Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Earth]

CARL, would you like to provide foundation for your supposition?

/seppuku

Oh, and BTW, the burden of proof is on those who allege that homosexuality is "intrinsic."

Well, if you want to defend your view that being homosexual is a "lifestyle choice" against now commonly accepted ideas of it being biological, then the burden is on you.

[Earth]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

Since abortions don't involve infants, it makes no difference what the reason for an abortion is. It's intellectually dishonest of you to use such loaded language.

[Earth]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

Since abortions don't involve infants, it makes no difference what the reason for an abortion is. It's intellectually dishonest of you to use such loaded language.

Fine, then I'll just use murder then, ok?

We can't have a mature discussion until you leave the emotionally loaded aside.

[Earth]

Essentially what you are saying is that principles be damned, gays are special and deserve special treatment. 

Homosexuals are no more "special" than heterosexuals. People aren't asking for homosexuals to gain special treatment, just that they receive the same rights as heterosexuals. It's simple. People could do themselves a big favor and realize that marriage need not be a religiously motivated, or mandated institution, just a union that is legally recognized by the state. As far as I'm concerned, no one should be in the position to dictate who can and cannot consensually marry.

[Earth]

As far as I'm concerned, no one should be in the position to dictate who can and cannot consensually marry.

So can five guys marry one woman? How about the other way around? Should sisters and brothers be allowed to marry? Where does it end?

I personally don't have a problem with polygamy, but if it were to be recognized legally, then having extra spouses shouldn't entitle one to gain a bigger tax break, or to abuse that.

Earth,

Apparently you have not been following the full conversation.

Alcon and the other lefties on this site would support 'gay marriage' but deny multiple partner marriage based on their own personal approval of homosexuality and opposition to multiple partner marriage.

They denounce others for opposing 'gay marriage' on the basis of personal disapproval.  Its sort of like a person denouncing discrimination against blacks, but then supporting discrimination against asians.  

I've been a part of this argument before, so I haven't read the entire thread, but I understand their points. I'm just throwing in my two cents.

[Earth]

... Like I said before in this post - homosexual marriage will  NEVER BE ACCPECTED.  By forcing this without taking a step back and maybe reevaluate the issue, or finding common ground will not help the case for gay rights. 

How do you know that it would never be accepted? And how are any of us forcing this?

[Earth]

Because it won't be accepted by most Americans NEVER.  You know that, and why keep pushing this upon others?

And you know this as fact? The fact that prop 8 was so contested, and the support for gay rights are at an all time high tells me they'll be able to gain what they're looking for. And your accusation that I'm "pushing this upon others" is crap. No straight man or woman is effected by gays gaining the right to marry. People get too emotionally wrapped up in this.

[Earth]

in that case:  none of the founders of the federal or state constitutions would have imagined same-sex marriages under the governments they established...so you're inventing "rights" out of thin air.

Rights are invented out of "thin air". We're talking about civil rights pertaining to gays, the rights granted by the state.

[Earth]

Rights are invented out of "thin air". We're talking about civil rights pertaining to gays, the rights granted by the state.

A right that they already have in the form of  Civil Unions.

Civil unions don't have the same benefits as marriage. A civil union isn't recognized federally, and only a handful of states have civil unions available to it's citizens. They aren't binding if the couple moves out of state. Couples in a civil union can't file joint tax returns, they can't sponsor their spouse in the case of immigration. Ending a civil union requires residence in the state where it's recognized for at least a year, whereas married couples can divorce anywhere in the country. Civil unions are hardly a solution.

[Earth]

Aizen was kidding, guys.

[Earth]

what benefit is there to having marriage be a legal concept and not just a church sacrament?

There are millions who couldn't care less about the religious aspect, the legal aspects are more important.

[Earth]

Civil Unions would work if done right.

How so?

[Earth]

...It bugs me to hear people trout out the Civil rights that were fought for in the 1960s on the behalf of Black Americans; it’s downright ridiculous and disrespecting to those people.

The phrase "civil rights" isn't exclusive to the black civil rights movement. We're talking about exactly that, granting civil rights, except this time, it's for gays.

I am not understanding what you are wanting?   People are still going to get married in Churches, and let’s be honest that's not going to happen for the gay couple even if you get to redefine marriage.

There are liberal churches that are willing to marry gay couples. Obviously not as many as traditional churches, but they exist. Legitimately founded christian churches, none the less. You're making it sound as if because gay rights have such opposition, it's not worth doing.

We are really debating over the way its "worded" more then anything else. Right now, Forty-one states currently have statutory Defense of Marriage Acts.  Three of those states have statutory language that pre-dates DOMA (enacted before 1996) defining marriage as between a man and a woman.  Twenty-seven states have defined marriage in their constitutions.  Arizona is the only state that has ever defeated a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman (2006).Here’s the big problem
with this forced way - most states have already said NO WAY.  Civil Unions reworked so
that they protect rights of same sex couples would be the best way.  This fight over
redefining marriage will get nowhere.

If anything, these states should've never legislated a definition for marriage, "only between a man and a woman". The point is, if civil unions don't offer the exact same protections as traditional marriage, then civil unions either need to be reformed, or the states should let gays marry. It's sad that the state feels they need to intervene, but because of ignorance, it's the only option left.

*Mandate Civil Unions be recognized in all 50 states.

* Mandate that under Civil Unions same sex couples are granted the same martial rights

as straight couples.

IS THIS NOT FAIR ENOUGH?

In theory, yes it's fair enough, but do you honestly think civil unions will get to that point? I don't think they will currently.

Nobody’s being bigoted towards homosexuals, but allowing same sex
marriages would undermine the marriage institution. Let’s be honest here, we all pretty
much know that marriage was intended between man and woman.

How does this "undermine" marriage at all? Will heterosexual couples be deprived of something if gays are allowed to marry? I don't believe they will. Will churches be forced to marry gays? No. Will communities suffer? I really don't think so. Whatever churches would marry gay couples, the choice is voluntary. Honestly, this resistance just sounds like an inflexible mindset to carry on tradition no matter what cost.

This attempt to redefine marriage and muddle the waters is not helping either side.  I don't want to hear the nonsense argument comparing it to African American civil rights.  To be frank about it... gay rights has come along alot faster in span of 20 years then AA rights did.  Whats being missed in all of this is the social importance in heterosexual marriage.  I believe that as a society we should keep "marriage" defined as between a man and woman.

Once again, explain how this "muddles the water". The only one comparing it to the african american civil rights movement is you, "civil rights" don't only refer to african american's fight against segregation.

Explain the "social importance" of marriage that excludes a certain section of people, where minorities of all types are losing out. There's nothing that would put heterosexual marriage into trouble by giving gays the right to marry. Society will not change in some massive way. In the end it doesn't matter what society believes marriage should entail, it becomes an issue once it becomes a part of the legal domain.

My argument for Civil Unions is about finding another way in the door without hitting those on the other side of that door in the process.

I'm arguing for nothing more than gay couples to obtain the exact same rights as heterosexual couples. If civil unions can in fact be reformed to mirror marriage exactly, so be it. But if it can't, then marriage is the only way. This is not about the religious aspect, mind you, just the legal area it covers.

[Earth]

Bigoted?  You were race baiting when trying to compare gay rights to AA civil rights...

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

[Earth]

...What you have to understand is that the contentions of the supporters of 'gay marriage' merely amount to a smoke screen, which they will promptly drop when it is pointed out that such arguments can be made with as great (or greater) validity to support expansion to multiple marriages.

Pragmatically (their term) they are for 'gay marriage' and opposed to other forms of marriage because they are merely supporters of 'gay marriage,' not the of the principles they espouse.

You probably couldn't have written greater bullshìt even if you were paid. Haha, "smoke screen".

How the hell is comparison to the civil rights movement in the 60s "race baiting"? Besides, no one was comparing gay civil rights to the civil rights era.

LOL

Can you answer at all? You're beginning to become a troll.

[Earth]

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

Can you prove that the problem is because of marriage or lack thereof? I don't think you can. Correlation is not causation.

...And I know your follow up question, will be: "well what makes me think that by redefining marriage it will have a impact on heterosexuals".  To be frank... yes, it will have a impact because as it stands marriage is currently in a mess or on the verge of crumbling.  You can disagree with that, but ask yourself this question...

You should explain WHAT impact homosexual marriage would have on heterosexuals, or society at large. You offer no reasoning what so ever.

...IF MARRAIGE CEASED WOULD OUR SOCIETY BE BETTER OFF?

No one is arguing for marriage to cease, this has nothing to do with the discussion.

If i wanted to slam homosexuality I'd have mounds of ammo to shoot at gays.

Like what ammo?

[Earth]

Marriage = Man + Woman + child = better for society and theres no dispute to this, because the data is clear. Theres no way you could spin it.  Hell look at the black community!!!!!

Can you prove that the problem is because of marriage or lack thereof? I don't think you can. Correlation is not causation.

...And I know your follow up question, will be: "well what makes me think that by redefining marriage it will have a impact on heterosexuals".  To be frank... yes, it will have a impact because as it stands marriage is currently in a mess or on the verge of crumbling.  You can disagree with that, but ask yourself this question...

You should explain WHAT impact homosexual marriage would have on heterosexuals, or society at large. You offer no reasoning what so ever.

...IF MARRAIGE CEASED WOULD OUR SOCIETY BE BETTER OFF?

No one is arguing for marriage to cease, this has nothing to do with the discussion.

If i wanted to slam homosexuality I'd have mounds of ammo to shoot at gays.

Like what ammo?

Don't push it.

I'm getting really tired of you not answering any of my questions. I'll push it until I get some answers, after all, we are on a political forum.

[Earth]

 So far the jury is still out on same sex couples raising children.

The only jury that's out is the legality of it nationwide. Unless you grant gays the option to legally adopt without making it a giant hassle, there's almost no other 'evidence' to go by, which seems silly in light of you constantly referring to evidence you never use in your argument.

[Earth]

If a gay Man or Woman wanted to be your partner how would you react?   ( This has more important follow up)

You do realize that gay men don't just go up to one another and say "Do you want to my partner?" You're making no sense.

[Earth]

Interesting to see how pro-gat rights people would react to that question and how they'd reply.

Your question makes no sense. At all. If one is not gay, then what do you think would happen if they were approached by this gay character you dreamed up and asked if they'll be his partner?