Obama (finally) declares support for same-sex marriage.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Sure they can. They choose not to.

Indeed they make bad decisions. Continuously.

Quote

And to the point, having the govt involved is certainly *not* the answer.

Well, the government needs somewhat healthy people to succeed as a country. The less healthy you get as a nation, the more rules and regulations you will start seeing.

Don't like that, than as a nation, start making better/healthier decisions.

Ah, the Fascism is so unbecoming of you.

[billvon 3,118]

>Speak for yourself. No one tells me what to eat, when to exercise, and
>I'm in fantastic shape.

Right. And I don't drive drunk because I think it's a stupid thing to do, not because the government tells me I can't. Doesn't mean that it's a good idea to repeal drunk driving laws.

That being said, there are a lot of steps the government can take without "telling you what to eat." Labeling laws that require accurate nutritional information on food, zoning laws that make walking and biking workable modes of transportation, and employment laws that encourage people to live healthier lives can all help.

[wmw999 2,588]

And before we get into "government legislating how we live" being a new thing, we used to throw our trash in the streets, then we burned it in our driveways. We used to drive cars that burned leaded gas -- and air was worse in those days (it was). We used to all have outhouses, then cesspools, then we moved on, mostly because of laws.

None of those things were a real problem when there were just a few people -- but the more people, the more obvious downstream problems are.

I want my government to look a few steps down the path, and not just at the next rock. Sometimes they'll get it wrong. Sometimes they'll control too much, sometimes too little (better that last one). But they damn well better think about the downstream effects of what's happening, and not just the ones that one side or the other tells them are the only effects that matter.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If same sex marriages are allowed, the line between man and woman is made unclear. There are definite differences and those lines would be blurred if what marriage is was changed ...
What you all think?

I think you, and most people, have an uninformed notion of the "distinct lines" between male and female. Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome, and Klinefelter's syndrome, for a start.

Anyway, I think your argument is silly, but it does highlight an interesting correlation: the same people who are so opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians also tend to want to limit the roles women can play in society too.

Don

Just a fucked up arrogant post

Fucked up in what way? Arrogant in what way? I'm not responsible for the fact that there are genotypes other than XX or XY. Neither an I responsible for the fact that certain mutations ensure you will turn out a phenotypic female, whatever your chromosomes say. Pretending that nature is simple when it really isn't doesn't actually make you smarter, Marc.

Are you aware that there is no definition of "male" and "female" in US law? It seems odd that you can restrict marriage to an arrangement between a man and a woman, without having some precise legal definition of what constitutes a man or a woman.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If same sex marriages are allowed, the line between man and woman is made unclear. There are definite differences and those lines would be blurred if what marriage is was changed ...
What you all think?

I think you, and most people, have an uninformed notion of the "distinct lines" between male and female. Look up androgen insensitivity syndrome, and Klinefelter's syndrome, for a start.

Anyway, I think your argument is silly, but it does highlight an interesting correlation: the same people who are so opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians also tend to want to limit the roles women can play in society too.

Don

Just a fucked up arrogant post

Fucked up in what way? Arrogant in what way? I'm not responsible for the fact that there are genotypes other than XX or XY. Neither an I responsible for the fact that certain mutations ensure you will turn out a phenotypic female, whatever your chromosomes say. Pretending that nature is simple when it really isn't doesn't actually make you smarter, Marc.

Are you aware that there is no definition of "male" and "female" in US law? It seems odd that you can restrict marriage to an arrangement between a man and a woman, without having some precise legal definition of what constitutes a man or a woman.

Don

And boom goes the dynamite!

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[dmcoco84 5]

Ey Ya, Canada...

We'll take ya oil sands, but you can keep ya government. We don't want it. We need to Restore and actually live under what we have, before we, "fundamentally transform the United States of America."

Why do you even care so much a-boot the system of healthcare we have here? I don't see how it affects you if you live in Canada.



So ah, How about we get back to Gay Marriage... and stay [on topic].

Bolas is the only person here on point... its just a tad incomplete. But he is totally right.

This argument is so asinine ...D vs R... Ugh, how about the Constitution?! If the gay community changed their argument, they would already have been successful long ago.

[billvon 3,118]

>Ugh, how about the Constitution?! If the gay community changed their
>argument, they would already have been successful long ago.

What would they have changed it to?

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Speak for yourself. No one tells me what to eat, when to exercise, and I'm in fantastic shape.

Good for you, the majority of your country men and women cannot do the same.

Sure they can. They choose not to. And to the point, having the govt involved is certainly *not* the answer.

At what point would it be? When our teenagers are so unfit that the Marines can't get enough recruits that can survive boot camp?

The divide is real. Our fit people are getting increasingly so. Our fat people are getting increasingly so in real measurable ways. (BMI may not be appropriate for athletes, but it's good enough for the couch potatoes). The number of people in the middle are shrinking.

and when you look at the tens of trillions in unfunded Medicare obligations facing us in the middle half of the century, it would be foolish not to start tackling this problem now.

How old are you, devildog? If you're still in your 20s, you may lack objectivity on this issue.

Ah, the old age attack. Sorry, about to turn 35 here.

So, what would you propose? Fines from the govt for being fat? Maybe some jail time? Do you really want a bureaucratic process that hovers over a list and deems what is and is not a healthy, safe activity? Why stop at foods? Motorcycles are 50 times more deadly than cars. Lets get rid of them too. Any "extreme" sport should go as well, skydiving included but not limited to just that. So on and so forth.

You'll forgive me if that doesn't sound like "The land of the free" I signed up to defend, and that others died for.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[DanG 1]

Quote

"The land of the free"

You mean a land where, say, two people who wanted to get married would be allowed to? That kind of land?

- Dan G

[mirage62 0]

This a a reply to "all"

Other than it being "easy" why is making marraige between same sex so important? I know it would be more work for our already disfunctional gov but would a federal law for civil unions fix the problem?

My question bluntly is the question moral legitmacy of same sex relationship hence the term marriage?

I believe completely that same sex relationships should have every legal right that a "married" couple has.

Completely.

Is it a forces acceptence? If we are married than we are accepted? If not than whats the big deal with the entire debate.

I don't know how I would vote on the issue it doesn't make me lay awake at night..... but it sure seems to be important to people (gay and straight)

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Why do you even care so much a-boot the system of healthcare we have here? I don't see how it affects you if you live in Canada.

Uhmm, I don't care and understanding prior to replying
Bilvon just above is right on, so is Wendy. Legislating how we live is nothing new. It is what governments do. Nothing new in the US either, as long as there has been government, they have been legislating how you can and cannot live. What you can and cannot eat and drink, etc.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I believe completely that same sex relationships should have every legal right that a "married" couple has.

For me, this is the issue. Currently same-sex couples do not have the same legal rights as "traditional" couples. If the government is going to stick it's nose into people's relationships by granting special rights and status to married people, then it needs to do it in an unbiased way.

The only fair alternative to legal gay marriage, is no legal marriage.

BTW, I don't care what it's called. Civil union, marriage, whatever. Call it a cumquat for all I care. As long as everyone is allowed to enter into whatever cumquat they want.

- Dan G

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

...Other than it being "easy" why is making marraige between same sex so important? I know it would be more work for our already disfunctional gov but would a federal law for civil unions fix the problem?...

I theory, yes. Taking the term "marriage" out of the debate would reduce (not eliminate) some of the contention. Keep in mind that the NC vote recently banned civil unions as well as marriage.

But the big problem is that the terms "marriage:, "husband", "wife", and "spouse" are all written into many laws. IIRC it's well over 1100 seperate statutes at the federal level. Ranging from decisions over health care and survirvorship to family discounts at national parks.

Each and every one of those would have to be changed. In a seperate legislative act.

In both the house and the senate.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[davjohns 1]

I've always been rather fond of marriage contracts. I understand that's how it was once done in England. Each party could put whatever they wanted in the contract and everyone knew what they were getting into. Then, it's a nice issue of civil law that allows the courts to protect parties, but does not require government sanction for creation or dissolution.

I once saw a piece on a couple whose pre-nup specified who did what household chores, how often they would have sex, etc. They knew up front what they were getting into and what would end the relationship and how. I rather liked it. The pre-nup said they would have sex three to five times per week. He said they came up with that language because he couldn't accept less than three and she said she couldn't handle more than five. Solves at least one argument.

I just don't see marriage as a legitimate issue for government definition and regulation. Everything government regulation protects (inheritance, support, dissolution, child support, etc.) is easily handled through other means. A marriage contract and will handles most everything. Take away tax incentives and health care issues and what are the remaining government issues?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

This a a reply to "all"

Other than it being "easy" why is making marraige between same sex so important? I know it would be more work for our already disfunctional gov but would a federal law for civil unions fix the problem?

It would not be this easy. Marriage (and divorce) are generally governed by state laws. There are federal benefits attached to that status, so a federal law could allow the same federal tax status and social security bwenefits (and benefits for federal employees) but would have to specify exactly what state relationships it covers. Presumably if the state did not recognize a civil union the federal benefits would not apply (maybe) as they are currently attached to state marriage.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 3,118]

>Other than it being "easy" why is making marraige between same sex so important?

Because it gives gays the same rights straight people have.

>Is it a forces acceptence? If we are married than we are accepted?

I think there are three reasons.

1) It is by far the easiest way to ensure equality before the law. The other option would be to change every law that refers to husband and wife - and there are quite literally thousands.

2) There are precedents where a portion of the population was kept separate from everyone else by governmental decree. They called this "separate but equal" - but the reality was that they were in no way equal. Thus if the government comes out with a proposal that says "we're going to keep you in a separate category, but trust us you will be totally equal" they have good reason to mistrust them.

3) For acceptance. It is indicative of a commitment that everyone accepts.

[devildog 0]

Not sure where you are going with this as I'm not advocating jail time or fines based on who you want to hump in bed.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

I once saw a piece on a couple whose pre-nup specified who did what household chores, how often they would have sex, etc. They knew up front what they were getting into and what would end the relationship and how. I rather liked it. The pre-nup said they would have sex three to five times per week. He said they came up with that language because he couldn't accept less than three and she said she couldn't handle more than five. Solves at least one argument.

That's hilarious. The only way to ensure enforcement is video surveillance.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Not sure where you are going with this as I'm not advocating jail time or fines based on who you want to hump in bed.

Never said you were. Freedom means more than not being in jail. It also means getting the same treatment as everyone else under the law.

Also, the issue has nothing to do with sex. It has to do with legal equality.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Other than it being "easy" why is making marraige between same sex so important? I know it would be more work for our already disfunctional gov but would a federal law for civil unions fix the problem?

for many, yes, that would fix the problem. But to others, it's still a case of "separate but equal." There are churches that will marry people of the same sex and there's still no justification to insist that they can only be a civil union.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ah, the old age attack. Sorry, about to turn 35 here.

I asked because the younger you are, the less the perspective on the reasons why America is widening.

Quote

So, what would you propose? Fines from the govt for being fat? Maybe some jail time? Do you really want a bureaucratic process that hovers over a list and deems what is and is not a healthy, safe activity? Why stop at foods? Motorcycles are 50 times more deadly than cars. Lets get rid of them too. Any "extreme" sport should go as well, skydiving included but not limited to just that. So on and so forth.

There have been more than a few discussion. However, you've merged two issues here - Americans' fitness and health care costs. The threat to our sports of choice are more in the second category.

Doing nothing, which seems to be your proposal, is not a sound one for the future of our nation. Did you sign on to promote the decline of America? There are in fact solutions that may not cross your notions of freedom.

[mirage62 0]

Quote

1) It is by far the easiest way to ensure equality before the law. The other option would be to change every law that refers to husband and wife - and there are quite literally thousands.

Well I agree, but of course this is easiest for the outcome of one group. Not saying it's wrong, just pointing out the obvious.

Quote

2) There are precedents where a portion of the population was kept separate from everyone else by governmental decree. They called this "separate but equal" - but the reality was that they were in no way equal.....

I agree here, seperate but equal does have problems. Always has, always will.

Quote

3) For acceptance. It is indicative of a commitment that everyone accepts.

I think the real hope and most likely the real believe is that all the people that don't believe it's "right" will agree once the laws are changed...or they die off.

I'm 52, in the last say five years or so I have gotten to the point that when a interracel couple walks by I barely notice....for some of you that will be hard to believe and not believe that I am not a racist.

I believe that should marriage become avaliable between the same sex couple I will one day not even notice.

I just hope I learn faster.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[wmw999 2,588]

That is a really good, honest, post. Thanks.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

1) It is by far the easiest way to ensure equality before the law. The other option would be to change every law that refers to husband and wife - and there are quite literally thousands.

Well I agree, but of course this is easiest for the outcome of one group. Not saying it's wrong, just pointing out the obvious.

Quote

2) There are precedents where a portion of the population was kept separate from everyone else by governmental decree. They called this "separate but equal" - but the reality was that they were in no way equal.....

I agree here, seperate but equal does have problems. Always has, always will.

Quote

3) For acceptance. It is indicative of a commitment that everyone accepts.

I think the real hope and most likely the real believe is that all the people that don't believe it's "right" will agree once the laws are changed...or they die off.

I'm 52, in the last say five years or so I have gotten to the point that when a interracel couple walks by I barely notice....for some of you that will be hard to believe and not believe that I am not a racist.

I believe that should marriage become avaliable between the same sex couple I will one day not even notice.

I just hope I learn faster.

This is one of the best posts in this thread.
As to why the word "marriage" is important, I don't really have anything to add that hasn't already been said.

The word is unimportant to me. My relationship with my husband is important to me, no matter what it is called. Being legally "married" has made a few things easier for us as a couple, and I don't wish to deny that opportunity to others based on sexual orientation.

[devildog 0]

Quote

Quote

Ah, the old age attack. Sorry, about to turn 35 here.

I asked because the younger you are, the less the perspective on the reasons why America is widening.

Quote

So, what would you propose? Fines from the govt for being fat? Maybe some jail time? Do you really want a bureaucratic process that hovers over a list and deems what is and is not a healthy, safe activity? Why stop at foods? Motorcycles are 50 times more deadly than cars. Lets get rid of them too. Any "extreme" sport should go as well, skydiving included but not limited to just that. So on and so forth.

There have been more than a few discussion. However, you've merged two issues here - Americans' fitness and health care costs. The threat to our sports of choice are more in the second category.

Doing nothing, which seems to be your proposal, is not a sound one for the future of our nation. Did you sign on to promote the decline of America? There are in fact solutions that may not cross your notions of freedom.

A "lazy and fat" nation certainly is not a healthy one, and of course, I'd like to see people take a better interest in living a healthy life -- something insane like 80% of all hospitalizations are related to life style choices. And if the nation as a whole wanted to promote being healthy, eating right, benefits of exercise, etc. then I'm all for it. I'm not, however, all for govt mandating basic eating and exercise habits. Forcing people to do X instead of Y historically does not turn out well. Changing their minds and allowing them to pick X instead of Y however, has much better results.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.