Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4910111213141516171819 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 398
  1. #261  
    Tribalenvy: “but I'd rather use non-biased sites with actual links to studies”

    I like how you claim that my sources are “biased” solely based on the websites or organizations that choose to cite them. I could say the same thing about pretty much every source you or NRG has or will post. Fortunately, I do not judge studies based on the organizations that cite them AFTER they have been peer reviewed.

    I have a membership to hubnet/pubmed/medline which allows me to view most scientific studies that are released in electronic format. I’m not permitted to post them since I use an institutional login (membership costs are high). If you would like to purchase a membership to use hubnet you would have full access to not only the studies I posted but also any studies that you need to defend your arguments. If you do not believe that the studies I posted exist, you can go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed and type in keywords to bring up abstracts. Unfortunately abstracts are all you will be allowed to view without being a member.

    “Why does the concept of marriage between me and my girlfriend scare people? Would calling it something else with the same benefits be better?”


    I understand why you would be upset with my viewpoint on your lifestyle. As I have mentioned above several times; my problem with gay marriage has more to do with children being involved then it does with allowing two people who love each other to be joined. I do not believe that a loving gay couple should be considered an equal alternative to a loving heterosexual couple when it comes to bringing up children. IT has nothing to do with their abilites as parents. I disagree with it ON THE EXACT SAME GROUNDS as I disagree with allowing a child to be adopted into a polygamist relationship. I am not discriminating against ONE particular group. I believe that marriage is between a committed man and a committed woman, any deviation from this definition is not ideal.

    “What is your solution to all the children not currently adopted...or being adopted by homosexual couples? That was my original question.”

    The most reliable recent figures, place the occurrence of homosexuality in society at around two-four percent. Taking into account, moreover, that not all gays are going to adopt, and that even fewer would probably be judged fit parents, the number of orphans who would be cared for is fairly negligible. However, I understand that if even one child is helped then it can make a difference. I HAVE NOT DECIDED in my own mind whether I believe children are better off not being adopted, then being adopted into a gay household. I’m still debating this issue with collogues and friends. Which is why I am eager to read NRG’s source. (I’ll get to it soon)
  2. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Lol, the analogy is dead on. If black men were in fact denied the right to marry black women between say 1885 and 1967, then the analogy would not make sense. I am sorry if you don't get the point.

    Your implication was that granting marriage certificates to straight couples while denying them to gay couples was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution, because the gay couples were free to choose a spouse of the opposite gender.

    Your choice of wording wasMy response wasMy point is that it was the same argument used to defend anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s. A black man is not denied equal protection under the law because he is free to choose a black wife.

    Keep reading it, you will get it.
    Stop beating that dead horse. Sexual preference and race are not the same. Sexual preference and gender are not the same. Sexual preference is just that a person's preference be it man to man, woman to woman, man to woman or man to goat.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  3. #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Again, my point is that the states passed laws to change the definition of marriage. The courts rightly struck them down--albeit a bit late. In this case the states are also trying to pass laws to redefine marriage.
    Changing the definition of marriage? You mean like the defense of marriage act?

    You are clouding the issue in an attempt to slink away from what you have said.

    This is very simple.

    Granting marriage certificates to straight couples while denying them to gay couples is a violation of the equal protection clause of our constitution.

    Just as the Supreme court ruled in 1967 with interracial marriage.
  4. #264  
    Hey Blaze, why is it that you are the only person in this thread who continually antagonizes people who have an opposing opinion to yours. You seam to have some coherent thoughts which then blur into immature nonsense.

    I’ll pose the polygamy question is an different light since not one person has been able to successfully distinguish is from homosexuality in regards to marriage:

    If you were an activist judge and granted homosexuals the right to marry and adopt children freely, how would you prevent polygamists from securing the same rights. How would you explain to a polygamist who was standing in your court with his 2 CONCENTING and LOVING wives by his side, that his idea of love was not considered equal under the law you just passed. Who says that heterosexuals and homosexuals have a monopoly on consensual, loving, sexual relationships?
  5. #265  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    Hey Blaze, why is it that you are the only person in this thread who continually antagonizes people who have an opposing opinion to yours. You seam to have some coherent thoughts which then blur into immature nonsense.

    I’ll pose the polygamy question is an different light since not one person has been able to successfully distinguish is from homosexuality in regards to marriage:

    If you were an activist judge and granted homosexuals the right to marry and adopt children freely, how would you prevent polygamists from securing the same rights. How would you explain to a polygamist who was standing in your court with his 2 CONCENTING and LOVING wives by his side, that his idea of love was not considered equal under the law you just passed. Who says that heterosexuals and homosexuals have a monopoly on consensual, loving, sexual relationships?
    If I were an activist liberal judge, how would I secure the constitutional rights of a black man to marry a white woman without opening the door to a black man marrying a white man, or an orange man, or a purple man marrying 3 yellow men, 4 green women and a goat?

    As Ben is so fond of saying, where would I draw the line.

    Slippery slope does not constitute an argument to withold one's constitutional rights.

    If a polygamist wishes assert his constitutional rights, and have them judged on their merit in court. I am all for it, and I would happily discuss it in another thread.
  6. #266  
    Anyone else get the sense that we're going around and around? Has anything new been said in a few pages?
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #267  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23

    I’ll pose the polygamy question is an different light since not one person has been able to successfully distinguish is from homosexuality in regards to marriage:
    You passed over the article I cited, why marriage is in your nature and polygamy is not.
  8. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #268  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Anyone else get the sense that we're going around and around? Has anything new been said in a few pages?
    Nope, nothing new, one side thinks that sexual preference should be treated like race, gender or national orign and the other side thinks sexual preference should be treated like a choice and not given special treatment and most in that group think that polygamy should be treated the same as homosexuality in regards to redefining marriage. There is no scientific evidence that leads to a gay gene theory or a multiple spousal theory.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  9. #269  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    An analogy that you missed does not constitute a bad analogy.

    Your implication was that granting marriage certificates to straight couples while denying them to gay couples was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution, because the gay couples were free to choose a spouse of the opposite gender.

    My point is that it was the same argument used to defend anti-miscegenation laws in the 1960s. A black man is not denied equal protection under the law because he is free to choose a black wife.

    That is the analogy. Concentrate.

    No, as we all know, marriage laws are passed and changed by states and do not apply everywhere. It was the supreme court envoking the equal protection clause that struck down anti-miscegenation, as I said before.
    I see the correlation. The distinction herein is ethnicity does not effect the basic male-female construct inherent to marriage.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #270  
    Quote Originally Posted by aairman23
    I’ll pose the polygamy question is an different light since not one person has been able to successfully distinguish is from homosexuality in regards to marriage:
    Let me pose these to you.

    • How is polygamy different then average marriage?
    • How is gay marriage different to average marriage?
    Last edited by NRG; 07/10/2006 at 05:00 PM.
  11. #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Anyone else get the sense that we're going around and around? Has anything new been said in a few pages?
    Well, if the productivity of this thread has reached critical mass, let's just all remember why this issue is on the front burner again.

    I think we can all agree, it has nothing to do with amending the constitution, or our civil liberties, and everything about Carl Rove making sure to motivate rural folk this election. Given what happened ( or lack of what happened ) last time, we will see if it works on them again.
  12. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #272  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Well, if the productivity of this thread has reached critical mass, let's just all remember why this issue is on the front burner again.

    I think we can all agree, it has nothing to do with amending the constitution, or our civil liberties, and everything about Carl Rove making sure to motivate rural folk this election. Given what happened ( or lack of what happened ) last time, we will see if it works on them again.
    Right Ol'e Rovey boy has the New York judicial system and the Georgia judicial system in his hip pocket. He was able to get to the voters in every state that has voted on the issue and paid them off so the people voted how he wanted.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  13. #273  
    Nope, nothing new, one side thinks that sexual preference should be treated like race, gender or national orign and the other side thinks sexual preference should be treated like a choice and not given special treatment and most in that group think that polygamy should be treated the same as homosexuality in regards to redefining marriage. There is no scientific evidence that leads to a gay gene theory or a multiple spousal theory.
    I think we can all agree, it has nothing to do with amending the constitution, or our civil liberties, and everything about Carl Rove making sure to motivate rural folk this election. Given what happened ( or lack of what happened ) last time, we will see if it works on them again.
    You guys should be politicians. :-)
  14. #274  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Anyone else get the sense that we're going around and around? Has anything new been said in a few pages?
    I think that's mostly because the foundational theory is not being addressed--whether marriage is fundamentally a relationship between two consenting people, or specifically a man and a woman.

    To conclude that marriage is simply a union betwen two consenting people requires that we ignore both US and world history.

    On the other hand, if marriage is a union specifically between a man and a woman, then we must conclude that a legal union between people of the same gender is a new legal construct.

    -------------------------------------------------------
    Added:

    NOTE: Perhaps it is in the best interest to develop a new construct. But, we should recognize that it is in fact a new construct.
    Last edited by shopharim; 07/10/2006 at 05:04 PM.
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #275  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I think that's mostly because the foundational theory is not being addressed--whether marriage is fundamentally a relationship between two consenting people, or specifically a man and a woman.

    To conclude that marriage is simply a union betwen two consenting people requires that we ignore both US and world history.

    On the other hand, if marriage is a union specifically between a man and a woman, then we must conclude that a legal union between people of the same gender is a new legal construct.

    -------------------------------------------------------
    Added:

    NOTE: Perhaps it is in the bet interest to develop a new construct. But, we should recognize that it is in fact a new construct.
    Shop are you saying they should be allowed marry?

    Where does it say 'marriage' is specifically between a man and woman? (directed at anyone)
  16. #276  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Shop are you saying they should be allowed marry?
    That is not my recommendation
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG

    Where does it say 'marriage' is specifically between a man and woman? (directed at anyone)
    I am familiar with Biblical text that states such. I don't know what other sources make such specification.
  17. #277  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Where does it say 'marriage' is specifically between a man and woman? (directed at anyone)
    Several SC case rulings state such.
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #278  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    That is not my recommendationI am familiar with Biblical text that states such.
    The bible also says we should kill homosexuals. Why pay attention to just one section of it?
  19. #279  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Changing the definition of marriage? You mean like the defense of marriage act?
    You mean the one signed by Clinton? What does that have to do with my position?

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    You are clouding the issue in an attempt to slink away from what you have said.
    And what was that?

    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Granting marriage certificates to straight couples while denying them to gay couples is a violation of the equal protection clause of our constitution.

    Just as the Supreme court ruled in 1967 with interracial marriage.
    Again, again, and again, the states created laws to redefine marriage and those laws were struck down. I'm not for creating any new laws to redefine marriage.
  20. #280  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Keep reading it, you will get it.
    Sorry, you are making personal attacks and I will not respond in kind.

Posting Permissions