesn't effect me" is a stupid argument, when speaking of laws.

I know, agree, and accept that there is no comparison to rape and same-gendered unions. But, to say that someone else's actions don't effect me personally, so therefore I have no reason to have an opinion on the law involved is a stupid argument.

* Does not null and void the other definitions.Was that your addition, or was it in there already? :lol:

Was that your addition, or was it in there already? :lol:

Whatta' you think?

I still say that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all (Hetero or Homo). It's not their job. :shrug:They only get involved if specifically requested by the parties involved.

For example, two men, three women, nine people of whatever genders, can all live in the same house, share checking accounts and bills and children, and family holidays, and have a ceremony of their choice saying they're eternally committed to one another and celebrate that day each year. They can call themselves whatever they want. None of this is enforceably illegal. Until they ask the state to recognize it.

If you want to compare rape to marriage, I'll surely compare a lady bug to a garage door. Your opinion of marriage means nothing, just as mine doesn't mean anything. :smile:

Again, I wasn't comparing rape to marriage. I was comparing laws that effect you personally to those that don't, and saying it's okay to have an opinion on both.

I wasn't comparing the acts of rape and same gendered unions. I was saying that the attitude of "it doesn't effect me" is a stupid argument, when speaking of laws.

I know, agree, and accept that there is no comparison to rape and same-gendered unions. But, to say that someone else's actions don't effect me personally, so therefore I have no reason to have an opinion on the law involved is a stupid argument.

again...if a homosexual relationship is something that could be forced on me, then I would take issue with it. Rape is something that can be forced on me.

Again, I wasn't comparing rape to marriage. I was comparing laws that effect you personally to those that don't, and saying it's okay to have an opinion on both.


and again...if a homosexual relationship is something that could be forced on me, then I would take issue with it. Rape is something that can be forced on me.

So basically you want to bandy about semantics, and nothing more.

To me, it's much more than semantics. I use the analogy of semis and motorcycles for a reason - there are many differences in what it takes to obtain and retain these licenses. Differences in what you have to do when you have them. Because, as similar as they are (both just driving vehicles on the road), they are also different, and are treated differently because of the potential impact they have on society at large.

So, no, it's not JUST semantics.

I wasn't comparing the acts of rape and same gendered unions. I was saying that the attitude of "it doesn't effect me" is a stupid argument, when speaking of laws.


I think that it is less of "it doesn't effect ME" and more of, "It doesn't affect anybody outside of an extremely limited group of people".


I know, agree, and accept that there is no comparison to rape and same-gendered unions. But, to say that someone else's actions don't effect me personally, so therefore I have no reason to have an opinion on the law involved is a stupid argument.

Well, I am sure you're entitled to your opinion. The problem is that laws should not be based on opinion. Especially laws which are discriminatory in nature.

Why do I, as part of society, need to benefit from someone else's relationship?You don't. But, if you, as a society, are going to offer benefits based on a relationship status, you should know if there are any benefits to society from that relationship status.

You don't. But, if you, as a society, are going to offer benefits based on a relationship status, you should know if there are any benefits to society from that relationship status.


Okay.

It's too bad you don't get it. Like someone else said, "apples and oranges".

Let me add, if a homosexual relationship is something that could be forced on me, then I would take issue with it. Rape is something that can be forced on me. Does that help?

No, that doesn't help. We're talking about whether a law that does not effect you personally should be something you have an opinion on. I think it's a-okay to have an opinion on something whether it effects you personally or not.

Why do you need a study regarding something that is consentual between two individuals? :confused:

How is the effect on society "between two individuals"? :confused:

No, that doesn't help. We're talking about whether a law that does not effect you personally should be something you have an opinion on. I think it's a-okay to have an opinion on something whether it effects you personally or not.

I can't believe this is still out of your grasp.

Whatta' you think?

As I've read the definition before, I think you put that footnote on yourself.

again...if a homosexual relationship is something that could be forced on me, then I would take issue with it. Rape is something that can be forced on me.

Fair enough. So, since what Bernie Madoff did couldn't be forced upon you, you have no opinion as to whether what he did should be legal or not :yay:

They only get involved if specifically requested by the parties involved.

For example, two men, three women, nine people of whatever genders, can all live in the same house, share checking accounts and bills and children, and family holidays, and have a ceremony of their choice saying they're eternally committed to one another and celebrate that day each year. They can call themselves whatever they want. None of this is enforceably illegal. Until they ask the state to recognize it.

And when a straight couple asks the state to recognize it, the state should say, "not our job." :shrug:

How is the effect on society "between two individuals"? :confused:

Way to avoid a simple question.

You don't. But, if you, as a society, are going to offer benefits based on a relationship status, you should know if there are any benefits to society from that relationship status.

What exactly are the benefits to society in a man/woman marriage?

So Tilted, I wonder if the AG would also answer in the affirmative if a Senator asked for an opinion on whether Concealed Carry Permits issued in other States had to be honored in Maryland? Especially since this is a Right protected by the Constitution. If McDonald is decided in our favor, would this be a good inquiry to make of the AG and could it possibly be answered in the affirmative? :elaine:

I think if McDonald is affirmed through the P&I clause of Ammendment XIV section 1, the AG would have no choice but to say Maryland would have to recognise all other States CCW permits. :starcat:Excellent post! :clap:

I think that it is less of "it doesn't effect ME" and more of, "It doesn't affect anybody outside of an extremely limited group of people".That may be, but that wasn't the point being made, nor defended.

And, as I've stated, I think in the long run it effects a lot more people (ie, society in general) than an extremely limited group of people.Well, I am sure you're entitled to your opinion. The problem is that laws should not be based on opinion. Especially laws which are discriminatory in nature.
I don't think laws should be based on opinion, either. I think there should be a good fact trail, or need, etc., to determine what laws should be passed and not passed. Currently, there is neither a need nor a good fact trail to suggest that same-gendered relationships offer society the perceived benefits of opposite gendered relationships, and therefore there should be no acceptance of this apple as an orange.
The laws are currenlty non-discriminatory. No man, heterosexual, homosexual, nor bisexual, may join in "marriage" to another man. Same for women. No man, hetersosexual, homosexual, nor bisexual, is deprived of entering into "marriage" with a consenting, of age woman with whom he is not currently already too closely related. There is no sexual orientation discrimination involved.

Okay.So, then, you agree that there need be demonstrated benefit to society before society provides benefits to this new category of legally recognized relationship?

I can't believe this is still out of your grasp.

It's not.

And when a straight couple asks the state to recognize it, the state should say, "not our job." :shrug:

I would be much more for that than having other relationships arbitrarily receive similar benefits.

To me, it's much more than semantics.

It sounds to me like semantics.

Becaue a few posts ago, it seemed an awful lot like you were saying that you're in favor of giving civil unions all the same rights and privileges that come with marriage - such as tax incentives and insurance incentives and such.

I use the analogy of semis and motorcycles for a reason - there are many differences in what it takes to obtain and retain these licenses.

Well, you were also using rape as an analogy, so....

Exactly what sort of differences do you believe should be imposed in obtaining and retaining a 'gay union' license as opposed to a marriage license?


Differences in what you have to do when you have them.

Such as?

Because, as similar as they are (both just driving vehicles on the road), they are also different, and are treated differently because of the potential impact they have on society at large.


Thats' the thing...

And what sort of impact is a gay union going to have on society at large? The fact that Lawrence has poo-poo on the tip of his weiner has ABSOLUTELY no impact on society at large.



And I'm not talking about "tradition" and "bazillions of years of wisdom" and all that crap. I'm talking about real tangible unadaptable effects.

The only one I can think of is that no children are produced from gay unions.



And that actually sounds like a benefit to our society, rather than a detriment.



So, no, it's not JUST semantics.

Again, without examples of what differences should be imposed between gay civil unions and bonafide marriages, it still sounds to me like it's just semantics.

Way to avoid a simple question.

The stem of the question was invalid.

So, then, you agree that there need be demonstrated benefit to society before society provides benefits to this new category of legally recognized relationship?

No, I do not agree, and furthermore, I'll no longer discuss this with you. You refuse to accept anyone else's thoughts on the matter, and continue to insist that your "opinion" is the only correct opinion, you make comparisons of things that cannot possibly be compared, and then you change your tactic when you don't get the response that you desire.

What exactly are the benefits to society in a man/woman marriage?Already established, as the state benefits currently are provided. In my opinion, they establish the core of the stability in society. As the status of "marriage" goes, so goes society. The last 40 years should easily demonstrate that presumption (and, yes, it is admittedly a presumption, as no direct link to a societal norm can really be established).

The stem of the question was invalid.

How was it invalid when it was your post that prompted my post for an explanation? Are you saying your comments are just gibberish? They have no benefit? :shrug:

No, I do not agree, and furthermore, I'll no longer discuss this with you. You refuse to accept anyone else's thoughts on the matter, and continue to insist that your "opinion" is the only correct opinion, you make comparisons of things that cannot possibly be compared, and then you change your tactic when you don't get the response that you desire.

You are right about one thing, there is little sense in arguing about this, no one here is going to change their minds.

If it comes up for referendum i will work against it and if my Representative votes for it I will vote against him/her.

Already established, as the state benefits currently are provided. In my opinion, they establish the core of the stability in society. As the status of "marriage" goes, so goes society. The last 40 years should easily demonstrate that presumption (and, yes, it is admittedly a presumption, as no direct link to a societal norm can really be established).

:roflmao:

You are right about one thing, there is little sense in arguing about this, no one here is going to change their minds.

If it comes up for referendum i will work against it and if my Representative votes for it I will vote against him/her.

If there are a lot of people like me, who just don't care one way or the other, then you should be succesful in your endeavors.

So Tilted, I wonder if the AG would also answer in the affirmative if a Senator asked for an opinion on whether Concealed Carry Permits issued in other States had to be honored in Maryland? Especially since this is a Right protected by the Constitution. If McDonald is decided in our favor, would this be a good inquiry to make of the AG and could it possibly be answered in the affirmative? :elaine:

I think if McDonald is affirmed through the P&I clause of Ammendment XIV section 1, the AG would have no choice but to say Maryland would have to recognise all other States CCW permits. :starcat:

Post of the day.


Very good question and one I doubt the Attorney General would have the balls to answer.

It sounds to me like semantics.

Becaue a few posts ago, it seemed an awful lot like you were saying that you're in favor of giving civil unions all the same rights and privileges that come with marriage - such as tax incentives and insurance incentives and such.But, that's not what I said at all. I said there should be a separate category of state recognized relationship, with it's own set of benefits.Well, you were also using rape as an analogy, so....Not to same-gendered unions.Exactly what sort of differences do you believe should be imposed in obtaining and retaining a 'gay union' license as opposed to a marriage license?Well, for one, I would continue to not require a sexual orientation status to obtain a same gendered union license. There's no sexual orientation discrimination in marriage licenses, so why impose one for civil unions? I mean, we all can name celebrities who are/were homosexuals who are/were married, so let's be realistic about sexual discrimination here.

As virtually all of the "benefits" of marriage are also obtainable through other means for two people of the same gender, I would provide those benefits that are attainable through other means (insurance, hospital visits, inheritence, etc.) to this union. When studies come out comparing the stabilizing effect on housing, job markets, tax roles, crime, etc., that currently exist for marriage to civil unions, I would provide the appropriate level of tax incentive to the civil union.Thats' the thing...

And what sort of impact is a gay union going to have on society at large?

And I'm not talking about "tradition" and "bazillions of years of wisdom" and all that crap. I'm talking about real tangible unadaptable effects.

The only one I can think of is that no children are produced from gay unions.



And that actually sounds like a benefit to our society, rather than a detriment.Actually, crime and unemployment and stable housing and welfare use and even health effects can all be directly corrolated with marriage. When the studies come out showing similar effects from civil unions, those same benefits may or may not present themselves.Again, without examples of what differences should be imposed between gay civil unions and bonafide marriages, it still sounds to me like it's just semantics.I hope this helps explain that it is not just semantics.

No, I do not agree, and furthermore, I'll no longer discuss this with you. You refuse to accept anyone else's thoughts on the matter, and continue to insist that your "opinion" is the only correct opinion, you make comparisons of things that cannot possibly be compared, and then you change your tactic when you don't get the response that you desire.Why so angry? I'm just offering my opinion, and repeatedly stressing it is just my opinion. I'm answering questions and refuting or accepting what others say.

I think my opinion is correct the same way you think yours is correct. Except, I can answer the questions about my opinion.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

And your argument still doesn't explain how a same sex marriage personally impacts your life. It simply, in your opinion, makes something trivial.In my opinion, there are a few effects:
Dilutes the meaning of "marriage" by adding new unions it includes
Dilutes the meaning of the union between two same gendered individuals, by calling their relationship something it is not
"Slippery slopes" to adding in consensual, adult incest and polygamy as "marriage", since every argument used in favor of same gendered unions being redefined as "marriage" applies to those unions as well
Will lead, over generations, to a lower societal standard and regard for what marriage is, which leads to worse parenting and more crime. This is evidenced in divorce becoming easy to obtain in the 1960's, lowering the societal regard for marriage, and the result increase in single parent homes, which is a strong contributing factor into most crime statistics and school problems. For the simple minded Nuck (not you, mAlice), this does not equate same gendered unions with divorce, it is used to show another example of how lowering the regard marriage is given effects society at large


Crime in the US peaked in 1991, and has dropped dramatically since then. Over the same period the single parent family rate has doubled.

Your argument tying marriage to crime fails.

How was it invalid when it was your post that prompted my post for an explanation? Are you saying your comments are just gibberish? They have no benefit? :shrug:

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Let's go through this. You quoted me as sayingI've yet to see the study that demonstrates such benefit given to the societies that allow for same-gendered "marriages". To this statement, you posed the question:Why do you need a study regarding something that is consentual between two individuals? :confused:So, I was talking about seeing a study demonstrating the societal effects of same-gendered unions, and you asked why there would need to be a study regarding two individuals.

My statement wasn't about two individuals, it was about the aggregate effects on society of state recognition of mass same-gendered unions.

Thus, your question was invalid, as it twisted my statement into something entirely it was not.

Why so angry?

I was gonna' ask what it is about my post that makes you think I'm angry, but then the statement that you're referring to answers that question.

Thus, your question was invalid, as it twisted my statement into something entirely it was not.


This is something you should be very familiar with.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)



Crime in the US peaked in 1991, and has dropped dramatically since then. Over the same period the single parent family rate has doubled.

Your argument tying marriage to crime fails.The percnetage of criminals from single family homes is still strongly disproportionate to the ratio in society. My argument continues to be valid.

Thus, your question was invalid, as it twisted my statement into something entirely it was not.

If you say so. :yay:

I was gonna' ask what it is about my post that makes you think I'm angry, but then the statement that you're referring to answers that question.

Are you angry? When you can't seem to discuss something, and go point for point, it makes me think you're angry.

This is something you should be very familiar with.I am used to people twisting my words to something they're not to fit their argument, yes.

I am used to people twisting my words to something they're not to fit their argument, yes.

Is there a delusional smiley?

If you say so. :yay:

My statement was about studies on society, your question was about two individuals. How does your question come off of my statement? I'm more than willing to discuss this, if I'm somehow getting you wrong, please help me understand how your question about two individuals fit my statement about societal effects.

Is there a delusional smiley?

Again, I posted my statement, and your question.

How did your question about two individuals fit my statement about societal effects?

I hope this helps explain that it is not just semantics.



No, not really.

It sounds to me like you want to provide exactly the same benefits, but for tax benefits you want to base them on the separate - but equivalent - statistical analysis.

I'm actually more convinced that your argument is a semantic one now.




Anyway, I'll agree to disagree again. We can keep throwing the same arguments at each other, but I'm in the mood to move onto something more light-hearted.

Is there a delusional smiley?

I wonder what that would look like.

No, not really.

It sounds to me like you want to provide exactly the same benefits, but for tax benefits you want to base them on the separate - but equivalent - statistical analysis.

I'm actually more convinced that your argument is a semantic one now.




Anyway, I'll agree to disagree again. We can keep throwing the same arguments at each other, but I'm in the mood to move onto something more light-hearted.No, same statistical analysis.

But, light-hearted it is! :yay:

I wonder what that would look like.

I don't know, but I notice I'm able to answer the questions - like my answers or not - and not everyone else is.

What froglips doesn't understand is that this will bring us one step closer to gay marriages being legal and performed in Md. That will bring us all closer to the wrath of God just as we see happening in California.
Don Dwyer(R) is going to try to have Gaynsler impeached for this "opinion".
Sure froglips; only something for us "old timers" to worry about...:smack:

I don't know who Don Dwyer is, but if this is true, he's either a Tenth Degree Idiot or a completely disingenuous political opportunist. On what possible basis could (or even should) the Attorney General be impeached for this Opinion? He is directed by the Maryland Constitution to give such opinions when such questions are asked of him.

As for the content of the Opinion, there's nothing the least bit unreasonable about it. A legislator asked if Maryland could recognize same-sex marriages from other states. He said, basically, 'well, duh - off course it could - YOU could write law that dictates that it would, a court could rule (under existing common law rules) that it does, or state agencies could make policies about things they have jurisdiction over, so long as those policies are consistent with state and federal laws and court rulings.' He was nice enough not to through in the (would-be appropriate) comment, 'What kind of stupid ass question is this, you know what the answer is - how could it not be 'yes'.'

The Attorney General Opinion also speculated as to what the Maryland Court of Appeals might rule on such a manner - it was being thorough in answering the question. The Opinion discussed the legal issues that the Court might consider, and eventually concludes that it is likely (though not certain) that the Court would recognize a same-sex marriage from another jurisdiction. It was not a suggestion regarding what the Court should do. I'd guess the Opinion is right in this regard - but we obviously won't know until we know.

This Opinion didn't say that Maryland HAD to recognize same-sex marriage. It didn't even suggest that it should. It said that it COULD, and that there are several ways that it might. Frankly, I can't imagine why someone would suggest that the Attorney General did something wrong here - unless, they simply did't care about what he actually did, and wanted to pretend that he did something completely different, in order to create a commotion and score political points.

My statement was about studies on society, your question was about two individuals. How does your question come off of my statement? I'm more than willing to discuss this, if I'm somehow getting you wrong, please help me understand how your question about two individuals fit my statement about societal effects.

I'm not sure why my statement confused you, but I'll try to explain it a littler further.

I've yet to see the study that demonstrates such benefit given to the societies that allow for same-gendered "marriages".

Same sex marriages are not between an individual and society, they are between a man & a man and a woman & a woman. That said, why would you like to see a study on the affects of society when clearly a marriage is between TWO INDIVIDUALS?

Was that better?

This Opinion didn't say that Maryland HAD to recognize same-sex marriage. It didn't even suggest that it should.Am I reading this wrong:Maryland's attorney general said state agencies must immediately begin recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside the state until the legislature or courts say otherwise.

"State agencies in Maryland will recognize out-of-state gay marriages as of right now," Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said at a news conference Wednesday, clarifying a long-awaited opinion he issued on such unions earlier that morning.

"However a heterosexual couple is treated that was validly married in Maryland or elsewhere, [a same-sex couple] will be treated like that here in Maryland, unless and until a court or the legislature decides differently."Link (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Md_-attorney-general-says-_yes_-to-gay-marriage-85219067.html)

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

Is there a delusional smiley?

I wonder what that would look like.

:This_person:

Hmmm. I guess it would like Dilbert.

Once they go through an ugly divorce they won't want another marriage anyway.

I'm not sure why my statement confused you, but I'll try to explain it a littler further.



Same sex marriages are not between an individual and society, they are between a man & a man and a woman & a woman. That said, why would you like to see a study on the affects of society when clearly a marriage is between TWO INDIVIDUALS?

Was that better?Yes, that's better.

Because, the effect on society of marriages can be documented and predicted based on several statistics - and it is those studies that justify the current standing of marriage with regards to benefits provided.

Many studies demonstrate that same-gendered unions are viewed differently by those involved with those unions, plus there is no current analysis that shows how those unions effect society at large, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that we don't know what the effects of society at large would be with state recognition of same-gendered unions, but it is also reasonable to conclude that it is likely to be different than marriage because same-gendered unions are viewed differently than marriages.

See, that's the reason for accepting civil unions - because state recognition of two same-gendered people's commitment to one another is apparently significantly important to some. However, what benefits those unions should be provided should be based on benefit to society. Since most parts of "marriage" are also obtainable in other forms (insurance, inheritance, medical decisions, etc) it is entirely reasonable to offer those benefits to same-gendered civil unions. However, since the societal effects of those unions are not clear, no other benefits would be appropriate until those effects could be shown.

So, in terms of the two individuals, no study needed - give 'em a civil union so they can say the state recognizes them, too! As far as tax benefits, etc., it would be prudent to have a reason to provide those benefits before they're provided.

Once they go through an ugly divorce they won't want another marriage anyway.

Studies have shown upwards of 80% of those involved with same-sex unions do not believe in monogamy as a norm has any value. My guess is, of the approximately 3% of the nation that are homosexual, only about 20% of those (or, about 0.6% of the population) are actually interested in obtaining a same-gendered union due to their sexual orientation.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)



:This_person:

Hmmm. I guess it would like Dilbert.Again, I'm more than willing to debate you on point for point.

But, if your point is that you can't do that, I'll let you continue to make it all on your own.

So Tilted, I wonder if the AG would also answer in the affirmative if a Senator asked for an opinion on whether Concealed Carry Permits issued in other States had to be honored in Maryland? Especially since this is a Right protected by the Constitution. If McDonald is decided in our favor, would this be a good inquiry to make of the AG and could it possibly be answered in the affirmative? :elaine:

I think if McDonald is affirmed through the P&I clause of Ammendment XIV section 1, the AG would have no choice but to say Maryland would have to recognise all other States CCW permits. :starcat:

Just to be clear, this OAG doesn't say that Maryland has to recognize same-sex marriage, it says that it may. I would think that's pretty much a no-brainer conclusion.

If the AG was asked a similar question about honoring CCP's from other states, I suspect the essence of the answer would be the same - yes, of course Maryland can honor CCP's from other states (for instance, the legislature could write a law that says it does).

As for the quite different question - does Maryland have to - I suspect the answer would be, no. I can't think of any provision of federal law, or any court ruling, that requires it to. For various reasons that I've discussed elsewhere, it is unlikely that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would apply.

I also don't think that reviving the PoI Clause would change that answer. That is to say, it wouldn't change what the AG's answer to the question would be. It's hard to know with any precision what it would mean for guns rights if the PoI Clause was revived - it would take many years and numerous court cases to flesh out what specific (gun) rights are protected, and exactly how they are protected. Perhaps, some time down the road, the body of case law on the issue would be clear enough that the question would be answered, yes.

Thanks for giving me another chance to think, for a few minutes, about a world in which the PoI Clause is honored. Alas, I grow more and more resigned to the overwhelming likelihood that it will not be properly honored any time soon.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

I'm not sure why my statement confused you, but I'll try to explain it a littler further.



Same sex marriages are not between an individual and society, they are between a man & a man and a woman & a woman. That said, why would you like to see a study on the affects of society when clearly a marriage is between TWO INDIVIDUALS?

Was that better?Yes, that's better.

Because, the effect on society of marriages can be documented and predicted based on several statistics - and it is those studies that justify the current standing of marriage with regards to benefits provided.

Many studies demonstrate that same-gendered unions are viewed differently by those involved with those unions, plus there is no current analysis that shows how those unions effect society at large, and thus it is reasonable to conclude that we don't know what the effects of society at large would be with state recognition of same-gendered unions, but it is also reasonable to conclude that it is likely to be different than marriage because same-gendered unions are viewed differently than marriages.

See, that's the reason for accepting civil unions - because state recognition of two same-gendered people's commitment to one another is apparently significantly important to some. However, what benefits those unions should be provided should be based on benefit to society. Since most parts of "marriage" are also obtainable in other forms (insurance, inheritance, medical decisions, etc) it is entirely reasonable to offer those benefits to same-gendered civil unions. However, since the societal effects of those unions are not clear, no other benefits would be appropriate until those effects could be shown.

So, in terms of the two individuals, no study needed - give 'em a civil union so they can say the state recognizes them, too! As far as tax benefits, etc., it would be prudent to have a reason to provide those benefits before they're provided.

There was no data on the effects of inter-racial marriage on society before it became possible. Your argument fails again.

Don't be afraid of something just because you don't understand it. Try to find a basis in fact.

Your strategy of tuning your debating skills by sparring with JPC has brought you down to his level. You are just as delusional as he is.

Same sex marriages are not between an individual and society, they are between a man & a man and a woman & a woman. That said, why would you like to see a study on the affects of society when clearly a marriage is between TWO INDIVIDUALS?

Was that better?
Much better, now
what effect on society does someone having 6 or 7 wives have on society as a whole?
What ill effects do you realize by this odd union providing you are not one of the wives.

As for the quite different question - does Maryland have to - I suspect the answer would be, no. I can't think of any provision of federal law, or any court ruling, that requires it to. For various reasons that I've discussed elsewhere, it is unlikely that the Full Faith and Credit Clause would apply.
Well, there is:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." :wink:

But I guess that is really an argument for carry permits in MD and not for recognizing the carry permits from other states.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)



There was no data on the effects of inter-racial marriage on society before it became possible. Your argument fails again.There was no data to suggest that it would be any different, as it was still one male, one female, of age, consenting, and not too closely related. My argument has yet to fail. Skin color and gender are not the same thing - never have been - so I don't know why these things are compared.Don't be afraid of something just because you don't understand it. Try to find a basis in fact.I'm not afraid of it. In fact, I've suggested that we study it where it is currently legal and even suggested that the benefits may be equal. Hell, I'll go out and say the benefits may be superior.

But, that is not in evidence. It's not even suggested.

What has been suggested is that there is some form of sexual orientation discrimination, which I have shown to be false. Outside of that, not much has been suggested in favor, and a lot has been suggested against.

And, the strongest refute come up with so far to the against is, it's delusional. Strong argument, there :rolleyes:Your strategy of tuning your debating skills by sparring with JPC has brought you down to his level. You are just as delusional as he is.See my point?

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)


Same sex marriages are not between an individual and society, they are between a man & a man and a woman & a woman. That said, why would you like to see a study on the affects of society when clearly a marriage is between TWO INDIVIDUALS?

Was that better?
Much better, now
what effect on society does someone having 6 or 7 wives have on society as a whole?
What ill effects do you realize by this odd union providing you are not one of the wives.

What ill effect is there even if she is one of the wives?

Other than involuntary cases, why should polygamy be illegal?

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)



What ill effect is there even if she is one of the wives?

Other than involuntary cases, why should polygamy be illegal?

Why should it be legal?

If it were, what benefits would you apply, if any, and on what basis?

Am I reading this wrong:Maryland's attorney general said state agencies must immediately begin recognizing same-sex marriages performed outside the state until the legislature or courts say otherwise.


"State agencies in Maryland will recognize out-of-state gay marriages as of right now," Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said at a news conference Wednesday, clarifying a long-awaited opinion he issued on such unions earlier that morning.


"However a heterosexual couple is treated that was validly married in Maryland or elsewhere, [a same-sex couple] will be treated like that here in Maryland, unless and until a court or the legislature decides differently."Link (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/Md_-attorney-general-says-_yes_-to-gay-marriage-85219067.html)

Wow - I haven't seen anything about his making those comments. That is something completely separate from the opinion he issued. So, I can't speak to his statements at the press conference - that's something new - I'm gonna try to find a video of it. That article even says:


Gansler's mandate that state agencies begin recognizing same-sex marriage was not included in the 55-page opinion he issued Wednesday morning.

He identified state agencies as one of the three vehicles that could validate the unions -- in addition to the General Assembly, by way of a bill, and the Court of Appeals -- but he did not specify a timeline or requirement.

In fact, he clarified his opinion as a "prediction, not a prescription," within the report.

What froglips doesn't understand is that this will bring us one step closer to gay marriages being legal and performed in Md. That will bring us all closer to the wrath of God just as we see happening in California.
Don Dwyer(R) is going to try to have Gaynsler impeached for this "opinion".
Sure froglips; only something for us "old timers" to worry about...:smack:


Lol- what effect is this going to have on society? It will allow the people who chose their lifestyle to to treated equally. The only thing holding up all of this is the close minded, old thinking conservatives. And someone referred to it's the same as child molesters being treated equally? Really? Is that your arguement? This sounds like the same trash that the "anti-obama" people spit out. I believe this country was founded for equal rights. Everyone is scared of gays. Why? They are just people. Just because YOU don't believe in it, doesnt mean YOUR mindset should be used to "oppress" others. And someone said God would bring his wrath? Did God not also say to treat others the same as you would like to be treated? The benefit of living in this country is that there are SO many choices- we are KNOWN for this! I cant wait for the "baby boomers" to come out of office. The world is changing, and it's time we do the same.

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)

Wirelessly posted (Change we can believe in!: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 7.7) 320x240; VZW; Motorola-Q9c; Windows Mobile 6.0 Standard)



What ill effect is there even if she is one of the wives?

Other than involuntary cases, why should polygamy be illegal?

Why should it be legal?

If it were, what benefits would you apply, if any, and on what basis?

I see your point now. Everything should be illegal unless there is clear data that there is a benefit to society.

I refuse to believe that the Government has any place regulating behavior that does not harm others. Your morality judgements based on your interpretation of a book are no justification for outlawing anything.

Has anyone seen a video link to the Attorney General's press conference? I would very much like to see what he said. Many of the articles that I've found quoting him as saying:


State agencies in Maryland will recognize out-of-state gay marriages as of right now,


have also inaccurately reported what is said in, or what is meant by, the Opinion that was issued.

Lol- what effect is this going to have on society? It will allow the people who chose their lifestyle to to treated equally. The only thing holding up all of this is the close minded, old thinking conservatives. And someone referred to it's the same as child molesters being treated equally? Really? Is that your arguement? This sounds like the same trash that the "anti-obama" people spit out. I believe this country was founded for equal rights. Everyone is scared of gays. Why? They are just people. Just because YOU don't believe in it, doesnt mean YOUR mindset should be used to "oppress" others. And someone said God would bring his wrath? Did God not also say to treat others the same as you would like to be treated? The benefit of living in this country is that there are SO many choices- we are KNOWN for this! I cant wait for the "baby boomers" to come out of office. The world is changing, and it's time we do the same.

You can't simply blame conservatives. There are many Democrats who oppose gay marriage. I'll have to find the polls, but I believe that blacks are overwhelmingly opposed to gay marriage (and they are overwhelmingly Democrat). Maybe you should go after them too.

I see your point now. Everything should be illegal unless there is clear data that there is a benefit to society.

I refuse to believe that the Government has any place regulating behavior that does not harm others. Your morality judgements based on your interpretation of a book are no justification for outlawing anything.

This is why sparring with Jimmy has actually helped me - you're not doing any better than he does :lol:

Where did I suggest everything should be illegal? In fact, if you read back, I said I could care less about polygamy being recognized, if people somehow seem to need state recognition of their relationships. I was merely hoping you would provide a tangible reason to take the time to change the law. I see none, but I also am not opposed to it, as I have stated.

Similarly, I suggested that the government not be involved in regulating behavior. I said there is, rightly, no law against a houseful of people of varying sexual orientation and gender in any type of relationship they choose - the difference being when you ask the government for special treatment based on your relationship. There really needs to be a reason to provide special treatment.

Lastly, where did I inject any moral tone into any of my statements? If you can provide that, feel free to link to my post where I did that. Since I didn't do that, and know I didn't do that, your lack of response will merely demonstrate your bigotry towards opposing ideas to your own.

I did find this (http://mddailyrecord.com/2010/02/24/gansler-weighs-in-on-same-sex-marriage-recognition-in-md/):


But Del. Don H. Dwyer Jr., R-Anne Arundel, called Gansler’s opinion “invalid” and contrary to state law.


Which confirms my assessment of Don Dwyer. How could the Opinion be invalid or contrary to state law? It says that the law could be changed, it says that agencies could do things so long as they are consistent with the law, and it says that the Court of Appeals could use common law (as distinguished from statutory law) rules to find in a certain way. How is pointing those realities out contrary to state law or invalid?

Here's a recent poll from a left-leaning source, frogman:
Post-ABC Poll: Views on gay marriage steady, more back civil unions - Behind the Numbers (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/post-abc_poll_views_on_gay_mar.html)

Democrats - 60% for, 39% against
Independents - 50% for, 48% against
Republicans - 27% for, 69% against

Overall - 47% for, 50% against

Sure, the Republicans are strongly against, but you have to recognize that Democrats and Independents are not strongly for gay marriage. 39% of Democrats are against gay marriage...that's a large percentage.

Here's one that includes lots of breakdown:
Majority Continues to Support Civil Unions: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press (http://people-press.org/report/553/same-sex-marriage)

For consideration I will share a Supreme Court decision in Reynolds vs the U.S that ruled on polygamy in the late 1800s during a case against multiple wives based on religious values.

you can search and read the whole thing if your are beyond bored.

before I place the clip in here, I will say this. I'm tired of the fight. If they want to get married and play house for all legal intent/benefits, let them. However, because the state and Federal government recognize such unions as legal binding, does not force me to recognize two men, or two women as a legitimate marriage.

In Reynolds VS the Supreme Ct, it was by the court determined that religious law could not supersede federal law, religion had to comply with the law of the land. To a great extent this was a good finding.
The Supreme Court however did rule on the grounds that allowing polygamy would be changing long standing and accepted practice by civilization as a whole.


[B]</H2> As indicated, the ruling was based on the fact that American Cultural Values would be in question should the act be allowed. Cultural Values won out over religious values in this case.

The cultural values argument could be applied the same way concerning gay marriage as it was during the polygamy argument.
If Gay marriage would be accepted as a norm, would that then based on the Cultural Values argument used to restrict polygamy, make it possible to then make polygamy accepted based on the same ruling.

Either way, I don't really care, personally I cant imagine coming home to 5 or 6 honey do lists, but if thats what someone wants, more power to them.

In short, allow gay marriage, and we MUST then accept that all marriages that are in essences no threat to society now become legal.


Change that ruling, Let the all marry and the best of luck to them.

Since we comparing disimiliar Supreme Court actions. What was the justification used when the same Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs Virginia?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis

If you can use a Supreme Court action based on Polygamy (which is not in discusion) then I'll pull a similiar (and closer related) argument that was defeated for Interacial Marriages.

Thousands of years ago we didn't have computers or cell phones or vehicles. Thousands of years ago women were treated inferior to men. WE have changed through the years. Are you going to adapt or are you going to remain idle? :shrug:

And he continually ignores that Marriage has been redefined in the past by both Secular Government and Religious Definitions. Marriage is in no means a static definition. He also continues to ignore that other countries do allow Gay Marriage without the cataclysm and apocolypse to society he continues to be fearful of.

:roflmao:

Yeah, he doesnt explain how more marriages will cause a destabilization of Society.

Since we comparing disimiliar Supreme Court actions. What was the justification used when the same Supreme Court ruled in Loving vs Virginia?

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis

If you can use a Supreme Court action based on Polygamy (which is not in discusion) then I'll pull a similiar (and closer related) argument that was defeated for Interacial Marriages.

Marriage is a right of humans. No doubt.

State recognition of marriage is only useful if providing benefits. What are the reasons, the similarities and differences between opposite gendered unions and same gendered unions? Are there any differences that you know of? Please provide the studies that show they are the same, and provide the same societal benefits to warrent the same societal privileges.

And, polygamy (which would change the definition of marriage) would be far closer to an apple in discussion with same-gendered unions, which would also change the definition.

Unless, like MMDad, you believe gender and skin color to be similar in discussion.

And he continually ignores that Marriage has been redefined in the past by both Secular Government and Religious Definitions. Marriage is in no means a static definition. He also continues to ignore that other countries do allow Gay Marriage without the cataclysm and apocolypse to society he continues to be fearful of.

Where did I imply there would be a cataclysm or apocolypse?

I can show you where I said the opposite, but I'd be willing to bet you can't show me what you claim I've said :lmao:

MMDad, if you're looking for delusional, look no further than Nuck.

By the way, where was marriage redefined in western society as other than one man, one woman? When the LDS church tried it, they were denied by law and society in general.

Maryland Politics - Gansler: Effective immediately Md. recognizes same-sex marriages performed elsewhere (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2010/02/gansler_marylands_high_court_l.html)

It looks like our Attorney General has made the law for us.

I didnt know he had the authority to do this.

I hope so. If two people love each other and are of legal age then go for it.

Yeah, he doesnt explain how more marriages will cause a destabilization of Society.

Actually, I did explain (http://forums.somd.com/4200133-post20.html)how diluting the concept of marriage would.

I hope so. If two people love each other and are of legal age then go for it.

Why just two people? Can they be 19 year old brother, and 18 year old sister, and you still feel the same way?

What reasons are there to feel differently about that than about same-gendered relationships, or, what arguments could you use in favor of same-gendered relationships that would not apply to groups, or consenting adult incest?

Why just two people? Can they be 19 year old brother, and 18 year old sister, and you still feel the same way?

What reasons are there to feel differently about that than about same-gendered relationships, or, what arguments could you use in favor of same-gendered relationships that would not apply to groups, or consenting adult incest?

Oh come on, that is not what I meant and you know it.

Why do you care if two men or two women who love each other get married?

Oh come on, that is not what I meant and you know it.

Why do you care if two men or two women who love each other get married?
why do you care if a brother and sister get married

why do you care if a brother and sister get married



Haven't you ever read The Bad Place by Dean Koontz?


It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal.

why do you care if a brother and sister get married

Now see, this is something I don't have a problem with either. Would I venture there? No, but I don't feel like it would be the end of the world if someone else did.

Now see, this is something I don't have a problem with either. Would I venture there? No, but I don't feel like it would be the end of the world if someone else did.

My thoughts, too. :patriot:

This is rediculous. Gay should not be able to get married in Maryland. They should all go to Sanfransisco to get married and stay thier.

Oh come on, that is not what I meant and you know it.

Why do you care if two men or two women who love each other get married?So, you feel it is reasonable to set limits on who can marry one another?

Now see, this is something I don't have a problem with either. Would I venture there? No, but I don't feel like it would be the end of the world if someone else did.

You realize that nothing stops them, provided they don't seek state recognition, right?

I did find this (http://mddailyrecord.com/2010/02/24/gansler-weighs-in-on-same-sex-marriage-recognition-in-md/):



Which confirms my assessment of Don Dwyer. How could the Opinion be invalid or contrary to state law? It says that the law could be changed, it says that agencies could do things so long as they are consistent with the law, and it says that the Court of Appeals could use common law (as distinguished from statutory law) rules to find in a certain way. How is pointing those realities out contrary to state law or invalid?

Unless Dwyer is talking about the AG's oppinion that he supposidly gave in his interview.

This is rediculous. Gay should not be able to get married in Maryland. They should all go to Sanfransisco to get married and stay thier.




There you go ladies and gentlemen.


Case closed.

I realize it's somewhat off the track that this thread has taken, but I'm still trying to find video/audio of the Attorney General's press conference, so as to confirm what he said and the context in which he said it. If someone sees or hears something along those lines, I would appreciate a heads up. Thanks in advance.

What he is reported to have said in the press conference isn't what is said in the Opinion - it is something quite apart from it. I've not been able to find anything about it on the AG's site either (e.g. a press release). So, I'd like to be able to confirm it for myself. I've seen it happen too many times where one source reports something erroneously or misleadingly, and then others pick it up and repeat it over and over - and on this issue specifically (what the Opinion says), I've already read quite a bit of inaccurate and misleading reporting and rhetoric.

I realize it's somewhat off the track that this thread has taken, but I'm still trying to find video/audio of the Attorney General's press conference, so as to confirm what he said and the context in which he said it. If someone sees or hears something along those lines, I would appreciate a heads up. Thanks in advance.

What he is reported to have said in the press conference isn't what is said in the Opinion - it is something quite apart from it. I've not been able to find anything about it on the AG's site either (e.g. a press release). So, I'd like to be able to confirm it for myself. I've seen it happen too many times where one source reports something erroneously or misleadingly, and then others pick it up and repeat it over and over - and on this issue specifically (what the Opinion says), I've already read quite a bit of inaccurate and misleading reporting and rhetoric.Can't find video nor other source.

Saw it on a teaser for a news program last night, but didn't watch the news program, and it's not on their website.

All I can offer are the numerous newspaper articles, that I'm sure you've read.

why do you care if a brother and sister get married

My argument against incest is that more often that not with incestuous relationships there is some underlying abuse. So if there is said abuse, is it true consent?
Like with the overwhleming majority of non related heterosexuals, non related homosexuals would have true consent.

My argument against incest is that more often that not with incestuous relationships there is some underlying abuse. So if there is said abuse, is it true consent?
Like with the overwhleming majority of non related heterosexuals, non related homosexuals would have true consent.


Please share a link to your source.

Can't find video nor other source.

Saw it on a teaser for a news program last night, but didn't watch the news program, and it's not on their website.

All I can offer are the numerous newspaper articles, that I'm sure you've read.

Yeah - same thing here - and I just don't trust media sources enough to assume that they are reporting accurately (especially when I know that they are reporting other things inaccurately at the same time). I'm hoping the AG's site will be updated with something about it. At any rate, I suspect we'll effectively know for certain soon enough - and know precisely what is meant by, and the actual import of, the comments.

I realize it's somewhat off the track that this thread has taken, but I'm still trying to find video/audio of the Attorney General's press conference, so as to confirm what he said and the context in which he said it. If someone sees or hears something along those lines, I would appreciate a heads up. Thanks in advance.

What he is reported to have said in the press conference isn't what is said in the Opinion - it is something quite apart from it. I've not been able to find anything about it on the AG's site either (e.g. a press release). So, I'd like to be able to confirm it for myself. I've seen it happen too many times where one source reports something erroneously or misleadingly, and then others pick it up and repeat it over and over - and on this issue specifically (what the Opinion says), I've already read quite a bit of inaccurate and misleading reporting and rhetoric.

I do find it improbable that the AG would write and oppinion saying one thing and then express the exact opposite thing in a press conference. The only way I can reconcile that is that at his position, he really is just a politician, and that is something THEY do all the time.
So, that being said, which opinion was Dwyer refering to, the written opinion, or the supposidly spoken one given at a press conference?

Please share a link to your source.

Most of what I have read (years ago in psyc classes) is specifically parent/child and sibling incest. I guess once you get past that link in the family I honestly have no idea about abuse rates.
There is not much online but this is what I can find in a quick search:

Sibling
ScienceDirect - Child Abuse &#x26; Neglect : Sibling incest: A study of the dynamics of 25 cases (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-4602Y97-23&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1987&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1222658037&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=43ad7e8329c7fbb24357434173d4b6e5)

Systems Theory and Incest-Sexual Abuse of Children Focus on Families article and Communities - Pat McClendon's Clinical Social Work (http://www.clinicalsocialwork.com/systems.html)

Most of what I have read (years ago in psyc classes) is specifically parent/child and sibling incest. I guess once you get past that link in the family I honestly have no idea about abuse rates.
There is not much online but this is what I can find in a quick search:

Sibling
ScienceDirect - Child Abuse &#x26; Neglect : Sibling incest: A study of the dynamics of 25 cases (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V7N-4602Y97-23&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1987&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1222658037&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=43ad7e8329c7fbb24357434173d4b6e5)

Systems Theory and Incest-Sexual Abuse of Children Focus on Families article and Communities - Pat McClendon's Clinical Social Work (http://www.clinicalsocialwork.com/systems.html)

Lets clarify then, Consenting adults.

But lets get back to an unwilling partner in the Marriage. Guess that kinda belies all the greatness of Marriages in the past, since up until recently, they were typically arranged. Kinda hard to argue they were willing when the marriage was arranged just after you were born (thats for both men and women)

To all the people clutching their pearls and wringing their hands about what effect this will have on society:

"Same-sex couples who identify as married are similar to straight spouses in terms of age and income, and nearly one-third of them are raising children, according to Census data.

Utah and Wyoming were among the states with the highest percentages of gay spouses in 2008, despite being heavily conservative states with no laws providing legal recognition of gay relationships.

The couples had an average age of 52 and household incomes of $91,558, while 31% were raising children. That compares with an average age of 50, household income of $95,075 and 43% raising children for married heterosexual couples."

Report: Gay couples similar to straight spouses in age, income - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-11-02-census-gay-couples_N.htm)

So there you go. Nothing will change, these people just may (or may not) make their relationships "official". They already consider themselves married even if legally they aren't.

Also, the "sanctity of marriage" argument is just not valid in my opinion. If two 18-year olds meet in Vegas and decide to get married 20 minutes later, then they're allowed to, and also allowed to get it annulled a day later. Yet two gay people who have been together 20 years don't get to do this?

Lets clarify then, Consenting adults.

But lets get back to an unwilling partner in the Marriage. Guess that kinda belies all the greatness of Marriages in the past, since up until recently, they were typically arranged. Kinda hard to argue they were willing when the marriage was arranged just after you were born (thats for both men and women)

Actually my argument was in cases of incestuous relationships is it true consent? My answer would be no, even if they are adults more times than not (an overwhelming majority) since if abuse was present at some point it cannot be true consent. Of course everything I studied dealt with closer relationships such as parent/child and brother/sister so after that I cannot honestly say without a doubt that the overwhelming majority of other types of cases further down the family lines dealt with some type of abuse.
I was just stating this as to why , IMO, you cannot compare the legalization of homosexual marriages to incestuous marriages.

Utah and Wyoming were among the states with the highest percentages of gay spouses in 2008, despite being heavily conservative states with no laws providing legal recognition of gay relationships.

So there you go. Nothing will change, these people just may (or may not) make their relationships "official". They already consider themselves married even if legally they aren't. Thank you for making my point that changing the law is entirely unnecessary, and that people may live however they choose - unless they seek governmental recognition of their committment to one another.

Clearly, there is no need to change the laws, as it would change nothing.


However, it would still be appropriate to provide civil union ease to gain the legal niceties of a committed relationship. This would also aid in studying the societal effects.

I do find it improbable that the AG would write and oppinion saying one thing and then express the exact opposite thing in a press conference. The only way I can reconcile that is that at his position, he really is just a politician, and that is something THEY do all the time.
So, that being said, which opinion was Dwyer refering to, the written opinion, or the supposidly spoken one given at a press conference?

Given the context of the articles I read, I think Dwyer was talking about the formal Opinion of the Attorney General.

And I want to be clear about what I'm saying - I wouldn't say that the quote attributed to the Attorney General represents the opposite of what is said in the formal opinion, but it is something quite separate from it - it wouldn't naturally and necessarily follow from what is said in the Opinion. Most of the Opinion is analysis of what the Court might find, and various factors and considerations that go into that. It clearly says that state agencies COULD make policy that recognizes same sex marriages from other jurisdictions, so long as those policies are legally within their power and consistent with state law. Yeah, I know, no duh, eh? But that assessment is different than him coming out and saying, 'oh, yeah, by the way - state agencies have to recognize gay marriage now.'

The Opinion doesn't conflict with his having said that later, but it also doesn't mean what he said later - there is quite a disconnect there. I find it curious, and that's why I'm so interested in getting to the bottom of what is really going on.

Thank you for making my point that changing the law is entirely unnecessary, and that people may live however they choose - unless they seek governmental recognition of their committment to one another.

Clearly, there is no need to change the laws, as it would change nothing.


However, it would still be appropriate to provide civil union ease to gain the legal niceties of a committed relationship. This would also aid in studying the societal effects.

Nice try, but no. These stats just show that committed gay couples are no different from committed straight couples, and the country won't explode if they're allowed to legally marry. Just because they have similar income levels and are basically comparable to straight couples does not mean that they have the same RIGHTS as the straight marrieds.

According to the GAO, there are over 1,000 rights that marriage affords, including making medical decisions for a partner, getting Social Security survivor benefits, etc. The list, naturally, goes on and on.

So if you're saying you're in favor of extending these 1,000 rights to gay couples, then you're basically saying they should be able to get married. Is it really the word "marriage" that stops you from going all the way on this? They would legally get all of the exact same rights, but because they're gay you don't want to call it "marriage"?

. Is it really the word "marriage" that stops you from going all the way on this? They would legally get all of the exact same rights, but because they're gay you don't want to call it "marriage"?
I think we are starting to understand each other at long last.

I dont care what "rights" or benifits they get from their,, union?

Just dont call it marriage and expect everyone to agree to the point of embracing it and acting as if its the same.

I think we are starting to understand each other at long last.

I dont care what "rights" or benifits they get from their,, union?

Just dont call it marriage and expect everyone to agree to the point of embracing it and acting as if its the same.

I don't expect everyone to embrace it, just like I wouldn't expect strangers to embrace my marriage. Frankly that doesn't matter one bit. I don't care about the relationships of others, and I don't understand why anyone else would.

If you want to join a church that doesn't recognize gay marriage, that's your right. Wouldn't that solve this problem for you? Join a church that considers gay marriage illegal and wrong. That way you can have your exclusive club in the end. Not being at all facetious here - but wouldn't it?

Nice try, but no. These stats just show that committed gay couples are no different from committed straight couples, and the country won't explode if they're allowed to legally marry. Just because they have similar income levels and are basically comparable to straight couples does not mean that they have the same RIGHTS as the straight marrieds.

According to the GAO, there are over 1,000 rights that marriage affords, including making medical decisions for a partner, getting Social Security survivor benefits, etc. The list, naturally, goes on and on.

So if you're saying you're in favor of extending these 1,000 rights to gay couples, then you're basically saying they should be able to get married. Is it really the word "marriage" that stops you from going all the way on this? They would legally get all of the exact same rights, but because they're gay you don't want to call it "marriage"?Well, what you've shown is that it's not necessary. People are living their lives without government recognition just fine, from medical decisions to raising children.

However, every single "right" - because it's a right - of being married is available through other means, with the exception of the federal tax benefits. So, once again, yes, I'm suggesting that if people really need to have state recognition of their commitment to one another, the state should comply. I'm in favor of civil unions that offer these niceties in a single package vice having to do the work yourself.

As for tax benefits, I've repeatedly said that I've yet to see the studies that suggest what you're suggesting - that there is a societal gain similar to that of marriage. Perhaps the studies will prove to say just that, if not more. We won't know, of course, until those studies are done on the generations that follow where same-gendered unions have been legalized.

But, the last thing is that you believe this has some sexual orientation bent to it. Homosexuals are married right now. Heterosexuals of the same gender live together right now. Those heterosexuals may not marry one another any more than the homosexuals may marry someone of the same gender. Those heterosexuals may marry somoene of the opposite gender who meets the rest of the criteria just like those homosexuals (like Robert Reed, Rock Hudson, etc) have. So, I fully believe that gay people can marry. Not a problem with that.

But, single gendered unions are not, by definition, marriage. So, yes, I oppose to calling an apple an orange.

I don't expect everyone to embrace it, just like I wouldn't expect strangers to embrace my marriage. Frankly that doesn't matter one bit. I don't care about the relationships of others, and I don't understand why anyone else would.

If you want to join a church that doesn't recognize gay marriage, that's your right. Wouldn't that solve this problem for you? Join a church that considers gay marriage illegal and wrong. That way you can have your exclusive club in the end. Not being at all facetious here - but wouldn't it?

Similarly, wouldn't living together in your own world of marriage be the same?

Well, what you've shown is that it's not necessary. People are living their lives without government recognition just fine, from medical decisions to raising children.

However, every single "right" - because it's a right - of being married is available through other means, with the exception of the federal tax benefits. So, once again, yes, I'm suggesting that if people really need to have state recognition of their commitment to one another, the state should comply. I'm in favor of civil unions that offer these niceties in a single package vice having to do the work yourself.

As for tax benefits, I've repeatedly said that I've yet to see the studies that suggest what you're suggesting - that there is a societal gain similar to that of marriage. Perhaps the studies will prove to say just that, if not more. We won't know, of course, until those studies are done on the generations that follow where same-gendered unions have been legalized.

But, the last thing is that you believe this has some sexual orientation bent to it. Homosexuals are married right now. Heterosexuals of the same gender live together right now. Those heterosexuals may not marry one another any more than the homosexuals may marry someone of the same gender. Those heterosexuals may marry somoene of the opposite gender who meets the rest of the criteria just like those homosexuals (like Robert Reed, Rock Hudson, etc) have. So, I fully believe that gay people can marry. Not a problem with that.

But, single gendered unions are not, by definition, marriage. So, yes, I oppose to calling an apple an orange.

Eh, no...I've shown that the stats show that gay people who CONSIDER themselves married even though legally they aren't are demographically about the same as straight people who are LEGALLY married. This doesn't mean that there's no need for letting them legally marry, it just means that these gay couples are pretty much similar to straight couples in income, etc.

Why make things more complicated by having some kind of "separate but equal" system of marriage? Don't you think that having to differentiate between gay unions and straight marriage is kind of silly and a waste of time?

And again, people don't need to prove their worth to you before a law is passed. Gay couples don't need to show you studies proving that gay marriage will somehow improve society before they get that legal right.

By the way, the two examples you used of Rock Hudson and Robert Reed...look what happened to them because they had to hide their identities and couldn't live openly. I would hardly hold them up as some kind of example of how gay men are allowed to marry women.

Any response to my previous comment about just how easy it is for straight people to get married? Two kids who have known each other 5 minutes can get married...doesn't this kind of negate the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument? And what's the divorce rate these days, again? It just doesn't hold water.

To fix the separate but equal argument-- what about changing the way legal marriage is done? To be recognized by the state you get a civil union license, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. After you have that you are "married" in the eyes of the government. All civil unions are performed by a government official.
If you choose you can have your union blessed by a church-- that is 100% up to the couple and their church and they can call it any darn thing they please.

To fix the separate but equal argument-- what about changing the way legal marriage is done? To be recognized by the state you get a civil union license, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. After you have that you are "married" in the eyes of the government. All civil unions are performed by a government official.
If you choose you can have your union blessed by a church-- that is 100% up to the couple and their church and they can call it any darn thing they please.

That makes sense - that way non-religious and gay people can just do the civil union thing, and religious people can do that and also have a church-sanctioned marriage. Win/win? The last 3 weddings I've been to have not been in a church, so I don't think it's such a huge concern for most people these days anyway.

Why make things more complicated by having some kind of "separate but equal" system of marriage? Don't you think that having to differentiate between gay unions and straight marriage is kind of silly and a waste of time?As silly as having to differentiate between a licence to drive a motorcycle and drive a semi.

They're two different things, not separate but equal. They're similar, but different.And again, people don't need to prove their worth to you before a law is passed. Gay couples don't need to show you studies proving that gay marriage will somehow improve society before they get that legal right. I agree. All the legal rights associated with marriage are there for the taking by same-gendered couples, bar none. The only difference is that it's harder (more paperwork) to obtain, and the tax benefits. But, tax benefits aren't "rights", they're benefits, based upon a perceived gain to society. This is why we tax GoodWill differently than Target. Or a soup kitchen differently than Olive Garden.

As silly as having to differentiate between a licence to drive a motorcycle and drive a semi.

They're two different things, not separate but equal. They're similar, but different.I agree. All the legal rights associated with marriage are there for the taking by same-gendered couples, bar none. The only difference is that it's harder (more paperwork) to obtain, and the tax benefits. But, tax benefits aren't "rights", they're benefits, based upon a perceived gain to society. This is why we tax GoodWill differently than Target. Or a soup kitchen differently than Olive Garden.

You love the analogies, don't you?

To fix the separate but equal argument-- what about changing the way legal marriage is done? To be recognized by the state you get a civil union license, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual. After you have that you are "married" in the eyes of the government. All civil unions are performed by a government official.
If you choose you can have your union blessed by a church-- that is 100% up to the couple and their church and they can call it any darn thing they please.

That makes far too much sense for anyone to actually agree too.

:lalala:

You love the analogies, don't you?

Easier to understand that way.

Easier to understand that way.

I don't think comparing marriage to motorcycle licensing makes anything easier to understand.

I don't think comparing marriage to motorcycle licensing makes anything easier to understand.

See, driving is a big picture. Riding a motorcyle is driving, and driving a semi is driving. They are very similar from a distance, but up close they are very, very, very different. And, now stay with me, two people marrying of opposite gender have a union. Two people getting together of the same gender have a union. They are similar from a distance, but up close they are very, very, very different. Each of these things are governed by state laws.

Does that make it clearer?

I don't expect everyone to embrace it, just like I wouldn't expect strangers to embrace my marriage. Frankly that doesn't matter one bit. I don't care about the relationships of others, and I don't understand why anyone else would.

If you want to join a church that doesn't recognize gay marriage, that's your right. Wouldn't that solve this problem for you? Join a church that considers gay marriage illegal and wrong. That way you can have your exclusive club in the end. Not being at all facetious here - but wouldn't it?
All good, however we have seen this already not to be the case.
An example would be the lesbians that sued the Catholic run Fertility clinic in California? ( I would have to search to find it again) because the clinic would not perform an invitro fertilization on them based on the fact that they were not married.
This legal marriage would open the door for the homosexuals to start suing any church that refused to perform the marriage ceremony on them.

This is not about rights, they can get those rights already with legal documents, it has been suggested that they be joined in some civil government ceremony that would basically give them all the same benifits and downfalls of marriage. However, they refused those options in search of it being referred to as a marriage.

I dont agree with marriage in a Biblical way for homosexuals, however if they want to get a government paper that says they can shack up and play husband and wife? (not sure how that works) and reap all the goods that go with it? I really could not care any less.
Just dont expect a business that goes under a religious name and theme to be forced to accomodate them.

Personally, Im looking forward to it, Im thinking of starting a hotel chain that is Christian based and refuses non traditional unions to stay.

See, driving is a big picture. Riding a motorcyle is driving, and driving a semi is driving. They are very similar from a distance, but up close they are very, very, very different. And, now stay with me, two people marrying of opposite gender have a union. Two people getting together of the same gender have a union. They are similar from a distance, but up close they are very, very, very different. Each of these things are governed by state laws.

Does that make it clearer?

Lol, no, just more ridiculous. Every marriage is different, be it gay or straight. Your analogy is bogus and just detracts from any actual argument you may have. Still didn't answer about how easy it is to marry and divorce these days, and the idea that was introduced about having everyone in civil unions, and religiously-inclined people having church-sanctioned marriages. Instead you're just comparing things that have nothing to do with one another.

I'll trade you one pointless analogy for another. Strict Catholic marriages may be very different from secular marriages. Before the marriage even occurs both parties must be baptized in the Catholic church, and after the marriage no birth control, right? But people married in Catholic weddings are still legally viewed the same way as people married outside on the beach by a justice of the peace, right? So why should gay/straight be any different?

That makes sense - that way non-religious and gay people can just do the civil union thing, and religious people can do that and also have a church-sanctioned marriage. Win/win? The last 3 weddings I've been to have not been in a church, so I don't think it's such a huge concern for most people these days anyway.

Actually what I mean would take most aspects of a 'wedding' (as our society would define it) out of these civil unions. It would be purely a legal process such as getting a driver's license. It would be M-F during regular business hours with none of wedding stuff---strictly legal, contract stuff.
Most couples religious or not would probably want to have a more intimate ceremony and reception at a later time but that would not concern the legality of the contract, kwim.
I just think it is a fairly easy way for the church to stay out of the governments affairs and the government to stay out of the church's affairs (in terms of 'marriage').

I don't think comparing marriage to motorcycle licensing makes anything easier to understand.



Analogies are like fancy hats. They look good on the surface, but in the end they don't really explain anything.


You don't expect hats to solve your problems for you, do you?

Analogies are like fancy hats. They look good on the surface, but in the end they don't really explain anything.


You don't expect hats to solve your problems for you, do you?

I think analogy is This_persons first lanquage.

Lol, no, just more ridiculous. Every marriage is different, be it gay or straight.Except, we're not talking about individual marriages, we're talking about the net effect of same gendered or opposite gendered unions on society. Certainly, there are great same-gendered committed relationships, and some really crappy opposite gendered ones. They're not the point individually, it's the societal effect of each type.Your analogy is bogus and just detracts from any actual argument you may have.How? I'm answering that there is an inherent difference in having a union of two same gendered individuals vs two different gendered individuals. I could highlight the studies that show the differences in these things, like I've done in several other posts, but that seems to confuse people - facts have a way of doing that to people stuck in a position for nothing other than emotional reasons.Still didn't answer about how easy it is to marry and divorce these days, and the idea that was introduced about having everyone in civil unions, and religiously-inclined people having church-sanctioned marriages. Instead you're just comparing things that have nothing to do with one another. These ease of marriage, I believe is not an issue. People are responsible for their actions. These ease of divorce, I have stated, was strengthened in the 1960's. As I've stated, this legalized lack of regard for the sanctity of marriage has been a point I've made regarding diluting the concept of marriage by adding new unions that would be called "marriage".I'll trade you one pointless analogy for another. Strict Catholic marriages may be very different from secular marriages. Before the marriage even occurs both parties must be baptized in the Catholic church, and after the marriage no birth control, right? But people married in Catholic weddings are still legally viewed the same way as people married outside on the beach by a justice of the peace, right? So why should gay/straight be any different?Well, because from the eyes of the law, there's no difference. How they choose within their marriage to act in the religious beliefs has nothing to do with what the law sees them as.

But, you'll note that the people married in a Catholic Church or "on the beach" are both one man, one woman marriages.

Actually what I mean would take most aspects of a 'wedding' (as our society would define it) out of these civil unions. It would be purely a legal process such as getting a driver's license. It would be M-F during regular business hours with none of wedding stuff---strictly legal, contract stuff. I think that's the way it's done now. You go down, file for the certificate. Then, someone who is authorized performs the ceremoney, then you go back and file said certificate.

Isn't that pretty much the process now?

I think analogy is This_persons first lanquage.I tried using specific points, but you all didn't seem to want to discuss it from a point by point basis. You claimed I was dillusional for having actual points you weren't used to arguing against.

Then, there were analogies to interracial marriage, etc., so I presumed you'd be able to handle the analogies.

All good, however we have seen this already not to be the case.
An example would be the lesbians that sued the Catholic run Fertility clinic in California? ( I would have to search to find it again) because the clinic would not perform an invitro fertilization on them based on the fact that they were not married.
This legal marriage would open the door for the homosexuals to start suing any church that refused to perform the marriage ceremony on them.

This is not about rights, they can get those rights already with legal documents, it has been suggested that they be joined in some civil government ceremony that would basically give them all the same benifits and downfalls of marriage. However, they refused those options in search of it being referred to as a marriage.

I dont agree with marriage in a Biblical way for homosexuals, however if they want to get a government paper that says they can shack up and play husband and wife? (not sure how that works) and reap all the goods that go with it? I really could not care any less.
Just dont expect a business that goes under a religious name and theme to be forced to accomodate them.

Personally, Im looking forward to it, Im thinking of starting a hotel chain that is Christian based and refuses non traditional unions to stay.

Hey, more power to you if you want to start a business that discriminates. Doesn't sound very Christian of you, but it doesn't matter to me. Just don't be surprised if you get sued for discrimination.

As for the case in California, I looked it up and this is the gist (from Wiki):

"Guadalupe T. Benitez, a medical assistant from San Diego, sued doctors Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton of the North Coast Women's Care Medical Group after Brody told her that she had "religious-based objections to treating homosexuals to help them conceive children by artificial insemination," and Fenton refused to authorise a refill of her prescription for the fertility drug Clomid on the same grounds. The case, North Coast Women's Care Medical Group v. Superior Court, was decided in favor of Benitez on August 19, 2008."

I went to their website and it wasn't a Catholic-based doctor's office, it was simply the two doctors in question who objected based on their religion. Obviously people are allowed to be anti-gay, it's a choice in our country. You can be anti-anything, and no one can take that right away from you.

But these people refused to provide this woman a service based on who she is. They wouldn't even refill her fertility prescription. And I believe that is wrong. They wouldn't have been allowed to discriminate against this woman because of race, so why is it okay to discriminate based on sexual orientation? It's similar to the cases of people being refused the morning after pill because a pharmacist doesn't believe in it. It's not their job to pass judgment and refuse to provide the services they're supposed to as part of their profession. If they don't believe in the morning after pill, or with homosexuality, then don't use it or practice it. But I don't agree with being able to use your religious beliefs to refuse a service to someone during the course of work.

And no, it wouldn't open the door for homosexuals to sue churches for refusing to marry them. I'm straight, and I wouldn't be able to sue the Catholic church for refusing to marry me, would I? I don't meet their qualifications for marriage in their church, and that's fine.

One of the great things about this country is that we have anti-discrimination laws. Homosexuality is the last minority that needs protections afforded to them.

Actually what I mean would take most aspects of a 'wedding' (as our society would define it) out of these civil unions. It would be purely a legal process such as getting a driver's license. It would be M-F during regular business hours with none of wedding stuff---strictly legal, contract stuff.
Most couples religious or not would probably want to have a more intimate ceremony and reception at a later time but that would not concern the legality of the contract, kwim.
I just think it is a fairly easy way for the church to stay out of the governments affairs and the government to stay out of the church's affairs (in terms of 'marriage').

Isn't that how it is now, though? A "wedding" isn't legally recognized unless you've signed that marriage certificate, right?

Hey, more power to you if you want to start a business that discriminates....Just don't be surprised if you get sued for discrimination.

I went to their website and it wasn't a Catholic-based doctor's office, it was simply the two doctors in question who objected based on their religion.

But these people refused to provide this woman a service based on who she is. They wouldn't even refill her fertility prescription. And I believe that is wrong.Why shouldn't private people be allowed to perform or not perform services based on their beliefs? We're not talking about governmental discrimination, but private people choosing their customers.

I think that's the way it's done now. You go down, file for the certificate. Then, someone who is authorized performs the ceremoney, then you go back and file said certificate.

Isn't that pretty much the process now?

If the ceremony is done through the JOP then yes I am sure those weddings are similar to my description.What I am saying is that all state sanctioned unions are done this way--by a government official only.
If a couple chooses to have the big wedding or have their union blessed by a church then that is up to them. Or the couple can have their union blessed by the church and never have a legal ceremony. It is up to them.
I am just trying to find a simple way for the church to stay out of the governments affairs and vise versa in terms of 'marriage'.

If the ceremony is done through the JOP then yes I am sure those weddings are similar to my description.What I am saying is that all state sanctioned unions are done this way--by a government official only.
If a couple chooses to have the big wedding or have their union blessed by a church then that is up to them. Or the couple can have their union blessed by the church and never have a legal ceremony. It is up to them.
I am just trying to find a simple way for the church to stay out of the governments affairs and vise versa in terms of 'marriage'.So, you'd require a secular ceremony? That would seem to trample on the first ammendment by prohibiting the free excersize of religion.

Why shouldn't private people be allowed to perform or not perform services based on their beliefs? We're not talking about governmental discrimination, but private people choosing their customers.

Because when you're providing a service to the public, you are not allowed to pick and choose who you serve. A black man who owns a store cannot refuse to serve a Korean woman. A Catholic woman who is a fertility specialist shouldn't be allowed to refuse her services to a lesbian.

Isn't that how it is now, though? A "wedding" isn't legally recognized unless you've signed that marriage certificate, right?

Yes, kind of. It would be like if everyone just went to the court house and was 'married/unionized/whatever' by a JOP or some other government official. Some people do that but for a legal state marriage license everyone would have to do that.
Like it said it kind of separates the state union/marriage/whatever from the religious aspect. A lot of people say they do not have a problem with state civil unions so it would be like this for all state unions not just homosexual ones.

So, you'd require a secular ceremony? That would seem to trample on the first ammendment by prohibiting the free excersize of religion.

How so? They can have their marriage blessed by any church they choose with no input from the government.
All this would be is the state sanctioned legal contract.

Because when you're providing a service to the public, you are not allowed to pick and choose who you serve. A black man who owns a store cannot refuse to serve a Korean woman. A Catholic woman who is a fertility specialist shouldn't be allowed to refuse her services to a lesbian.

They should. Chances are, they'd fail. Free market would work.

Don't most bars and restaraunts have signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Can't colleges refuse a white student in favor of a black student for the purposes of "diversity"? Aren't many business required to keep a certain percentage of women and minorities, thereby making it harder to be a white male getting a job there based solely on your race and gender?

How so? They can have their marriage blessed by any church they choose with no input from the government.
All this would be is the state sanctioned legal contract.Okay. So, what about allowing the church officials to provide the requirements of the state sanctioned contract, to be more effecient?

They should. Chances are, they'd fail. Free market would work.

Don't most bars and restaraunts have signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Can't colleges refuse a white student in favor of a black student for the purposes of "diversity"? Aren't many business required to keep a certain percentage of women and minorities, thereby making it harder to be a white male getting a job there based solely on your race and gender?

Ah geez, I know white men have so so many problems these days, but could we keep affirmative action out of this? Has nothing to do with it.

I disagree that we should let people discriminate. Absolutely not. That "reserve the right to refuse service" doesn't translate to "If you're white we can throw you out at anytime". It just means if you're acting inappropriately, such as too drunk or yelling at the servers, they're allowed to kick you out. Do you really want to live in a country where you have to pick and choose where you can go, based on the opinions of the people who work there?

Ah geez, I know white men have so so many problems these days, but could we keep affirmative action out of this? Has nothing to do with it.

I disagree that we should let people discriminate. Absolutely not. That "reserve the right to refuse service" doesn't translate to "If you're white we can throw you out at anytime". It just means if you're acting inappropriately, such as too drunk or yelling at the servers, they're allowed to kick you out. Do you really want to live in a country where you have to pick and choose where you can go, based on the opinions of the people who work there?Yes, I want to live there. That means we're a free country.

When we're telling business who they must hire, who they must buy or sell their products to/from, etc., we're not really a free country.

Yes, I want to live there. That means we're a free country.

When we're telling business who they must hire, who they must buy or sell their products to/from, etc., we're not really a free country.

You seriously want to live in a country that allows people to refuse services? So if you went to Wal-Mart today and tried to buy some gum, you'd be okay with them saying, no...we don't like your kind here. Get your gum elsewhere. I find that hard to believe.

seems that they do intend on forcing the church to accept their ways. (http://americaswatchtower.com/2007/07/09/lesbians-to-sue-church-for-discrimination/)

The final goal is that you/I accept them as normal and if that has to be done under the power of laws, then so be it.

fact is, no law can make me agree that they are married in the eyes of God.
and no law can make me accept their union as anything but shacking up with benifits.

but does that mean Im going to become a Jim Phelps and picket in front of places that do perform their civil joke? no. They can do as they please, but they can not under any circumstance expect me to see it for something that it can not be.

I tried using specific points, but you all didn't seem to want to discuss it from a point by point basis. You claimed I was dillusional for having actual points you weren't used to arguing against.

Then, there were analogies to interracial marriage, etc., so I presumed you'd be able to handle the analogies.

First of all, my comment about analogies was meant to be funny, and not making fun of you personally. Just wanted to make that clear.



Now... drawing a comparison to interracial marriage isn't really an analogy - it's more of a direct comparison between two things that are essentially the same damn thing beyond surface polish.

Drawing comparisons between marriage and rape, or licensing motor vehicles are definitely analogies, and doing so could probably serve a good purpose, however, analogies don't prove anything in and of themselves (even good analogies don't prove anything) and serve very little purpose beyond illustrating a point. As it happens, this point is the very bone of contention starting the debate to begin with. So all the analogies in the world are not going to persuade anyone from their central focus of disagreement.

I guess my point here is that analogies are superfluous at this juncture in the discussion, because everyone understands your point and where you're coming from - they simply disagree with it.




That's the reason I withdrew from the topic this morning. I said my piece - and I understand your points. You didn't change my mind, nor I yours. Our disagreement has not diminished, and regardless of how many different ways we each try to explain our points of view, it's merely reiterating the same story in a different package.


In other words, if someone doesn't bring new material to the table, this conversation has outlived its usefulness by a damn sight.

:deadhorse

You seriously want to live in a country that allows people to refuse services? So if you went to Wal-Mart today and tried to buy some gum, you'd be okay with them saying, no...we don't like your kind here. Get your gum elsewhere. I find that hard to believe.

:shrug:

You can find it hard to believe if you choose, but I would rather that happen that be sold something by someone who doesn't want to sell to me. Or, more appropriately to this case, be operated on by a doctor who doesn't want to operate on me.

First of all, my comment about analogies was meant to be funny, and not making fun of you personally. Just wanted to make that clear.



Now... drawing a comparison to interracial marriage isn't really an analogy - it's more of a direct comparison between two things that are essentially the same damn thing beyond surface polish.

Drawing comparisons between marriage and rape, or licensing motor vehicles are definitely analogies, and doing so could probably serve a good purpose, however, analogies don't prove anything in and of themselves (even good analogies don't prove anything) and serve very little purpose beyond illustrating a point. As it happens, this point is the very bone of contention starting the debate to begin with. So all the analogies in the world are not going to persuade anyone from their central focus of disagreement.

I guess my point here is that analogies are superfluous at this juncture in the discussion, because everyone understands your point and where you're coming from - they simply disagree with it.




That's the reason I withdrew from the topic this morning. I said my piece - and I understand your points. You didn't change my mind, nor I yours. Our disagreement has not diminished, and regardless of how many different ways we each try to explain our points of view, it's merely reiterating the same story in a different package.


In other words, if someone doesn't bring new material to the table, this conversation has outlived its usefulness by a damn sight.

:deadhorse

I think skin color and gender are very different things, and therefore no better an analogy than motorcycles and trucks, but......

And, I didn't draw a comparrison between rape and marriage, I drew a comparrison between laws that don't effect me personally. I do not in any way compare rape and marriage.

But, the rest seems right on. I'm clearly either not being a good communicator, or people are simply unwilling to be open minded, so no one is changing their mind.

Not that I want to put a dog in this fight, but I've never been able to wrap my head around what all the hoopla, judgment and argument is about. In my mind love is love and has no gender. If you love someone, male or female, and you know you want to spend the rest of your life with that person, you ought to be able to marry that person without all the BS. JMHO.

Not that I want to put a dog in this fight, but I've never been able to wrap my head around what all the hoopla, judgment and argument is about. In my mind love is love and has no gender. If you love someone, male or female, and you know you want to spend the rest of your life with that person, you ought to be able to marry that person without all the BS. JMHO.

So, you're good with polygamy and consenting adult incest as well? As long as they love each other?

Or, (since no one has been able to answer this, I'll ask you, too), what argument would be made for same-gendered unions that would be inappropriate for polygamy, or consenting adult incest? I've heard Puggy on non-consenting incest, but I'm speaking of consenting incest.

seems that they do intend on forcing the church to accept their ways. (http://americaswatchtower.com/2007/07/09/lesbians-to-sue-church-for-discrimination/)

The final goal is that you/I accept them as normal and if that has to be done under the power of laws, then so be it.

fact is, no law can make me agree that they are married in the eyes of God.
and no law can make me accept their union as anything but shacking up with benifits.

but does that mean Im going to become a Jim Phelps and picket in front of places that do perform their civil joke? no. They can do as they please, but they can not under any circumstance expect me to see it for something that it can not be.

If you read the article you linked, you'd see that they weren't suing so they could be married in the Methodist church. They wanted to use a campground owned by the church. It's completely different from trying to force churches to let homosexual marriages occur in them.

It doesn't matter if you personally accept a law or not. And I highly doubt gay people are waiting with bated breath for 100% acceptance. They're never going to get it, nor should they care.

Fred Phelps, I think you mean. But that's the thing...as of now, they can't "do as they please". They can't get legally married. As was suggested, keep church marriages and legal marriages totally separate, that's one way to solve the problem. Southern Baptists can say no gay marriages allowed in our church. But the United States is not a church, and should not make these legal decisions based on one line of the Bible.

If you read the article you linked, you'd see that they weren't suing so they could be married in the Methodist church. They wanted to use a campground owned by the church. It's completely different from trying to force churches to let homosexual marriages occur in them.

It doesn't matter if you personally accept a law or not. And I highly doubt gay people are waiting with bated breath for 100% acceptance. They're never going to get it, nor should they care.

Fred Phelps, I think you mean. But that's the thing...as of now, they can't "do as they please". They can't get legally married. As was suggested, keep church marriages and legal marriages totally separate, that's one way to solve the problem. Southern Baptists can say no gay marriages allowed in our church. But the United States is not a church, and should not make these legal decisions based on one line of the Bible.
The Churches property is run under the Churches rules.
they were suing the Church.

I don't know who Don Dwyer is, but if this is true, he's either a Tenth Degree Idiot or a completely disingenuous political opportunist. On what possible basis could (or even should) the Attorney General be impeached for this Opinion?
I just read the article from the headline news on this site.

Attorney General Finds Maryland Must Recognize Gay Marriages from Outside State - Southern Maryland Headline News (http://www.somd.com/news/headlines/2010/11319.shtml)

"Delegate Don Dwyer, R-Anne Arundel, was blunter about his disappointment with Gansler's opinion, and said Wednesday that he intends to bring impeachment charges against the attorney general.

"By his actions today, the Attorney General has clearly violated his oath of office and has usurped the authority of the General Assembly," Dwyer said in a statement. "Attorney General Gansler has violated the public trust by his actions and he will be held accountable."
Lol- what effect is this going to have on society? It will allow the people who chose their lifestyle to to treated equally. The only thing holding up all of this is the close minded, old thinking conservatives.
Just because YOU don't believe in it, doesnt mean YOUR mindset should be used to "oppress" others. And someone said God would bring his wrath? Did God not also say to treat others the same as you would like to be treated?
First off, it's not MY mindset. Second, don't even try to quote God. You don't know Him one tiny bit. He's the only reason needed as to why this lifestyle is wrong. Forget this crap that "anyone can do whatever they want if they're consenting adults". God said NO and has destroyed entire cities and peoples because of such things.
Again, look at California and the debauchery going on there. And you still wonder why everything is going wrong for them?
Hey, more power to you if you want to start a business that discriminates. Doesn't sound very Christian of you, but it doesn't matter to me. Just don't be surprised if you get sued for discrimination.
And no, it wouldn't open the door for homosexuals to sue churches for refusing to marry them. I'm straight, and I wouldn't be able to sue the Catholic church for refusing to marry me, would I? I don't meet their qualifications for marriage in their church, and that's fine.
You start many of your posts with the truth: "I don't think..."
Let's start with your self contradictions.
"Just don't be surprised if you get sued for discrimination." Then:
"And no, it wouldn't open the door for homosexuals to sue churches for refusing to marry them." :dork:
People are suing people every day because they can't get their way but they'll have no protection on the "Last Day". I'm sure that most of you on here totally ignore that fact but it will be a sad day when you find out that He HAS the final word on this matter. Ignore it all you want NOW; you'll have forever to regret it! Go ahead and defend what He calls evil. (Isaiah 5v20)
seems that they do intend on forcing the church to accept their ways. (http://americaswatchtower.com/2007/07/09/lesbians-to-sue-church-for-discrimination/)
The final goal is that you/I accept them as normal and if that has to be done under the power of laws, then so be it.
fact is, no law can make me agree that they are married in the eyes of God.

Lonely tourist never has nor ever will get it. None of the proponents of this evil will consider the eternal consequences...God has no say or place in their lives and it will be that way forever but I will say this for myself: I will never agree that it's ok if they want to pair up with with a person of the same gender. NEVER. It''s wrong, evil and does cause MANY societal problems. Just because they don't (won't) see them, doesn't negate them.
Wait until Obama lets Sharia law come in. They'll execute them all as their first order of business. Then froglips and Looney tunes will say: gee, what happened? God's judgment comes in many forms but ignorant people will still say: "how does it hurt society"? In medical costs alone they are killing us but don't worry, chairman Mao-bama will fix it for you all. :patriot:

Again, look at California and the debauchery going on there. And you still wonder why everything is going wrong for them?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the Weather Patterns that exist off the Coast of California, its God's doing.

Of course, you'd then have to ask yourself, why has God spared entire Countries that legally allow, recognize and bestow benefits upon Same Sex Marriages?

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the Weather Patterns that exist off the Coast of California, its God's doing.

Of course, you'd then have to ask yourself, why has God spared entire Countries that legally allow, recognize and bestow benefits upon Same Sex Marriages?
Just some more things about God for you NOT to understand... :razz:

You start many of your posts with the truth: "I don't think..."
Let's start with your self contradictions.
"Just don't be surprised if you get sued for discrimination." Then:
"And no, it wouldn't open the door for homosexuals to sue churches for refusing to marry them." :dork:
People are suing people every day because they can't get their way but they'll have no protection on the "Last Day". I'm sure that most of you on here totally ignore that fact but it will be a sad day when you find out that He HAS the final word on this matter. Ignore it all you want NOW; you'll have forever to regret it! Go ahead and defend what He calls evil. (Isaiah 5v20)

Lonely tourist never has nor ever will get it. None of the proponents of this evil will consider the eternal consequences...God has no say or place in their lives and it will be that way forever but I will say this for myself: I will never agree that it's ok if they want to pair up with with a person of the same gender. NEVER. It''s wrong, evil and does cause MANY societal problems. Just because they don't (won't) see them, doesn't negate them.
Wait until Obama lets Sharia law come in. They'll execute them all as their first order of business. Then froglips and Looney tunes will say: gee, what happened? God's judgment comes in many forms but ignorant people will still say: "how does it hurt society"? In medical costs alone they are killing us but don't worry, chairman Mao-bama will fix it for you all. :patriot:

Um, wow. Okay!

The other poster stated that this inspired him to start a chain of hotels that would only allow certain people to stay there. So yeah...this opens him to lawsuits. You simply cannot do this. I was talking about BUSINESSES, not a church. So you can try and take what I say out of context all you want, but it's not going to work. I could sue a hotel for refusing to let me stay there based on my religion. I can't sue the Catholic church for refusing to let me get married in their church because I'm not a baptized Catholic. So there you go. Your point is invalid.

And your religious scare tactics don't work on me, as I'm not religious. Religion has no place in determining our laws. Your post makes you sound...slightly nutty. Might want to work on that.

What societal problems exactly does gay marriage cause?

Guh, we were having such a long post without mention of Obama...you had to go and ruin it!

Just some more things about God for you NOT to understand... :razz:

He works in mysterious ways

:lmao:

Sounds more like you dont understand him, and are willing to attibute horrible disasters to him, when they are nothing more weather related incidents. You really should ask yourself why you hate your God so much, that you expect such terrible things from him.

Also, this is the difference between your viewpoint and mine. I don't want to deny rights to anyone. Religious people can get married in any way that they want, it doesn't matter to me. People can ignore gay people and rail against them on internet forums. Be my guest.

But you do...you want to deny rights to Americans. Why is that? Why isn't it enough for you to practice your religion your way? No one is forcing you to marry a man. No one is forcing you to accept it, or be happy about it. You can be spitting mad about the whole situation. But why are you trying to make everyone live the way you do?

Again, look at California and the debauchery going on there. And you still wonder why everything is going wrong for them?



Must have been all of that voodoo in Haiti that caused the earthquake, right? Even though the vast majority of their residents are Catholic.

Um, wow. Okay!

The other poster stated that this inspired him to start a chain of hotels that would only allow certain people to stay there. So yeah...this opens him to lawsuits. You simply cannot do this. I was talking about BUSINESSES, not a church. So you can try and take what I say out of context all you want, but it's not going to work. I could sue a hotel for refusing to let me stay there based on my religion. I can't sue the Catholic church for refusing to let me get married in their church because I'm not a baptized Catholic. So there you go. Your point is invalid.

And your religious scare tactics don't work on me, as I'm not religious. Religion has no place in determining our laws. Your post makes you sound...slightly nutty. Might want to work on that.

What societal problems exactly does gay marriage cause?

Guh, we were having such a long post without mention of Obama...you had to go and ruin it!dont worry about my hotel chain, it will be Christian based, and those that stay will be attending prayer meetings at some point during the day.
those that dont believe, and abide by the rules of my "Church" hotel will not be allowed entrance.
it will be a place where families can go to the pool without seeing homosexual displays of affection, where they can sleep knowing that the room has not been used for homosexual activities.
It will not be an organization that openly goes out and pettitions against gays. they can do as they wish. Just not at my establishment.

What societal problems does it cause when a man has more than one wife?
any? then why is it not legal.

Also, this is the difference between your viewpoint and mine. I don't want to deny rights to anyone. Religious people can get married in any way that they want, it doesn't matter to me. People can ignore gay people and rail against them on internet forums. Be my guest.

But you do...you want to deny rights to Americans. Why is that? Why isn't it enough for you to practice your religion your way? No one is forcing you to marry a man. No one is forcing you to accept it, or be happy about it. You can be spitting mad about the whole situation. But why are you trying to make everyone live the way you do?

And thats the point that is continually missed. Allowing Gay Marriage will not render all Hetero marriages null and void. And Gays are not trying to get Hetero marriages thrown out.

Though if a Gay Marriage supporter was smart, they could go after all Marriages peformed by a religious entity, simply because of the Government collusion in the event. Legally binding, Government recognized event between 2 citizens, that carry extra benefits and preferences, being overseen and officiated by a religious official... that should have the ACLU all over it.

For some reason some hetero's think by allowing more marriages, you will weaken the institution of Marriage. They ignore that Hetero's are the only ones that can currently get (Federally recognized) married, any damage that has occurred to the instituion is solely thanks to Heteros'.

But that is not a justification for denying the same rights and benefits to other Citizens, especially because of an unfounded fear of the apocolypse.

Must have been all of that voodoo in Haiti that caused the earthquake, right? Even though the vast majority of their residents are Catholic.

No that was because of the Pact with the Devil they made, in order to get the French out.

Get your God retributions straight.

dont worry about my hotel chain, it will be Christian based, and those that stay will be attending prayer meetings at some point during the day.
those that dont believe, and abide by the rules of my "Church" hotel will not be allowed entrance.
it will be a place where families can go to the pool without seeing homosexual displays of affection, where they can sleep knowing that the room has not been used for homosexual activities.
It will not be an organization that openly goes out and pettitions against gays. they can do as they wish. Just not at my establishment.
Good luck with that when you try to get Government recognition of your Hotel chain.

you will since you will have to get a license to run it.

And your not even forced to accept gays, you want the license to operate your Christian only hotels? You'll have to abide by the rules in obtaining the license.

no one is forcing you to run a hotel
What societal problems does it cause when a man has more than one wife?
any? then why is it not legal.

As long as they are all consenting adults? None.

No that was because of the Pact with the Devil they made, in order to get the French out.

Get your God retributions straight.

Oops, silly me! Thank you for setting me straight.

dont worry about my hotel chain, it will be Christian based, and those that stay will be attending prayer meetings at some point during the day.
those that dont believe, and abide by the rules of my "Church" hotel will not be allowed entrance.
it will be a place where families can go to the pool without seeing homosexual displays of affection, where they can sleep knowing that the room has not been used for homosexual activities.
It will not be an organization that openly goes out and pettitions against gays. they can do as they wish. Just not at my establishment.

What societal problems does it cause when a man has more than one wife?
any? then why is it not legal.

Interesting. I've been going to pools since I was 2 years old, and I have yet to see "homosexual displays of affection" taking place there, public or private. Exactly where are you going on your vacations?

Good luck with that when you try to get Government recognition of your Hotel chain.

you will since you will have to get a license to run it.

And your not even forced to accept gays, you want the license to operate your Christian only hotels? You'll have to abide by the rules in obtaining the license.

no one is forcing you to run a hotel


As long as they are all consenting adults? None.
The license will be no problem getting. And you know that as well as I do.

there are christian retreats all over the place, and they are allowed to operate in any manner that they choose within the boundries of their religious doctrine minus things like drugs, child sex, etc...
but a strict Lutheran or Catholic facility? wont be an issue.
and to be honest, I dont see where it should be any concern to anyone, there are certainly more than enough hotels to take in anyone I dont.

The license will be no problem getting. And you know that as well as I do.

there are christian retreats all over the place, and they are allowed to operate in any manner that they choose within the boundries of their religious doctrine minus things like drugs, child sex, etc...
but a strict Lutheran or Catholic facility? wont be an issue.
and to be honest, I dont see where it should be any concern to anyone, there are certainly more than enough hotels to take in anyone I dont.

You might be right, but a church retreat is different than a Catholic owner running a Public Hotel.

Better off making it a Church run hotel, you might get away with it then.

Interesting. I've been going to pools since I was 2 years old, and I have yet to see "homosexual displays of affection" taking place there, public or private. Exactly where are you going on your vacations?
well, I have not been going anywhere that gay marriages are considered the norm.
So far, you can tell something is not right between two males, but you dont see them smearing tanning lotion or kissing at the pool.
Validate their marriage and you can be pretty much assured that it will be as common as it is now to see a married couple doing these things.

you are asking where I go to see something that currently is not an issue due to laws restricting it? be reasonable.

well, I have not been going anywhere that gay marriages are considered the norm.
So far, you can tell something is not right between two males, but you dont see them smearing tanning lotion or kissing at the pool.
Validate their marriage and you can be pretty much assured that it will be as common as it is now to see a married couple doing these things.

you are asking where I go to see something that currently is not an issue due to laws restricting it? be reasonable.

Just curious! I think we've established that these people already exist without marriage, so I don't know why you think that they would suddenly multiply with legal marriage. People are allowed to be gay right now, so you'd think you'd have already been scandalized by two guys holding hands.

Kind of ironic that you're advising others to be reasonable.

He works in mysterious ways
Sounds more like you dont understand him, and are willing to attibute horrible disasters to him, when they are nothing more weather related incidents. You really should ask yourself why you hate your God so much, that you expect such terrible things from him.
Who controls the weather, Al Gore???
"such terrible things from Him"? Me? Of course not...just because the entire Bible speaks of these types of events...

The other poster stated that this inspired him to start a chain of hotels that would only allow certain people to stay there. So yeah...this opens him to lawsuits. You simply cannot do this. I was talking about BUSINESSES, not a church. So you can try and take what I say out of context all you want, but it's not going to work. I could sue a hotel for refusing to let me stay there based on my religion. I can't sue the Catholic church for refusing to let me get married in their church because I'm not a baptized Catholic. So there you go. Your point is invalid.
What about women suing West Point? What about many other "exclusive" organizations that were sued to allow gays in? Boy scouts? Hello!! YOUR point is nutty, or incomplete!

And your religious scare tactics don't work on me, as I'm not religious. Religion has no place in determining our laws. Your post makes you sound...slightly nutty. Might want to work on that.
You are sooo ignorant...It's ALL based on "religion" just as this whole country was based on it. Not so much today thanks to liberals like you.

What societal problems exactly does gay marriage cause?
Guh, we were having such a long post without mention of Obama...you had to go and ruin it!
I gave one earlier; medical costs, but you wouldn't understand (nor acknowledge) the consequences of gay marriages, adoptions, lifestyle, etc.
I'm not off topic, Obama IS gay. If you'd check his past, you'll see it but you'd have to look beyond the main stream media.

But you do...you want to deny rights to Americans. Why is that? Why isn't it enough for you to practice your religion your way? No one is forcing you to marry a man. No one is forcing you to accept it, or be happy about it. You can be spitting mad about the whole situation. But why are you trying to make everyone live the way you do?
It's called saving your life but you also can't understand this concept.
Must have been all of that voodoo in Haiti that caused the earthquake, right? Even though the vast majority of their residents are Catholic.
Pat Robertson is a nut but he wasn't too far off with his statements.
Just curious! I think we've established that these people already exist without marriage, so I don't know why you think that they would suddenly multiply with legal marriage. People are allowed to be gay right now, so you'd think you'd have already been scandalized by two guys holding hands.
Many of them are still "in the closet". More will "come out" when things get more favorable for them.

Interesting. I've been going to pools since I was 2 years old, and I have yet to see "homosexual displays of affection" taking place there, public or private. Exactly where are you going on your vacations?

I can remember going to Rehobeth Beach about 8-10 years ago and seeing some homo affection going on. It was disgusting. The sad part is that I had my wife and small children with me at the time. There are just some things that just should disgust people but instead, some are attracted to this type of behavior. For instance, if I'm walking in the yard bare foot and step in some dog poo, it grosses me out yet there are people who actually get aroused by sticking their hoo hoo dilly in a dark place filled with poo. Tell me that ain't just nasty.

I can remember going to Rehobeth Beach about 8-10 years ago and seeing some homo affection going on. It was disgusting. The sad part is that I had my wife and small children with me at the time. There are just some things that just should disgust people but instead, some are attracted to this type of behavior. For instance, if I'm walking in the yard bare foot and step in some dog poo, it grosses me out yet there are people who actually get aroused by sticking their hoo hoo dilly in a dark place filled with poo. Tell me that ain't just nasty.
funny, but not totally helpful here.

but Rehobeth Beach is a good example.
here is a beach where it is generally accepted. and you get the display of affection, yet if you just go down a few miles to Ocean City where its not as accepted you see much less.

not sure about the poo side of it, I highly doubt that regardless of public opinion we are going to see that type of activity, but you do show that acceptance does bring out activity.

You realize that nothing stops them, provided they don't seek state recognition, right?
without recognition is it in fact a marriage?

Geez, why so angry? I must ask you - why are you practically frothing at the mouth at all times? Let's try to break these down one at a time.

"Who controls the weather, Al Gore??? "such terrible things from Him"? Me? Of course not...just because the entire Bible speaks of these types of events..."

See, there's your problem. Not everyone in this country believes in the Bible, and of those who do, not everyone agrees with your interpretation of it. Not everyone takes it literally.

"What about women suing West Point? What about many other "exclusive" organizations that were sued to allow gays in? Boy scouts? Hello!! YOUR point is nutty, or incomplete!"

West Point and other institutions that are funded by the government are subject to anti-discrimination laws. Churches are not funded by the government. So again, your argument = invalid.

"You are sooo ignorant...It's ALL based on "religion" just as this whole country was based on it. Not so much today thanks to liberals like you."

Just because some of the "Founding Fathers" were religious does not mean that the country was founded on religion. TJ and Ben Franklin were opposed to organized religion, while Patrick Henry was strongly in favor of it. Religion is only mentioned in the Constitution when it talks about what is not allowed. The Bible, Christ, Christianity - none of this is in the Constitution.

"I gave one earlier; medical costs, but you wouldn't understand (nor acknowledge) the consequences of gay marriages, adoptions, lifestyle, etc.
I'm not off topic, Obama IS gay. If you'd check his past, you'll see it but you'd have to look beyond the main stream media."

What wouldn't I understand about medical costs? How would gay marriage increase those costs? Please, enlighten me. And Obama is gay. Okay. Even if he was gay and choosing to live in the closet (Charlie Crist, anyone?) then that's his choice. It would be interminably sad, but his choice. Ever think that perhaps politicians stay closeted because closed-minded people like you would refuse to vote for them?

"It's called saving your life but also can't understand this concept."

That's something you don't understand. People aren't interested in you saving their lives from these imagined evils you've created.

"Pat Robertson is a nut but he wasn't too far off with his statements."

If you consider him a nut, what part of his statements do you believe in? Do you believe that the earthquake was brought on by a pact with devil?

"Many of them are still "in the closet". More will "come out" when things get more favorable for them."

Possibly, but generous estimates but the gay population around what, 7%? And that's assuming that entire 7% is admitting that to themselves and living a homosexual lifestyle. Thanks to people like you damning them to hell with every breath, a lot of them will probably still be afraid. And why do you think some gay people flock to a certain area? Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe they want to be allowed to show affection just like straight people can, without getting stared at by people like you? There aren't exactly a ton of "gay areas" - parts of Rehoboth Beach is one of them, as was mentioned. If it offends you so much, don't go. It's not like it's the only beach in the area.

And honestly, how many gay people engaging in inappropriate acts have you seen down here? Southern Maryland is not exactly a mecca for gay people. I have never seen a gay couple even holding hands in public around here, let alone engaging in some omg horrifying geigh sex that you seem to think will be occurring left and right if gay marriage is legalized. Are straight people copulating on park benches because they're allowed to get married?

Ahem. Any other points you'd like to make?

I can remember going to Rehobeth Beach about 8-10 years ago and seeing some homo affection going on. It was disgusting. The sad part is that I had my wife and small children with me at the time. There are just some things that just should disgust people but instead, some are attracted to this type of behavior. For instance, if I'm walking in the yard bare foot and step in some dog poo, it grosses me out yet there are people who actually get aroused by sticking their hoo hoo dilly in a dark place filled with poo. Tell me that ain't just nasty.

You're an intelligent one, aren't you?

So if you're saying you're in favor of extending these 1,000 rights to gay couples, then you're basically saying they should be able to get married. Is it really the word "marriage" that stops you from going all the way on this? They would legally get all of the exact same rights, but because they're gay you don't want to call it "marriage"?

I think this is the problem more than anything else. I can admit that I struggle to use the term marriage when referring to same sex couples, because my definition of marriage is based on my religion. While my definition works for me and my relationship with my wife I do not feel it is my place to force my beliefs on anyone else and it also not my place restrictions on others. There is a line floating around somewhere that I seem to recall from "Schoolhouse Rock", something about, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that sounds like a good set of ideals to me. I do think it is extremely unfair that same sex couples cannot get insurance benefits from their partner's plan or make emergency medical decisions for their partner. There is no litmus test for hetero couples before they get married, and it seems to me that the antis would like to establish a test for same sex couples.

It triviliases any heterosexual relationship when it lowers the meaning of marriage. Divorce, gold diggers and marriages of convenience trivializes the meaning of marriage.

Do heterosexuals not have the right to define a marriage as between a man and a woman. It takes away that right.HUMANS have the right to define a marriage as they see fit.

Why should a definition that has stood for over a thousand years be changed by people who simply want the monetary advantages of marriage .
What right do they have to define what the word marriage means?If you think monetary advantages are the only reason for recognition of same sex unions then you should do a little more studying on the subject.

We can call plugging in the electric cord on your toaster as a marriage, it involves male and female. We can call hooking up your garden hose a marriage
it requires a male and a female. It doesnt work any other way, you simply cannot connect two male ends or two female ends together and have it work without a lot of Duck tape ,because it isnt a marriage.

They can find another word, to describe their relationship, but it isnt marriage.

In my opinion, there are a few effects:
Dilutes the meaning of "marriage" by adding new unions it includes
Dilutes the meaning of the union between two same gendered individuals, by calling their relationship something it is not
"Slippery slopes" to adding in consensual, adult incest and polygamy as "marriage", since every argument used in favor of same gendered unions being redefined as "marriage" applies to those unions as well
Will lead, over generations, to a lower societal standard and regard for what marriage is, which leads to worse parenting and more crime. This is evidenced in divorce becoming easy to obtain in the 1960's, lowering the societal regard for marriage, and the result increase in single parent homes, which is a strong contributing factor into most crime statistics and school problems. For the simple minded Nuck (not you, mAlice), this does not equate same gendered unions with divorce, it is used to show another example of how lowering the regard marriage is given effects society at large

Great list of talking points, but I go back to this: Divorce, marriages of convenience and gold digging dilute the institution far more than same sex unions.

I don't expect everyone to embrace it, just like I wouldn't expect strangers to embrace my marriage. Frankly that doesn't matter one bit. I don't care about the relationships of others, and I don't understand why anyone else would.

If you want to join a church that doesn't recognize gay marriage, that's your right. Wouldn't that solve this problem for you? Join a church that considers gay marriage illegal and wrong. That way you can have your exclusive club in the end. Not being at all facetious here - but wouldn't it?

evidently, you do care ab out the relationship of others, you seem fairly concerned with the marriage thing.

I will remember about the church joining thing just as soon as I decide its time to sit for an hour every Sunday with the biggest bunch of hypocrits you can gather in one room. No thanks, Ill keep my worship to myself and among those I know to be Christians. The Bible works for me, the organized Church not so much.

and, you still dont get it do you.
Why is it do you think, honestly, that its not acceptable for them to get some sort of sanctioned union that extends them all the things they want, and may not want, unless it is called marriage.

People constantly ask me, what difference does the word make? yet, none of them can explain what difference it makes to the gays.

keep in mind, they dont want to force acceptance and they dont care about my recognition of their marriage.

Ill tell you one thing, in my mind (and others) they will never be married. But they could be together in the same way as marriage through some other legal process.

Great list of talking points, but I go back to this: Divorce, marriages of convenience and gold digging dilute the institution far more than same sex unions.

I agree that Gold digging and marriages of convenience dilute the meaning of marriage. I do not agree that it dilutes it far more than same sex marriage, however you have a right to your opinion.


That is basically what this whole thread is about. Opinions.
Basically right at this point more Americans are of the opinion that same sex couples calling their relationship a marriage is wrong, but as more and more gays come out of the closet and as more and more people give homosexuality a try, that opinion will change.
You see that is the object of the fight gays are making. If they can get enough people thinking that homosexual sex is just another form of getting an orgasm, more and more people will try it.

I know that is an opinion also, but again we are entitled to opinion no matter how much the other opinion scolds us for it.

As more and more families find they have a homosexual cousin or brother or mother ,they are more willing to accept it, for after all love is not limited .As humans a mother of a serial killer still loves her offspring. Not that I equate homosexuality with serial killing, just making a point ,so dont go off the deep end.

without recognition is it in fact a marriage?

Of course.

The only reasons to seek state recognition are for the easier legal aspects (inheritence laws, common property laws, etc.) - all of which are available to any group of two or more consenting people through other, less convenient means - and the tax breaks that are normally seen.

A marriage is a commitment between two individuals who are of opposite gender, of age, etc., etc. It has nothing to do with state recognition.

I do think it is extremely unfair that same sex couples cannot get insurance benefits from their partner's plan or make emergency medical decisions for their partner.This is not true, though. This is dependent upon the insurance company, the negotiated plan, etc., etc. The insurance is available.There is no litmus test for hetero couples before they get married, and it seems to me that the antis would like to establish a test for same sex couples.This is also not true. There are litmus tests for both heterosexuals and homosexuals to get married - they must be of only two people, of opposite gender, of sufficient age, not too closely related already, and willing to marry the other person. There is no sexual orientation litmus test to get married for anyone, but there are conditions that must be met to be "married".

Great list of talking points, but I go back to this: Divorce, marriages of convenience and gold digging dilute the institution far more than same sex unions.Well, if you read my last point, I suggested the very same.

I think this is the problem more than anything else. I can admit that I struggle to use the term marriage when referring to same sex couples, because my definition of marriage is based on my religion. While my definition works for me and my relationship with my wife I do not feel it is my place to force my beliefs on anyone else and it also not my place restrictions on others. There is a line floating around somewhere that I seem to recall from "Schoolhouse Rock", something about, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that sounds like a good set of ideals to me. I do think it is extremely unfair that same sex couples cannot get insurance benefits from their partner's plan or make emergency medical decisions for their partner. There is no litmus test for hetero couples before they get married, and it seems to me that the antis would like to establish a test for same sex couples.



My insurance can cover a domestic partner, all it takes is living together for a year.....and I have def seen same sex couples make medical decisions for each other. All it takes is a POA..even in emergencies, docs will listen to their partner..just like they would a spouse. But everyone should have a POA anyway, or a designee on their advanced directive..because any case is difficult to figure out who makes decisions, no matter what sexual preference they have.


Either way, though I have always been concerned about slippery slope issues, I don't want anyone to interfere with my life, so I won't in theirs. Fairly simple mantra I take on a lot of issues lately..as I get older I realize more and more that I want to do things my way, with very little intervention from gov't, religious groups, or sneaky politicians who are deciding what is "best" for everyone. Leave me alone, I will leave you alone, and all will be well.

I think skin color and gender are very different things, and therefore no better an analogy than motorcycles and trucks, but......


Skin color and gender are very different things. (Especially since gender is a language construct... sex is what define people's panty-contents... but that's a whole other discussion).


Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage - in a discussion about marriage barriers based on a demographic - are very similar.


But, the rest seems right on. I'm clearly either not being a good communicator, or people are simply unwilling to be open minded, so no one is changing their mind.


Ding-ding-ding!



I'm convinced that I'm right - you're convinced that you're right. I used to be on your side, and I changed my mind, so I don't think I'm close-minded per se, although it will probably take quite a bit to pursuade me to return to my old mindset, particularly because I consciously abandoned it.

This Person - if I may, I'd like to ask a simple question. In line with your statements about 'dilut(ing)' the institution of marriage, does the government recognition of marriage 'concentrate' the institution of marriage - does it enhance it in some way?

I'm not asking you to demonstrate that it does or doesn't, I'm just curious as to whether or not you think it does. Whatever your view, I'll accept it as inherently valid.

My insurance can cover a domestic partner, all it takes is living together for a year.....and I have def seen same sex couples make medical decisions for each other. All it takes is a POA..even in emergencies, docs will listen to their partner..just like they would a spouse. But everyone should have a POA anyway, or a designee on their advanced directive..because any case is difficult to figure out who makes decisions, no matter what sexual preference they have.


Either way, though I have always been concerned about slippery slope issues, I don't want anyone to interfere with my life, so I won't in theirs. Fairly simple mantra I take on a lot of issues lately..as I get older I realize more and more that I want to do things my way, with very little intervention from gov't, religious groups, or sneaky politicians who are deciding what is "best" for everyone. Leave me alone, I will leave you alone, and all will be well.

:yay: I could not agree with you more.

So, you feel it is reasonable to set limits on who can marry one another?

If you're talking about someone under 18 that want to marry someone that IS 18 or older; then YES, there is a limitation. But, same-sex marriages is one of if not the biggest, most publicized social issues today. That is the only reason SUCH a big deal is being made about it; and for each state that finally decides to recognize and/or allow same-sex marriages, we will continue to hear about it. I don't see a problem.

If you're talking about someone under 18 that want to marry someone that IS 18 or older; then YES, there is a limitation. But, same-sex marriages is one of if not the biggest, most publicized social issues today. That is the only reason SUCH a big deal is being made about it; and for each state that finally decides to recognize and/or allow same-sex marriages, we will continue to hear about it. I don't see a problem.

That is one argument I cannot seem to get an answer. How two consenting adults entering into the legal contract that is marriage has anything to do with laws regarding age or ability to give consent.

Skin color and gender are very different things. (Especially since gender is a language construct... sex is what define people's panty-contents... but that's a whole other discussion).


Interracial marriage and same-sex marriage - in a discussion about marriage barriers based on a demographic - are very similar.
Sex has more than one connotation, gender does not, but......I agree that's another discussion.

The problem with suggesting interracial marriage and same-gendered unions are simply discussing demographics is that it removes the idea that marriage is one man, one woman. It defines marriage as "whatever the hell I feel like calling it today" to suggest that two people of the same gender being marriaged is akin to two people of different skin tone being married. A (pick a color) man marrying a different color woman is still a man and a woman being married. So, these things really don't matter. I can see how it's easily confused. After all, if someone suggested they didn't hire a white person for a job or a black person for a job because of their skin color, we'd both feel that was discrimination. But, if I told you I didn't hire a man to be a surrogate mother, that's not really discrimination, is it? Because, the position requires a female. Similarly, not being allowed to marry based on skin color is just plain idiotic discrimination, but changing the concept of what marriage actually is based on gender is something else entirely.
Ding-ding-ding!



I'm convinced that I'm right - you're convinced that you're right. I used to be on your side, and I changed my mind, so I don't think I'm close-minded per se, although it will probably take quite a bit to pursuade me to return to my old mindset, particularly because I consciously abandoned it.I wasn't implying you, in particular, were close minded. Sorry if it came across that way.

However, I'm curious what made you change your mind. Or, what I'm really interested in - what was your reason to be against it in the first place? I ask, because there are some reasons that I find not very valid (religious reasons, or procreation reasons, etc.), and I'm curious what it is about my position you find inaccurate.

This Person - if I may, I'd like to ask a simple question. In line with your statements about 'dilut(ing)' the institution of marriage, does the government recognition of marriage 'concentrate' the institution of marriage - does it enhance it in some way?

I'm not asking you to demonstrate that it does or doesn't, I'm just curious as to whether or not you think it does. Whatever your view, I'll accept it as inherently valid.

I'm not sure if I would use the word "concentrate", but it certainly defines it in very limited, culturally normed, and socially positive ways.

It does not allow for "harems", or polygamy - and these things have been shown to demonstrate negative social effects. It does not allow for incest, or pedophilia, which clearly has socially negative effects.

Again, a citizen can certainly sleep around, sleep with their sibling, have babies by numerous partners, be with one or more people of any gender they so choose. For the most part, I see little interference from the government for the vast majority of people who choose to live whatever lifestyle they choose in these manners.

But, if someone expects special government treatment, and therefore seeks government recognition of their social status, the status they seek needs to meet the definintions established, and proven or perceived to be socially positive.

So, I think the government definition of the relationship that it provides special treatment to is limited to the western culture social norm. By doing so, a higher regard was placed on marriage as an "institution". Changing that definition to include same-gendered relationships would, by definition, dilute the meaning.

This would not be the same as having different age requirements depending on the state, as that is still an age requirement ensuring no pedophilia and that the particiapants are deemed "of age", or mature enough based on local standards.

That is one argument I cannot seem to get an answer. How two consenting adults entering into the legal contract that is marriage has anything to do with laws regarding age or ability to give consent.

This is by no means, an answer, but more of an observation and my opinion.

You seem speak of two separate issues within the same sentence. You use the term 'two consenting adults. By our society's (sp?) definition of "adult"; an adult is one who has reached the age of majority, or the age of 18. I don't exactly know how he true definition is worded.

The age of consent is an entirely different matter. Last I heard, the age of consent was 16 yrs.......maybe that has changed. I don't know, because I don't go "trollin'" for women under 21.

As far as I know, it goes like this;
if someone has reached the age of consent; whatever it is, he/she CAN consent to marry; hence the term. Then it becomes a family matter between the young person and his/her family; and not a legal matter.

"Two consenting adults. Again, at 18 yrs. old., you are legally an adult. If a man and a woman want to get married at that age, there is no legality issue. Where the slowly crumbling wall lies, is same-sex marriages and wether or not it is moral for two people of the same sex to marry. Then it becomes a matter of what is legal and what is religously acceptable. The lines between church and state blur when the issue of same-sex marriage comes up because does it not say in The Bible that a marraige is ONLY to be between A MAN and A WOMAN; and that anything else is sacriledge? (Or something like that?) I'm not Catholic; that's why I ask. As far as it being a legal issue, to me it seems that lawmakers tend to interpret scripture when they make laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. That is where the line between church and state tends to blur. Everything I just said.....JMO

I'm not sure if I would use the word "concentrate", but it certainly defines it in very limited, culturally normed, and socially positive ways.

It does not allow for "harems", or polygamy - and these things have been shown to demonstrate negative social effects. It does not allow for incest, or pedophilia, which clearly has socially negative effects.

Again, a citizen can certainly sleep around, sleep with their sibling, have babies by numerous partners, be with one or more people of any gender they so choose. For the most part, I see little interference from the government for the vast majority of people who choose to live whatever lifestyle they choose in these manners.

But, if someone expects special government treatment, and therefore seeks government recognition of their social status, the status they seek needs to meet the definintions established, and proven or perceived to be socially positive.

So, I think the government definition of the relationship that it provides special treatment to is limited to the western culture social norm. By doing so, a higher regard was placed on marriage as an "institution". Changing that definition to include same-gendered relationships would, by definition, dilute the meaning.

This would not be the same as having different age requirements depending on the state, as that is still an age requirement ensuring no pedophilia and that the particiapants are deemed "of age", or mature enough based on local standards.

I'm not asking about any of that - or why same-sex marriage should or shouldn't be allowed, or how the government defines marriage, or why the government chooses to recognize some things as marriage, or why it doesn't recognize other things, or how any of it affects society at large. I'm not even talking about the legal benefits that accrue to people as a result of the government recognizing their marriage. I'm talking simply about the 'institution of marriage', regarding which you have expressed concern over the possibility dilution.

Does a particular government recognizing marriage enhance that historical institution any? If the government didn't recognize marriage (opposite sex marriage), would the institution be less special, revered, or meaningful to you? Would it be, to use your term, 'diluted'?

It's a fairly straightforward question, and there is no right or wrong answer. I want to know how you 'feel' about it - you don't need to justify that feeling.

If you're talking about someone under 18 that want to marry someone that IS 18 or older; then YES, there is a limitation. But, same-sex marriages is one of if not the biggest, most publicized social issues today. That is the only reason SUCH a big deal is being made about it; and for each state that finally decides to recognize and/or allow same-sex marriages, we will continue to hear about it. I don't see a problem.

Personally, I think it's a pretty minor issue. I mean, we're talking about well under 5% of the population, the vast majority of which are not into monogamous relationships.

We hear about it because it's an issue that, if not thought about deeply, does a pretty good job of making the religious and the socially conservative seem cruel.

Personally, I think it's a pretty minor issue. I mean, we're talking about well under 5% of the population, the vast majority of which are not into monogamous relationships.

We hear about it because it's an issue that, if not thought about deeply, does a pretty good job of making the religious and the socially conservative seem cruel.
It would be interesting to see if the option of marriage would increase the number of monogamous relationships among or gay friends.

Think about it, if there was nothing binding the hetero like marriage does, how many would end up playing the field a little bit more?

I'm not asking about any of that - or why same-sex marriage should or shouldn't be allowed, or how the government defines marriage, or why the government chooses to recognize some things as marriage, or why it doesn't recognize other things, or how any of it affects society at large. I'm not even talking about the legal benefits that accrue to people as a result of the government recognizing their marriage. I'm talking simply about the 'institution of marriage', regarding which you have expressed concern over the possibility dilution.

Does a particular government recognizing marriage enhance that historical institution any? If the government didn't recognize marriage (opposite sex marriage), would the institution be less special, revered, or meaningful to you? Would it be, to use your term, 'diluted'?

It's a fairly straightforward question, and there is no right or wrong answer. I want to know how you 'feel' about it - you don't need to justify that feeling. Does a particular government recognizing marriage enhance that historical institution any? Of course. Because, by recognizing it they provide that union with special privileges. By doing so, it is perceived that it is a special institution. If the government didn't recognize marriage (opposite sex marriage), would the institution be less special, revered, or meaningful to you? As an individual, no. MY marriage is not based on the state recognition. But marriage, as a concept, would be perceived as less special, less revered, and less meaningful to society if it were not recognized AND given the special treatment it is given. By doing so, the government - run by society at large - is saying society at large provides that particular union as special. Would it be, to use your term, 'diluted' (if it were not recognized)? No, when I suggest a dilution, I mean that literally. The concept of marriage has certain ingredients. If you add more ingredients, the ingredients you have are diluted to the whole. So, simply recognizing a given union as marriage or not is not what would dilute it. But, having "marriage" recognized for, let's just say at least, centuries, and then adding more ingredients, the concept of what "marriage" is becomes diluted.

It would be interesting to see if the option of marriage would increase the number of monogamous relationships among or gay friends.

Think about it, if there was nothing binding the hetero like marriage does, how many would end up playing the field a little bit more?

Something I'm sure the studies of the few states that allow for same-gendered unions, and the other countries that allow it, will show us in a few generations.

When we relaxed divorce laws, making divorce much, much, much easier, divorce rates went up greatly. So, the idea hold conceptually that being allowed to "marry" (or, be in civil unions) would raise the rate of monogamy.

The problem with suggesting interracial marriage and same-gendered unions are simply discussing demographics is that it removes the idea that marriage is one man, one woman.

Yeah - that's pretty much the cold hard little core of the debate, isn't it.


It defines marriage as "whatever the hell I feel like calling it today" to suggest that two people of the same gender being marriaged is akin to two people of different skin tone being married.

Well... this is steering back into the same old conversation. It's been hashed out, and will continue to be hashed out. So, we'll leave that be.


But, if I told you I didn't hire a man to be a surrogate mother, that's not really discrimination, is it?

Depends - is the man capable of having a child?

The flaw in this comparison is that men are physically incapable of having children, so no - there is no discrimination involved in your scenario. However, there is no physical limitation preventing two men (or women) from of loving each other and speaking vows to one another and living as husbands, wives, spouses, life-partners (or whatever it is they want to call one another).



Similarly, not being allowed to marry based on skin color is just plain idiotic discrimination, but changing the concept of what marriage actually is based on gender is something else entirely.

So - discrimination (based on demographic conditions) when it's already in place, by virtue of tradition, is fine. But adding discrimination later is not? Similarly, removing traditional discrimination is undesirable because it somehow degrades the tradition itself?


I wasn't implying you, in particular, were close minded. Sorry if it came across that way.


It's cool - you didn't come across that way. I just wanted to clarify.

Besides, I am close-minded, and I'm cool with that... I just wanted to point out that it was open, before I deliberately closed it. (And I didn't lock it!)


So to speak.

However, I'm curious what made you change your mind. Or, what I'm really interested in - what was your reason to be against it in the first place?

Well, I was originally against gay marriage for religious reasons. Over the years, I decided that that although I can be a religious individual, the country is - and should be - secular, for reasons of equality and freedom. I value liberty almost as much as I value my religion, and for maximum liberty, seperation of church and state is desirable - Otherwise we're no better than the countries ruled under sharia law, which we so vilify.


Therefore I never let my personal religion guide my political views, unless there's a conflict (in which case God wins).


At this point I became, like you, anti-gay-marriage, but pro-civil-union.


After a while, I decided it was a silly semantic distinction (as I had argued with you previously) with no real substantive difference, so dropped it, and just went in for pro-gay-marriage.

Yeah - that's pretty much the cold hard little core of the debate, isn't it.

The flaw in this comparison is that men are physically incapable of having children, so no - there is no discrimination involved in your scenario. However, there is no physical limitation preventing two men (or women) from of loving each other and speaking vows to one another and living as husbands, wives, spouses, life-partners (or whatever it is they want to call one another).Two very important things here - yes, it is the core of the debate. And, by suggesting that gender is akin to skin color, you've ended the debate. It's not the same (as you agree), and therefore THAT effectively ends the debate - the institution of two same gendered individuals is not the same as two opposite gendered individuals, and therefore should not be treated the same.

The second being your statement I bolded. I don't care what they call each other, either. But, what the government recognizes for special treatment should be demonstratably able to justify the special treatment. "Marriage", as defined for centuries, has already done that.So - discrimination (based on demographic conditions) when it's already in place, by virtue of tradition, is fine. But adding discrimination later is not? Similarly, removing traditional discrimination is undesirable because it somehow degrades the tradition itself?No, discrimination is wrong.

That's why there's no sexual orientation requirement for marriage. Marriage is defined as what it is, and anything else completely alters the definition of marriage, which wouldn't degrade marriages, but would degrade what the institution of marriage is.Well, I was originally against gay marriage for religious reasons. Over the years, I decided that that although I can be a religious individual, the country is - and should be - secular, for reasons of equality and freedom. I value liberty almost as much as I value my religion, and for maximum liberty, seperation of church and state is desirable - Otherwise we're no better than the countries ruled under sharia law, which we so vilify. Therefore I never let my personal religion guide my political views, unless there's a conflict (in which case God wins).Couldn't agree with you more hereAt this point I became, like you, anti-gay-marriage, but pro-civil-union.


After a while, I decided it was a silly semantic distinction (as I had argued with you previously) with no real substantive difference, so dropped it, and just went in for pro-gay-marriage.So, it sounds to me like your and my disagreement is whether it is over semantics.

I'll accept that disagreement easily, because it's easy to think that.

Who controls the weather, Al Gore???
"such terrible things from Him"? Me? Of course not...just because the entire Bible speaks of these types of events...


Last time i checked we're not the Chinese, seeding clouds for the Olympics. In otherwords no one "controls" the weather, not even Al Gore.

Well thats not entirely true, the Moon and Solar activities do, but i think you were asking more for some sort of conscious entity.

Well, I was originally against gay marriage for religious reasons. Over the years, I decided that that although I can be a religious individual, the country is - and should be - secular, for reasons of equality and freedom. I value liberty almost as much as I value my religion, and for maximum liberty, seperation of church and state is desirable - Otherwise we're no better than the countries ruled under sharia law, which we so vilify.

At this point I became, like you, anti-gay-marriage, but pro-civil-union.

After a while, I decided it was a silly semantic distinction (as I had argued with you previously) with no real substantive difference, so dropped it, and just went in for pro-gay-marriage.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up the entire argument for me. I can totally respect someone thinking that gay marriage is against their religion, although I don't agree with it. But we're a secular state, so the religious ideals of the majority cannot dictate the laws.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up the entire argument for me. I can totally respect someone thinking that gay marriage is against their religion, although I don't agree with it. But we're a secular state, so the religious ideals of the majority cannot dictate the laws.
We have become a secular state, we didnt start that way.

We have become a secular state, we didnt start that way.




And now, this thread is no longer about gay marriages - it will be about whether or not this country was founded as a Christian nation and whether Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were Christians or Deists or Zoroastrian or Scientologists.



I'm outta here.

We have become a secular state, we didnt start that way.

This country was not founded as a Christian nation.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were Zorastrian that converted to Deism and were married to Scientologists.

This country was not founded as a Christian nation.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were Zorastrian that converted to Deism and were married to Scientologists.I didnt actually say Christian, now did I?

By the way,, how much trouble would it be to provide a link proving that T.J and G.W (not Bush) were Zorastrian?

best I can show is that T.J was not.

This thread reminds me of the followoing quote.
... on the news that one country has diplomatically 'recognised' another: "Great Britain recognised the island state of Singapore.. How do you recognize an island? Do you go, exc-- Hey, wait. No, don't tell me. Wait, wait. Didn't we meet last year at the Feinman bar mitzvah? You look a lot like Hawaii. Didn't we meet last year at the Peninsula Club...

Why do they have to honor this when they don't honor other States CCPs?

Answer is they don't. They want to. I love how the AG says it is not political when obviously it is a very big political hot-button issue.

They can make any excuse to shove anything they want right down the throats of MD. I am so out of here when the last child is out of school.

I am so out of here when the last child is out of school.Why wait? Move now.

Why wait? Move now.
because deep down he/she realizes that running is not going to get him/her away from bad law. Sooner or later it will end up being the same regardless of where they move.

Now me?
I plan to leave the state right after we both retire, but it has more to do with the liberal social status of Maryland than it does any law regarding homosexuals.

plus, I like it better in less crowded areas. dont have to shower as often.

This country was not founded as a Christian nation.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were Zorastrian that converted to Deism and were married to Scientologists.

No, no, no. They were strict adherents to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I didnt actually say Christian, now did I?

please tell me i didnt need the :sarcasm: tag

No, no, no. They were strict adherents to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
and the difference between you outright trying to be hostile toward Christians/religious folk, and them being against homosexual marriage is exactly what?
how does this put you on the higher ground?