Kerry gets pwned

The only way to resolve this issue rationally is for the government not to recognize marriages: only civil unions between citizens (via the JotP and all tax/benefit purposes).

Then, if you want it to be sacred, you go through your church and they can endorse it. There are plenty of gay churches out there so they can also issue the marriages (only this time the hetro churches couldn’t use the government to fight it).

All state and local governments would have to recognize the civil unions by law, but private organizations could choose whether to only accept certain unions with a specific marriage stamp on it. It would allow small business to be free to be asses, while the larger corporations will freely recognize all in fear of losing business by being discriminating.

Think of it as a Government issued Bachelors Degree, but it’s only as good as the University it was taken through.

This would free the government from all responsibility of caring for the Christian Right pants pissers, while progressively allowing love to be free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dave is ok

I wish John McCain was running so we could see ads like "...While John McCain was serving time in a POW camp for five years, he made alot of friends. Alot of communist friends. We have eyewitness accounts that he played checkers with his captors, america's enemies. "

---

Apparently this very same organization ran ads against McCain that went pretty much like that in 2000.

Also, apparently none of the people in the ad actually served with Kerry, or even met him, as far as anyone can corroborate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

Apparently this very same organization ran ads against McCain that went pretty much like that in 2000.

Also, apparently none of the people in the ad actually served with Kerry, or even met him, as far as anyone can corroborate.

---

They're a GOP-funded group. That alone should cast doubt on their credibility.

It's funnny how the very same people who are outraged at Kerry for speaking out against Vietnam are just fine with a bunch of partisan veterens launching a smear campaign against a fellow veteren.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

Are you seriously trying to compare a conscious, consensual gay relationship with some nut who wants to date outside their species? Show me a dog who can say "I do".

---

The SC says consensual sex (within the privacy of one's home) is okay. Of course a dog can't consent. But a third wife (or sister or whatever) can. My point is that society CAN and DOES impose limits on relationships. I get tired of reading posts that amount to, "Society has NO RIGHT to limit 'X' relationship!" Sure it does. If you don't like it, convince your fellow citizens to legalize 'X' behavior via your Legislature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strider

That's missing the point and the context. (Santorum) was arguing men shouldn't legally be allowed to get busy behind closed doors. I think you can agree that there's some middle ground between that and screwing your own sister, which can have serious consequences in terms of creating children with birth defects.

---

Santorum's point was that precedents are set when the SC rules on particular issues. When the SC says that as far as the state is concerned, the state has no interest in private, consensual sex between adults, that is a radical changing of the status quo. Local governments used to outlaw sodomy. They still outlaw all kinds of other private, consensual sex between adults (polygamy/bigamy, etc). The SC has undermined all of those laws.

As for my own views (which are utterly irrelevant; but this being an internet forum, I think it would behoove me to show my hand lest anybody jump to conclusions and start labeling me a hater of gays), I think the time has come to do away w/anti-sodomy laws. Gay behavior is now accepted and as a society we're okay w/having a gay couple living next door (can the same be said for polygamists?). What I would *not* do is say something like, "I'm okay w/private, consensual, adult sex." B/c that means I'd be okay w/a lot of behavior I think is harmful and bad for society and I wouldn't want anyone to exploit a poorly worded statement of support for gay behavior. What I don't understand is why the SC ruled on the Texas case in the way it did. It took away the right of society to limit a wide range of relationships. That's radical and, imo, wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strider

Explain to me who gay sex harms.

---

I have no problem w/legalizing sodomy. None.

The funny thing is that gay people are hardly the only ones who engage in sodomy. A blowjob is sodomy... anyone here object to getting head? That's the law Santorum was trying to keep effective.

Quote:

---

The people who push these kind of agendas are the ones I'd like to see move far, far away. I don't care if gay people live near me. I just don't want the type that feel the need to shove it in everyone else's face within a couple thousand miles.

---

Most of us would rather be allowed to marry, be allowed to have some sort of job security (in plenty of companies, it's perfectly legal to fire someone based on their sexuality regardless of their job performance or position, even though there are anti-discrimination laws for race and gender), and then just be left alone. If we didn't have to be so outspoken, we wouldn't be. It's not exactly enjoyable.

Note that I'm talking about political rallies and such. Gay pride parades stopped having any point well over a decade ago and are just embarassing to most gay people these days. Unfortunately the "gay community" (the ones who have no identity outside of their sexuality) loves them, so they're still around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Meach

The SC says consensual sex (within the privacy of one's home) is okay. Of course a dog can't consent. But a third wife (or sister or whatever) can. My point is that society CAN and DOES impose limits on relationships. I get tired of reading posts that amount to, "Society has NO RIGHT to limit 'X' relationship!" Sure it does. If you don't like it, convince your fellow citizens to legalize 'X' behavior via your Legislature.



Santorum's point was that precedents are set when the SC rules on particular issues. When the SC says that as far as the state is concerned, the state has no interest in private, consensual sex between adults, that is a radical changing of the status quo. Local governments used to outlaw sodomy. They still outlaw all kinds of other private, consensual sex between adults (polygamy/bigamy, etc). The SC has undermined all of those laws.

As for my own views (which are utterly irrelevant; but this being an internet forum, I think it would behoove me to show my hand lest anybody jump to conclusions and start labeling me a hater of gays), I think the time has come to do away w/anti-sodomy laws. Gay behavior is now accepted and as a society we're okay w/having a gay couple living next door (can the same be said for polygamists?). What I would *not* do is say something like, "I'm okay w/private, consensual, adult sex." B/c that means I'd be okay w/a lot of behavior I think is harmful and bad for society and I wouldn't want anyone to exploit a poorly worded statement of support for gay behavior. What I don't understand is why the SC ruled on the Texas case in the way it did. It took away the right of society to limit a wide range of relationships. That's radical and, imo, wrong.



I have no problem w/legalizing sodomy. None.

---

Everything you just said is perfectly reasonable and I agree with it. Whoa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StriderKyo

Everything you just said is perfectly reasonable and I agree with it. Whoa.

---

Cool.

I think one of the biggest problems we have in America today is the quality of discourse. Nobody pays attention to the tone of voice they use. This is particularly noticeable on the internet where ppl are more concerned w/one-upping each other than having a reasoned discussion. Anyways, always nice having a civil conversation. Yays! :nod:

You're a poopyhead.

I think it was Sweden (or Maybe Switzerland) that legalized Gay Sex when they legalized Beastiality. Of course I learned that fact in an article that was pleading to make sex with animals illegal because they have more human-animal sex related injuries brought to the vet per capita than any country in the world.

This does nothing to further the discussion, but people were talking about gays and animal sex so...

For the record, anybody using that "slippery slope" bullshit should be shot in the neck. Allowing Gay Marriage (or unions, if you don't like the terms) won't change anything, Gays won't benefit from:

Joint parenting
Joint adoption
Joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents)
Status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent
Joint insurance policies for home, auto and health
Dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support
Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
Inheritance automatically in the absence of a will
Joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment
Inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate)
Benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare
Spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home
Veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns
Joint filing of customs claims when traveling
Wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children
Bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child
Decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her
Crime victims' recovery benefits
Loss of consortium tort benefits
Domestic violence protection orders
Judicial protections and evidentiary immunity
etc etc

Oh, wait a sec. Yes they will, and most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. Shucks, that does sound cruddy to do the right thing for people that are in love with each other.

PS: For anybody that wasn't picking up on the sarcasm, I think men and women should be able to choose the gender of their spouse.

Create civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual unions. Remove "marriage" completely from the legal equation. Leave the "marriage" up to your chosen religious institution. Said religious institution can choose whether they will perform the marriage. Should make most people happy. Except super bitchy pansies.