Tell you what we do then: all people practicing perverse and disgusting lifestyles will be forever banned from your heaven. So when they die they go somewhere else, Hell or Purgatory, whatever. And you get the place all to yourself.

But on earth they have to be free to practice said lifestyle. Otherwise they might sneak in and you'd be stuck with a bunch of homos for all eternity, shoving their “lifestyle” down your throat.

I don't they are even going that far, CT, as no Rep is promising to balance the budget. Maybe reduce the deficit some?

That's enough. As long as they win, right?

Budget is more the governments concern than private morality.

Once we go down that path there really isn't any good way it can end up.

And on a practical level: consider the average politician. Are you sure that's the person you want enforcing public morality?

Doesn't really matter.

There isn't anything stopping brothers and sisters from having sex right now (other than social stigma that I would imagine would be unchanged by any law).

They might not legally be allowed to be married now, and that may indeed change. However recent studies have revealed that it is possible to have sex outside of marriage (although it is not to be advised and can be highly damaging to both parties).

Brothers and sisters eh? How about the family dog? The neighbor's cat? Somebody pass me the puke bucket. You people need to really read the Scripture.

And it would have to be the opposite gender. None of that gay-bestiality.

Sin had not progressed through the human race at that point as it has today. It was not against the Law of God at that point. By the time that Moses brought down the Law from Sinai, sin had permeated the human race to the point where God knew that to allow it would cause serious problems. You're not as think as you smart you are UFKA.

Ah. So the problem is you have your head completely up your ass regarding what a 'heinous crime' is. Who is the victim in the “crime” of consensual gay sex?

Assumes facts not in evidence. Produce your evidence that even one of those is true. No hand waving, no “everybody knows” bullshit. Actual legally admissible EVIDENCE. Or STFU.

Pathetic trolling.

No, its pathetic trolling of the weakest sort not even meriting a response other than contempt.

You guys aren't advocating either, or a compromise, though. So what are you?

The government got into the marriage business to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. Bigotry all the way.

The government should get out of the marriage business.

Actually Christopher, Simon is right regarding licensing of marriage. It was in fact to permit miscegenation (interracial marriage).

Very true Simon. The concept of a license implies permission. I don't need permission from Uncle Sam to choose a woman and marry her. The government DOES however need to promote righteous conduct. Homosexuality is NOT righteous conduct, it's evil conduct.

That's ludicrous argument, Cav, and you know it. Their entire sexual identity dictates that are attracted to the same sex.

So it's not “equality”, it's “follow the same rules and you are equal”.

You are right, Stan. Same rules. Heterosexual rules.

Heterosexuals are the ones with special rules.

Opening it up to INCLUDE same-sex marriage is not a special rule. It's an equality rule.

I am using your logic, Stan.

The rules are currently man and woman only, right?

Well, that is the fundamental meaning of hetereosexual relationships. Man and Woman.

If the law says you can only marry a person of the opposite sex, then it is a special rule/law for heterosexuals.

If we passed a federal law saying only same sex marraiges are recognized by the state, would you consider including heterosexual marraiges a “special law” for heterosexuals, or “equalizing” the law to include everyone?

It's the exact same thing. You are calling me a jerk because you can't argue with it.

The currect law is a special law for heteros only. Expanding that to include gays is not a “special” anything. It's equality.

The law says you can only marry a person of the opposite sex, just like it says you cannot marry a close relative or a child or someone that is already married. Those laws apply to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.

Right. Like I said, it is a law that is specifically heterosexual. A special law.

So by changing that definition to appease to an insignificant minority of the population, you woudl be granting that minority a special right.

No. Granting blacks and whites the right to marry inter-racially wasn't a “special law” for inter-racial couples. It was a change to make the law equal. No one today thinks that inter-racial couples have special priviledges in order to be married, they just think of their right to be equal under the law.

You can't tell gays “we want everyone to be treated equally” and then say “equality under the law means heterosexual marraiges only”. That doesn't make sense.

If you have a moral objection to gay marraige, then fine. But spare the insult to our intelligence about “equality under the law”. Because gays don't have equality under the law.

If you are not going to address my points, Stan, then I will assume you have no counter-argument. Repeating the same thing is not debating, it's repetition.

So you can go on with arguing with yourself. I will move on.

I can't find a point that you have made Vega. You made some arguments, but they fall flat. There is a difference between equal, special, moral, and fair. No one of them is all encompassing. It's the reason we have to maker 'laws' in the first place.

Applying the equality argument here opens up a Pandora's box. You must then allow any one to “marry” anything in order to be “equal”. That would include incestuous and plural marriages… or you would be trampling on someone's “Equal Rights”.

Anything that is a legal relationship should be considered.

No, Vega is not right. The rules and restrictions for marriage do not discriminate, they are for everyone. Tell me what special privilidge straight people have over gay people, Pres.

Thank you, PF.

I agree that in a few states (certainly not all, or even most, but that is a state matter and acceptable to me) Civil Unions and Domestic Partnership laws do provide a close legal apprximation of marriage for homosexuals. The problem is that as long as there are any functional differences between the two insitutuions that provide government mandated benefits to married heterosexual couples while denying them to their gay civilly joined counterparts, the gays are (quite rightfully, IMHO) going to press for equal legal recongnition in their relationship. I sympathize w/ the gay argument when it comes to wanting equal treatment by their government in relationships, but less so when it comes to defining how private institutions should be forced recognize them, if at all.

To me, the correct response to this is not to say, “Well, they just need to get over that.” But instead to ask the question, “What special benefits does the government offer to married heterosexual couples that aren't avaialble to others, why are they exclusive to hetereosexuals, and does fairness and justice mandate that they should be extended to less traditional partnerships?” I think you have to answer all those questions logically with an answer better than “because that's the way it's always been”. Cav makes a pretty good argument to that effect, but ultimately is unconvincing to me because I know too many people (and am myself such a person) who come from multiple generations of broken homes, who have grown up in a culture that doesn't value marriage, and yet who have succesful marriages and value family more than anything else in their life. The value of family and marriage aren't dependant on anything the government does: they are self rewarding (or self punishing, or just kind of 'blah', depending on the quality of the individuals involved).

NO, male and female He created them is the NORM. It's necessary to twist nature like a pretzel to accept filthosexuality. Keep spitting in God's face and sooner or later, He's going to kick you in the pants. You can only mock the Almighty for so long.

No one is asking to base our society on gay marraige.

Sorry, I don't get into religious arguments.

The concept of establishment of religion refers to the establishment of a National Church (think Church of England), not to religious [i]influence[i/] in culture.

“We don't run our lives only dictated by biological pre-sets, Cav.”

Go fuck a tree if you want to, Vega. But you can't marry it.

“We don't run our lives only dictated by biological pre-sets, Cav.”

And yet you tell me that because one person is attracted to another, we have to overturn our entire culture to please them. You're the one who apparently wants to run things according to biological pre-sets, Vega… only the wrong ones.

“It's not over-turning a damn thing, Cav. That would mean everyone would be in same-sex marriages.”
 
No, Vega, that would be reversing the standard, not overturning it. At least try to make sense, would you?

I call bullcrap! No such thing.

Except for one small problem D-Vega. Homosexuality is NOT equal to heterosexuality. The former is deviant, the latter normal. Why should we as a society permit deviant conduct of ANY kind?

And if two men want to marry in a church, and not have a piece of paper from the state that says it's “okay”, there's nothing you can do to alter that.

That's called free choice. It's amazing how “nanny state” and “big gov't” conservatives can get when it comes to gays.

They are married though, but marriage is not a piece of paper, nor is it required to be recognized by the state.

Two people committ to each with vows, plus as an added bonus having it in a church is a marriage.

You can put your fingers in your ears and say “na,na,na,na” but it's still a marriage.

You don't have to like, but you have to accept it.

I can. Marriages which go beyond two people have a tendency of leading to abuse. Gay marriages don't.

You fail.

EPIC WIN!

“I can. Marriages which go beyond two people have a tendency of leading to abuse. Gay marriages don't.

You fail.

EPIC WIN!”
 
So marriages should not be allowed which have any POTENTIAL for abuse? Epic stupid, actually.

“Marriage it an inherently religious concept. Just because the government has a legal term for marriage doesn't mean that the government controls the concept. Some sects of Christianity and Judaism, as well as Wiccan and some other pagan religions, believe that marriage is between two consenting adults, and not between a man and a woman.”
 
I don't know where you get your information (idiotpedia, probably), but every successful human society of which I'm aware going back to the caves has had an official civil sanction for marriages. I'm sure you could find “some sects” of some religions sanctioning marriage between humans and space aliens, but what does that mean? Nothing. We're talking about the common majority culture, not the belief system of a few “sects” and crazies.

Suppose I'm indifferent to your particular moral code. Why should your code be law?

Maybe not in your opinion, but it doesn't mean it should be outlawed. There are a lot of things I consider wrong, but don't want to ban outright.

Exactly, the dietary and ceremonial laws are tailored to a desert people. There is nothing inherently evil about a pig or a shellfish, but eat a pig or a crab/lobster shrimp out in the desert and you're asking for a case of trichinosis that will undoubtedly kill you make you extremely ill. Hence the term 'unclean' as opposed to 'evil'.

Dude, you're quite obviously a troll and you know it. You never post anything then immediately show up and post a whole litany of rants on one issue.

I can tell you're trying to make us all look crazy by association and thus prove to yourself and your leftwing buddies that the right is a bunch of intolerant racists. But have you notice most people are either disagreeing with or ignoring you?

Wait til Yeshua gets back, we'll see who slaps whom. You have no clue Justin. Seriously. You reject Moschiach and all HE has to say, then have the absolute testicular fortitude to call yourself a Jew. Ethnically perhaps. Literally, no way.

Israel has quite lavish gay pride parades.

As a Gentile, yes I do. Remember the dietary laws are tailored to a desert people and NOT part of the moral law. Please don't keep asking questions that are irrelevant, trying to make the Word of God null and void. The moral law is an absolute. Dietary laws are not.

“Really? Robert Byrd advocated lynching blacks, many muslims argue that women are chattel and homosexuals must die. You don't see black/women/homosexual rights groups working with them as a bit odd?”

Black groups didn't work with Byrd at that time, Smithwick. And the homosexual/women groups don't work with the militant Islamics either.

“Not really. Blacks are pretty much owned by the democrats. They are voting for policies that hurt them but it's too well ingrained in their culture.”

So you are ceding the entire black populace to the Dems, then?

“We're working on curbing illegal immigration so the Hispanic group won't be such a major voting block (legals tend to support republicans).”

Legals don't tend to support Reps. “Legals”, or Hispanic Americans, used to be almost evenly divided, skewing a bit Democrat. NOW, due to demonization of Hispanics as a whole (yes, you guys are doing that) you guys are driving more away.

Hispanics were a huge potential voting block for Reps, and you guys squandered by letting the kooks dictate the narrative as to what you guys really want. Now it may be too late, and you could lose them for a generation. Not good, considering they are the number 1 minority group.

“Either way: homosexuals represent the same percentage of the population no matter which party is courting them. So I could ask you why are the democrats working with them?”

Because Democrats can articulate what they want better than the Reps can, and they are a key constituent because they are more politically active than the average American.

They work directly to promote people from that party. Like if a gay republican voted for a rabidly anti-gay republican candidate. They may not be voting for him based on that issue, but they are putting him in power all the same.

A gay Republican who votes for a rabidly anti-gay Rep is a fool.

The majority yes. That's what the polls say anyway. As long as the black community is led by people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton they are doomed to be more financially dependent on the government than the average group of citizens; this is the realm of the democrats.

If you think that Blacks are being led by Sharpton and Jackson, then you have definitely become out of touch with the black populace. They think of those guys as one of them, but not their leaders.

Care to cite evidence for that? Every hispanic I know who came to this country legally is as pissed off at illegals, if not more so, than the average non-hispanic.

It's not about being pissed off at illegals, it's about the illegal immigration issue being all about the Hispanic populace. More than often, Hispanic Americans are being assumed to be illegal JUST because they are Hispanic. That is the main problem with SB 1070.

Think about the English-only initiatives, membership of La Raza and what La Raza is, the B-roll of Mexicans hopping over the fences on the border, the fact that Arizona wanted English-only on all their official documents and the word “Arizona” being a Spanish word.

Favoring high taxes and large government are not gay issues. The dems have simply picked up the homosexual vote because of a few key issues.

Key issues like not demonizing them as heathens and respecting their wishes to marry and serve in the military?

Neutralize those and I imagine homosexuals will give their vote (and money) more and more to republicans.

I would agree, depending on the Republican. Reps like Bloomberg and Giuliani have garnered lots of gay support. But you see, they are labeled by the conservative base as being liberal.

Nationally, a key conservative base is religious conservatives. And they will not accept gays as being part of the program. And those religious conservatives are a WHOLE lot more important than a few gays.

Because, of course, a sample size of one means the whole world operates that way. Awesome logic!

“Exactly! And the answer is not to devalue marriage further, but work to build it up.”

But that is not part of the legitimate role of government.

Our constitutions lists out some very specific roles for the federal government and protecting the sanctity of marriage isn't one of them. That's up to individuals, communities, churches, etc.

Not the feds.

That sounds like another version of Nanny-Statism, Cav. Same coin, different side. The government is not better suited than I am at determining weather my decisions are good or bad for society-at-large, assuming those decisions don't do demonstrable harm to my neighbor.

For instance, our declining birth rates could be a potential issue for the well being of our society, but who wants the government poking their nose into how many kids you have? I certainly don't, and for the same reasons I don't want them dictating how much sodium is allowed to go on top of a mashed potato.

These issues have to be addressed by individuals within our society. Just like businesses must be left to succeed or fail based on the quality, profitability, and marketability of their products… our society has to tie its own shoes, or else learn to go barefoot.

So we should tax some people to encourage others to behave the way the government deems appropriate?

This is how it starts.

We'll just raise taxes a little to push for programs that, while unnecessary and unconstitutional, seem like a good idea to me.

That is exactly why we are in this mess.

“A government which encourages marriage might, say, make funds available for premarital counseling if a couple could not afford it.”

Make funds available. That means taxes. Unless you want further deficit spending. You're starting to sound like a liberal on this: just make the government pay for it, then it'll be free.

“Our legal system is unneccesary and unconstitutional? That, again, fits your decription of “taxing some people to encourage others to behave”"

Not at all. Some laws make sense (ie no murdering). Otherwise though are feel good measures to encourage others to behave in accordance with your views, rather than to preserve the rights and properties of everyone.

You can't see any difference between outlawing the unnecessary taking of someones life and working to encourage them to take marriage counseling?

I believe in a very strict interpretation of the constitution for a variety of reasons. And I can't see any part of it that says we should be taxing people to provide for marriage counseling.

I did not insult you in anyway. I pointed out how you were arguing. If you were to say we should take all money from the rich and give it to the poor I'd likewise say you are arguing like a leftist.

It's pretty simple really: all legitimate laws can be boiled down to causing harm. Harm to a person or their property by another that occurs without that persons consent.

So if a person is assaulted, that causes them harm and is illegal. If a restaurant poisons them, likewise illegal. If they choose to eat nothing but trans-fats and salt while smoking, well they are doing it to themselves so it's legal (although unwise).

If a person steals from you, that causes harm to your property. If they lie about you in such a way that it harms your ability to find a job, again harm to your property.

If they choose not to get married? How does that harm you directly?

I would have no problem with voluntary efforts to encourage marriage, but at a federal level? Hell no.

Consider: once this precedent has been established how do you end it? You've already declared that it is ok to raise taxes to cover new social programs you deem necessary to “preserve our culture”. That notion is not quantifiable so it means whatever you choose to define it as. We already have one party dedicated to loosely interpreting what is “socially good” and raising taxes, enforcing new laws, and setting up incentives to coerce people in to acting how they deem to be appropriate: that would be the democrats. They have likewise already set this precedent many many times.

It is unfortunate that one major (and currently dominate) party acts in such a way. I have no interest in seeing the other major party join them. Bad enough to have one that is counterbalanced, two without any such balance would be disastrous.

“Allowing a small group of people to change the definition of marriage to suit their deviant sexual preference would harm my descendants,”

Ah yes, because they will be forced to marry people of the same sex against their will.

Allowing people to convert to different religions will change our culture and thus harm my descendants. Ergo the government should become intimately involved in personal religious choices.

Allowing art and free speech to take frightening new paths will irrevocably change our culture, thus harming my descendants. Ergo the government should say what speech is acceptable.

“Therefore, according to your definition, a law allowing gay “marriage” would be illegitimate. “

Wow, clearly you haven't been paying attention. Find where I said we should have more laws on this subject rather than fewer.

And you really haven't proven how you will be directly harmed by not having the government enforce your definition of marriage (rather than getting out of the business entirely as I have advocated). Unless the concept of two dudes getting married (in a church of their choosing with absolutely zero legal significance) is so devastating to you that it will cause you physical harm.

Not saying you have to like it, just pretend it isn't happening. The law will be indifferent on this (people can choose to get married, or not, their legal status would not be changed in the least).

This is how fascism starts: enough people believing they have the right to tell others how to live using the full force of the law.

Consider our founding fathers: how many of them do you suppose would have been cool with the idea of the federal government deeming itself fit to allow or annul marriages as it sees fit?

“And you really haven't proven how you will be directly harmed by not having the government enforce your definition of marriage “
 
That “how will it harm you directly” question is one Liberals always ask. Please see my answer elsewhere on this thread; it's too long to post again.

“I would have guessed you would be vehemently opposed to the government using tax dollars to pay for marital counseling.”
 
I'm not reflexively knee-jerk against any government action whatsoever, you know. This one happens to be, in my opinion, somewhat reasonable. It promotes societal stability and healthy marriages. As long as the government could have no say in what counselor(s) the couples went to, it would be far less a waste of my tax dollars than almost anything else the government does. Perhaps it would be better done in the form of a loan, though… if we can get past the gut-churning mental image of Barney Frank as a marriage counselor (yikes)!
 
“I think the sooner we can remove the government from supporting, encouraging, or “nudging” people's personal decisions, the sooner people will have to take responsibility for those decisions.”
 
From the beginning of time, whatever government human groups have created has always, always exercised its power to influence the personal decisions of the citizens. What you hope for will never happen as long as human beings govern over others.
 
“If the government looked at marriage the same way it looks at business partnerships, people who want the government to formally recognize their social partnership would have to put more thought into what exactly they are getting into.”
 
That makes a lot of sense, Pres. Treating a marriage contract as, well, a contract would definitely cause people to think long and hard about their marriages before tying the knot. I would worry, though, about the societal influence of having fixed-term contracts instead of only permanent ones, which the Left will push for just as sure as I'm sitting here. It would kind of defeat the purpose if you could marry someone for, say, a year at a time and then it was over. Still, I think you might be on the track of something.

“[laws passed by] society at large about how they want their culture to behave… can go too far, but it is not always wrong for a law to be passed limiting behavior.”

I agree, but when you get away from the simple stuff like protecting people from harming, threatening, stealing from, or defrauding others, and opt instead to start trying to protect people from themselves, such laws usually go too far and are wrong.

Cultural stability, even if it were possible to regulate on a federal level, is not the role of the feds either.

Freeing the slaves, giving women the vote, the industrial revolution (here) all caused tremendous cultural upheaval. It would have been wrong and ultimately impossible to prevent such things.

The government should remain stable over time. In that it should enforce the constitution the same today as it did 200 years ago. It should remain a fair and unbiased arbiter of laws and legal disputes. It should provide for the security of it's citizens (so long as that doesn't get in the way of our freedoms). Etc.

It should NOT try to control our culture to preserve some ideal status. That is neither ideal nor practical. Besides, once the precedent is set that means whoever is in charge at that momentgets to decide what bit of culture needs to be enforced at gunpoint (ultimately that's what government edicts boil down to). Not a desirable situation to me.

Maintaining our culture is up to us. If we fail then we don't deserve to have a stable or free society.

But that's the thing: either it's an individual/societal choice in which case government has no place making laws pertaining to marriage at all, or it is a federal issue in which case they can define it as they see fit.

I'd rather take the government out of it entirely. And I don't see adding new amendments/laws as a step in the right direction. I would very much prefer if there were no laws whatsoever that dealt with marriage. Instead individuals can draw up their own contracts (calling them whatever they please) to determine inheritance, medical rights, etc and leave the marriage aspect out of it entirely.

So the government would simply be in the position of enforcing a voluntarily signed contract between two people (something they're pretty good at and should be handling) and the definition/sanctity of marriage will be left to the individuals involved.

Governments tend to represent those with powers. In our case; lobbyists and special interest groups.

But anyway saying they're our representatives so they ought to be cool doing whatever means we have no need for any limits on government power. They work for us right? We elected them? So why limit what they can do, they will only work honestly for what we want and need.

That argument is one often used by the left as an excuse to shred the constitution. It was one I had never thought to see here.

Well put, sir. And even if it wanted to, the government cannot add or detract social value from marriage. Sure, we could return to the days where people who want to get divorced must first cheat on or abuse their spouse, but does anyone really believe that would strengthen marriage in this country? I think it would just give us a massive increase in the number of wife beaters and cheating spouses.

The value of marriage and family is self contained, but it is reserved for people willing to pay the price of admission. The reason people are straying away from it isn't because they don't see the value in it, it's because they are too mentally, emotionally, and spiritually weak to commit to it.

But that's my point: the federal government does not devalue marriage nor do they maintain it's sanctity.

It wasn't a federal law that led to 50% divorce rates, it was individuals choices. I don't think we should try to correct bad choices of individuals by decree.

So by that logic I would have to say the government should get out of the marriage racket all together and leave it with the churches and individuals where it belongs.

Again, you aren't being forced to marry a guy. Many churches and Reform Synagogues have expanded their definition of marriage to include homosexual unions. That has nothing to do with the government. That has everything to do with individual choice, something North America was founded on.

It is not the government's place to direct society, simple as that. Government should never have gotten into marriage in the first place, I've come to realize. Marriage is about religion, not about government.

If areas of society buy into the self destructive social structure, that is their choice, and the only thing you can do is try to find a community that isn't so self destructive. But an entire nation simply cannot be held to a moral standard, it violates freedom of religion.

“Government should never have gotten into marriage in the first place, I've come to realize.”
 
Well, when you get hold of a time machine, you can travel back to the beginning of human society. and tell Onk the cave-people headman all about your wonderful insights. Then he can smash your head in with a club and I'll no longer have to see your stupid comments cluttering my inbox.

“I have advocated removing marriage from the government sphere entirely.”
 
I'm sorry, Smith, but there is absolutely no realistic way of removing government from marriage until you remove humans from government. People will always bring their moral standards and cultural mores with them to office. The people who elect them will always want them to pass laws based on the morals and mores of the dominant culture. Government is rooted in culture, culture is based on familial relationships, and family is based on marriage.

“Our government ought to be based around our constitution, not culture nor even popular opinion (on some issues). ”
 
The Constitution is itself a product of our culture. And popular opinion having a direct voice in the government was the reason for including the House of Representatives in it, with its two-year expiration date.

“The constitution was a product of many things, including a fear of rule by the mob. Which is why our basic rights are not subject to a vote.”

Good, then my right to preserve marriage with the same meaning it has had for thousands of years will not be up for a vote. Good to know.

“Cool, point out where that right is ensrhined in our constitution.”
 
It's the line just before the one where a tiny group of people who enjoy deviant sex get to change the definition of marriage to make themselves feel more normal. Check it out!

We are at war with Islam. We are under no obligation to permit our enemies anything until they make peace. Your comment on Eminent Domain is well taken.

The Cordoba Mosque is a so-called victory mosque. Do a little research.

When a religion show itself hostile to the United States, as Islam has, they forfeit the protection of the Constitution. Again, I cite early Mormonism a proof of this.