[Agent Steel]

Most marriages don't have much sex in them at all.

I'm just curious how you came up with this. I can't say I believe you, for it sounds rather far out. Of course married couples have sex. How much is "much" sex? If they have children then they had a good amount of sex I would think. If they don't have kids they're probably having sex using protection.

Married couples don't have much sex? Why do you say such a thing? I call bullshit.

[Godstud]

I'm just curious how you came up with this. I can't say I believe you, for it sounds rather far out. Of course married couples have sex. How much is "much" sex? If they have children then they had a good amount of sex I would think. If they don't have kids they're probably having sex using protection.

Married couples don't have much sex? Why do you say such a thing? I call bullshit.

Ever heard of a JOKE?

Kids are a birth control device in, and of, themselves, too. Ask any parent!

HIV rates rising or falling due to gay marriage(both have been shown to occur) should not affect gay marriage. Instances of spousal abuse rise with more marriages and you don't see them trying to ban marriage on such grounds.

[Pants-of-dog]

No it is NOT correct, I stated that normalizing homosexual relationships could plausibly lead to more people developing a homosexual orientation which would negatively affect procreation and increase HIV rates, not that it would.

Close enough, then.

The scientific paper was faulty in my opinion as it measures tolerance by GSS survey responses and whether a state enacts a ban on gay marriage, and concludes from these results that tolerance DECREASED from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s.

This is a highly faulty assumption as stronger views expressed in the GSS survey, and state bans on gay marriage, could both very well be a response to MORE normalization of homosexuality in society.

In the 1970s homosexuality was still considered a mental illness, and the first gay pride parades had just started. There is no way people were more tolerant of it than the mid 1990s.

The study also doesn't control for the racial makeup of state populations, despite race being strongly correlated with HIV rates.

Please quote the relevant text that supports your assertions. Thank you.

Oh wow "legal authorities" think they have no right to promote procreation, yet they can promote every thing else in society. It's a completely invalid argument. If you're going to meddle in society and start promoting certain types of relationships, then there is no argument for limiting the meddling to promote only certain outcomes and not others.

So, do you believe the state should promote procreation?

[Agent Steel]

LMAO!!!

33 pages of discussion has broken out from an idea that I came up with when I was drunk that was intended PURPOSELY to troll the forum!!! Not to mention this was a week after I admitted in the Goricky Park that I'm a troll!! ROFL I rule at internet!!!

[Kasu]

you came out of the Troll closet?

[Godstud]

Nope. He's always a troll, but people don't care and post based on the topic, not on the intentions of the guy who makes it.

[rockyjoe]

Marriage is a sacred thing for me..i don't know why some people are not respecting it? If 2 same sex love each other we can't stop them, but it's not reasonable for them to get married..

[El Gilroy]

Nothing is sacred. Your delicate sensibilities are not cared about. Submit now. We will have gays marry. Originally, we wanted to abolish the legal concept of marriage - now we want to see gays marry.

To spite you.

[Godstud]

Marriage is a sacred thing for me..i don't know why some people are not respecting it? If 2 same sex love each other we can't stop them, but it's not reasonable for them to get married..

If the situations were reversed, so would your thinking. Marriage is not strictly a religious thing. It's a formal union recognized by law.

As for people respecting marriage... What is that supposed to mean? It's a silly idea.

One of the reasons that homosexuals want to marry, is because marriage is respected(but only to a very small degree by very few people). Homosexuals are not disrespecting marriage. The heterosexuals who get a divorce a year after their marriage, have multiple marriages and divorces, etc., are disrespecting marriage! It's hardly a "sacred" institution!

[Gcd89]

Marriage has always technically been between a man and a woman.

Says who? What law dictates that? Where did you learn that? Who are you to decide that marriage is between a man and woman?

[YTPresident2012]

Marriage has always technically been between a man and a woman. Who are you to define marriage as between any two consenting adults? Wouldn't this be unfair to asexuals who wish to marry themselves? If you're gonna say it's unfair to deny gay rights, then you can't not allow asexual rights.

Technically there are two ways to look at the the definition of marriage:
1. The christian church definition
2. The legal definition

Under the bill of rights, Article 1: The government shall make no law which gives the rights of one religion over another. So if just one religion, even the religion of Jedi, (lol, but it is true) recognizes the religious right of homosexuals to marry then, BY LAW, the legal definition is now defacto, same-sex marriage must be recognized at the federal level as not recognizing it is now unconstitutional as the government cannot take religious rights away from someone to accommodate someone else. And this is not subject to a state right because it is the religious right of the individual vs the right of the state. However in a legal stand point marriage is a partnership of two people to have the rights of an individual, as I understand.

Certain people will spin this argument to something stupid such as marrying an animal (bestiality), a relative (incest), or something equally degrading to the argument at hand. People only do this if they have no legal argument at all. To these people, I say, you are gross and disgusting, there is no place in society for this type of thinking.

[Kasu]

I mean, what is disgusting or degrading about marriage with a relative or animal?

[Lightman]

Under the bill of rights, Article 1: The government shall make no law which gives the rights of one religion over another. So if just one religion, even the religion of Jedi, (lol, but it is true) recognizes the religious right of homosexuals to marry then, BY LAW, the legal definition is now defacto, same-sex marriage must be recognized at the federal level as not recognizing it is now unconstitutional as the government cannot take religious rights away from someone to accommodate someone else. And this is not subject to a state right because it is the religious right of the individual vs the right of the state. However in a legal stand point marriage is a partnership of two people to have the rights of an individual, as I understand.

That is not what the First Amendment says. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Your argument is completely fallacious.

[Donna]

I fully support inter-species marriage, provided that someone's partner is able to make some sort of sound (a bark or a meow, for example) at the altar.

[YTPresident2012]

That is not what the First Amendment says. The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Your argument is completely fallacious.

No my argument is not. If I myself start a religion say with all the homosexual males in Massachusetts where I'm from and call it say "made up name Christianity" and we make the necessary legal forms and documents and receive our religious tax exemption as all other churches do. Then I can take my case to the supreme court and claim under the bill of rights: article one, that the DOMA is unconstitutional against my religion and religious freedom, and the religious views of my followers, as my religion claims legally we recognize the rights of same sex and heterosexual marriage as the same legally and religiously. There is no way you can argue against this point because my religion that I started says that under the first amendment the government cannot deny the rights of my followers under religious and legal doctrine. Now since I recognize marriage is between only two people of sound mind, body, and legal age then there can be no legal challenge. And since there is either same sex marriage exists or it doesn't in a religious sense due to my religion that I created in my example, the federal government must recognize it as an individual right vs. a state right. As individual rights, federally, always trump state rights. I can give numerous examples in the history of our great country of this fact.

[Lightman]

No my argument is not. If I myself start a religion say with all the homosexual males in Massachusetts where I'm from and call it say "made up name Christianity" and we make the necessary legal forms and documents and receive our religious tax exemption as all other churches do. Then I can take my case to the supreme court and claim under the bill of rights: article one, that the DOMA is unconstitutional against my religion and religious freedom, and the religious views of my followers, as my religion claims legally we recognize the rights of same sex and heterosexual marriage as the same legally and religiously. There is no way you can argue against this point because my religion that I started says that under the first amendment the government cannot deny the rights of my followers under religious and legal doctrine. Now since I recognize marriage is between only two people of sound mind, body, and legal age then there can be no legal challenge. And since there is either same sex marriage exists or it doesn't in a religious sense due to my religion that I created in my example, the federal government must recognize it as an individual right vs. a state right. As individual rights, federally, always trump state rights. I can give numerous examples in the history of our great country of this fact.

No. Any religion is free to have any ceremony it wants that bounds two people; that has no bearing on legal recognition of marriage. A marriage is a civil affair; when a cleric officiates a wedding, he does so in his capacity as minister of the peace, not as a religious official. Your argument implies that polygamy is constitutionally protected.

[Stormsmith]

YTP

You're confusing civil and canon laws. At the end of the day, I expect the SCOTUS will have to rule on gay marriage, and I would expect the finding to be similar to ours: gay couples have the right to marry. No church can be compelled to marry gays if the church is against gay marriage, but all gays are entitled to a civil ceremony. If a particular JP opposes gay weddings for religious reasons, s/he may be excused if and only if s/he and find an alternate JP who will do the deed. note the onus is on the JP, not the couple.

ps Some vicars etc have been offering gay couples "blessing ceremonies" for ages, and are happy to do the real deal now.

[Suska]

The law can't compel churches to do anything and should not itself act like a church. Congress still has no right to be involved in the matter, on the other hand if gays want a gay church and gay marriage that's their gay deal. Marriage should not mean any of the things gays want it for. But for sure it would be courteous to call it something else, Satanic Union maybe. C'mon Donald, that appeals to you right?

[Stormsmith]

Regardless of what it's called, Hallmark et al will produce guy-guy and girl-girl wedding invitations and cards congratulating gay couples on their marriage.

[Suska]

I think when the church of Satan is up and running you'll find eventually an Unholy Union ought to be very popular with the hetero crowd, as soon as we start being honest with ourselves. Hallmark can make witty quips for divorcees about dividing the children with a hatchet. It sort of does matter what you call it if it means something different.