Gay marriage Debate: Karl Rove vs. schoolgirl

[Gooblah]

I really don't see the problem of letting homosexual people marry. The US Constitution (I think..) calls for the separation of church and state. The main problem with homsexuality comes from (no duh) the Christian establishment (Church) which is trying to influence the State to accept their religious views as law, clearly violating that principle. Homosexual marriage in no way affects the "sanctity" of religious marriage, which is just that, religious. The State officially sanctions a marriage with a license. Thus, if the Church doesn't want homosexual marriage, fine, don't let your priests religiously marry them. But don't prevent the State from doing so.

Edit:
First Amendment to the US Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." . The homosexual marriage ban would "respect" the Church, thus making it illegal/unconstitutional.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't buy it for a second, but lets run with this kind of reasoning

It's as far fetched as saying churches are responsible for increased traffic accidents since more people are driving on sundays when they have to go to church. If there was no such thing as churches there would be lesser traffic accidents. Churches are a burden upon our healthcare.

 

[Gooblah]

Ziggy, who was the comment directed at? Just wondering. I'll reply if it was directed at me.

 

[skadistic]

I don't buy it for a second, but lets run with this kind of reasoning

It's as far fetched as saying churches are responsible for increased traffic accidents since more people are driving on sundays when they have to go to church. If there was no such thing as churches there would be lesser traffic accidents. Churches are a burden upon our healthcare.

Actually if you live with in a mile of a church your car insurance rate will go up. More churches the more it goes up. If there were no churches car insurance would be cheaper leaving more money for health insurance.

Churches are bad for your health and wallet.

 

[skadistic]

I really don't see the problem of letting homosexual people marry. The US Constitution (I think..) calls for the separation of church and state. The main problem with homsexuality comes from (no duh) the Christian establishment (Church) which is trying to influence the State to accept their religious views as law, clearly violating that principle. Homosexual marriage in no way affects the "sanctity" of religious marriage, which is just that, religious. The State officially sanctions a marriage with a license. Thus, if the Church doesn't want homosexual marriage, fine, don't let your priests religiously marry them. But don't prevent the State from doing so.

Edit:
First Amendment to the US Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." . The homosexual marriage ban would "respect" the Church, thus making it illegal/unconstitutional.

That only applies to a federal level. At the state level the state decides for it self.

 

[HannibalBarka]

I believe it is precisely a choice. There are people who experiment all the time with this at different periods of their life and they make a choice to engage in this or that where their sexuality is concerned. Its simply an easier choice for some than others. labeled Bi-sexuals seem to be able to make that choice at their whim.

Now that choice could be made eaiser or harder dependant upon a huge variety of factors including genetics/chemistry/behavior/surroundings etc. etc. But as humans we are precisely adaptable enough that we can pretty much program ourselves any which way we want. Thats my belief anyway.

does that mean that you also have chosen to be a heterosexual? you truly considered the two options and "rationally and concsiencly" decided that you prefer boobs over dicks?
And if it was a choice, who would choose to be homosexual considering the "status" they have? and I'm not talking about the US only, being gay is a capital crime in many country, why would some one "choose" to be gay if he can be hetero?

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah I bet all that hate and lower class treatment does wonders for them.

Give it a break Skad. This isnt the 50s anymore. Gays are represented in a positive light in pretty much every facet of our society. Trying to wring more out of that is just beating that old jackass into puree. Its like playing the race card when there is simply no reason for it.

So no emotional acting out at all?

Perhaps in some few cases but most certainly not the vast majority. Gays should be held to the same levels of personal responsiblity that we are all. Or do you want to continue making excuses for them while their STD rates climb higher and higher?

And what exactly is that behavior?

Do you need pictures?

Yes because gays are widely accepted.

Pretty much, yes.

Unless its the military.

Again, your idea of 'gay witchhunts' in the military is just pure nonsense.

Or equal right6s. Or churches.

Uhm. They do have equal rights and I would be the first one to say gays need to be in church just like everyone else.

Or a lot of other places. Yup gays are treated just like everyone else......

Pretty much, yup, they most certainly are.

Besides men being whores and all. There are reasons people engage in self destructive behavior.

Of course there are. Mostly because it feels good. Next question.

Like what exactly?

Like number of sexual partners. Sexual frequency. Drug and alcohol use.

No but their treatment ,and it is wrong, does have to do with their emotional well being. A bad emotional state from the wrong treatment will lead to acting out in self destructive behavior.

Really? So gays are merely like a bunch of teenage girls out of highschool, emotionally scarred because Billy doesnt like them anymore? Please. None of them self-responsible enough that they can keep from blaming the rest of society for their choices?

I really cant believe you actually swallow the crap you are dishing out here.

 

[Gooblah]

That only applies to a federal level. At the state level the state decides for it self.

Really? The 10th amendment states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Separation of Church and State is delegated to the US, and is not prohibited to the States (i.e, the States have the 'power' as well). Thus, it applies to the States as well, and the States should follow.

However, this is my interpretation of the Const. I find it a tad confusing (the 10th amendment) to be honest, so I really don't know.

 

[MobBoss]

The only difference between what you just said and what I said above, is the 'influx of homosexual immigrants' part, which I clearly I remember you saying, way back.

Having said that, I only brought this up because it seems to be the only somewhat plausible argument which outlines how homosexual marriage can possibly harm heterosexuals.

I think it a mis-statement to say that gay marriage would harm heterosexuals. A more correct statement I think would be that it would harm our society by opening the pandoras box (i.e. slippery slope) in what we legally allow a marriage to be or not be in our nation.

I dont think our nation would be well served by allowing such variations in what we consider a marriage. In my opinion, the family unit has suffered tremendously in the last 50 years in the name of progress and removing the stigma from such things as teen pregnancy/single parenthood/drug use/casual sex have harmed the people of our nation as opposed to making it a better place. I for one would like to see a move in the opposite direction for once.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'll reply if it was directed at me.

It wasn't

 

[MobBoss]

does that mean that you also have chosen to be a heterosexual? you truly considered the two options and "rationally and concsiencly" decided that you prefer boobs over dicks?

Where did I ever say that the decision was a 'rational and concious' one?

I didnt did I?

And if it was a choice, who would choose to be homosexual considering the "status" they have?

Do you really have to ask that in our society? I am sure there are plenty who would do that exact thing...and probably HAVE done that exact thing.

and I'm not talking about the US only, being gay is a capital crime in many country, why would some one "choose" to be gay if he can be hetero?

Well, now you are talking hypotheticals and in that regard what you think utterly silly just might make sense for someone else. Who the hell knows because its likely going to be different to each individual person.

 

[skadistic]

Give it a break Skad. This isnt the 50s anymore. Gays are represented in a positive light in pretty much every facet of our society. Trying to wring more out of that is just beating that old jackass into puree. Its like playing the race card when there is simply no reason for it.A positive light? So when a pastor goes on a tyraid about gays thats positive? When they are treated as lower class thats positive?



Perhaps in some few cases but most certainly not the vast majority. Gays should be held to the same levels of personal responsiblity that we are all. Like deciding on who they can marry? Or do you want to continue making excuses for them while their STD rates climb higher and higher?So pointing out why its higher is making excuses? Where did I excuse it?



Do you need pictures? No but since you can't answer I'll just take it as you don't know.



Pretty much, yes.So those bans on gay marriage is a good thing and it shows how widely accepted they are?



Again, your idea of 'gay witchhunts' in the military is just pure nonsense.Where did I say gay witch hunts? Tell me mobby are open gays allowed in the military? Or do they have to hide it in shame because they will get booted out?



Uhm. They do have equal rights and I would be the first one to say gays need to be in church just like everyone else.Equal rights? So they can get married now? When did this happen? They can be openly gay in the military with out getting booted? Did this change just today and I'm behind? Or are they not really treated equally?



Pretty much, yup, they most certainly are. Except in the military and in the eyes of the law when it comes to getting married. Yup pretty much just like every one else.



Of course there are. Mostly because it feels good. Next question. Why so quick to move on? I bet its because yo are wrong. Most people don't cut them selves because it feels good. Most 14 year old girls don't sleep around because it feels good. There are underlying psychological reasons. Why so quick to dismiss them?



Like number of sexual partners. Sexual frequency. Drug and alcohol use.All things straight people do.



Really? So gays are merely like a bunch of teenage girls out of highschool, emotionally scarred because Billy doesnt like them anymore? Please. None of them self-responsible enough that they can keep from blaming the rest of society for their choices?Right there is no effect of being told you are sick and a sinner and going to hell. Nope no effect at all. Being treated like lower class people and having to hide in shame because of the way society treats gays would have no effect at all.

I really cant believe you actually swallow the crap you are dishing out here.

Crap? This coming from a person who thinks gays are treated equally and have it just fine.

 

[zxcvbnm]

I think it a mis-statement to say that gay marriage would harm heterosexuals. A more correct statement I think would be that it would harm our society by opening the pandoras box (i.e. slippery slope) in what we legally allow a marriage to be or not be in our nation.

I dont think our nation would be well served by allowing such variations in what we consider a marriage. In my opinion, the family unit has suffered tremendously in the last 50 years in the name of progress and removing the stigma from such things as teen pregnancy/single parenthood/drug use/casual sex have harmed the people of our nation as opposed to making it a better place. I for one would like to see a move in the opposite direction for once.

How has it harmed? No supernaturalist dogmatist/intuitonist philosophical arguments please, but consequentialist.

 

[MobBoss]

So when a pastor goes on a tyraid about gays thats positive? When they are treated as lower class thats positive?

Actually, Skad, I have always attended what I would refer to as conservative evangelistic churchs and NEVER in my entire experience has a pastor EVER given such a sermon.

Perhaps you should wake up to the realization that not all churches = Westboro Baptist Church eh?

So pointing out why its higher is making excuses? Where did I excuse it?

By blaming society and not the people responsible for their own behavior.

No but since you can't answer I'll just take it as you don't know.

Take it however you want. Whatever gets you to sleep at night I guess.

Pretty much, yes.So those bans on gay marriage is a good thing and it shows how widely accepted they are?

Actually, I would say that the proof is in the voting history of the issue. Well over 40 states have such statutes on the books or now as part of their state constitution and those measures got voted in by an overwhelming majority in pretty much every case. I would say thats proof of how widely accepted they are.

Tell me mobby are open gays allowed in the military? Or do they have to hide it in shame because they will get booted out?

"Dont ask, dont tell" means keep your private life private. No more, no less and no shame involved. We dont investigate it. If people wish to disclose it, thats entirely up to them.

Equal rights? So they can get married now?

Sure they can just like I was under the same rules. Or they could get married in a non-government recognized service but still trade vows and considered themselves married.

When did this happen? They can be openly gay in the military with out getting booted? Did this change just today and I'm behind? Or are they not really treated equally?

They are treated equally under the rules that are applied equally to all. Not really a hard concept Skaddy.

Why so quick to move on? I bet its because yo are wrong.

No, actually because its such a no-brainer.

Most people don't cut them selves because it feels good. Most 14 year old girls don't sleep around because it feels good. There are underlying psychological reasons. Why so quick to dismiss them?

Are you trying to say people are gay because they have psychological imbalances? Or that gays are the equivalent of a 14 year old girl who sleeps around and cuts herself?

If I were gay I think I would be insulted by your view of them. Because its apparent that you dont think they are right in the head and only engage in their behavior not because they actually want to, but because society forces them too.

Like number of sexual partners. Sexual frequency. Drug and alcohol use.All things straight people do.

Not to the same level or frequency that homosexuals do.

Tell me Skad...if you think everyone is the same in all aspects then how do YOU explain the higher rate of STDs among homosexuals?

Right there is no effect of being told you are sick and a sinner and going to hell. Nope no effect at all.

ROFL. Dude...I get told that type of thing on a routine basis and I readily acknowledge I am a sinner. But I dont go around having unprotected sex because of it. Cry me a friggin river.

Being treated like lower class people and having to hide in shame because of the way society treats gays would have no effect at all.

Dude...gays dont have to 'hide in shame'. Wtf are you talking about? Most people could simply care less - they just dont want to have someones sexuality waved in their face.

Crap? This coming from a person who thinks gays are treated equally and have it just fine.

Pretty much they sure do. I dont see gangs of people with pitchforks and torches burning crosses in their yards the way you make it sound. You (again) have utterly and completely over-hyped the reality of the situation to where its quite the parody of real life.

 

[MobBoss]

How has it harmed? No supernaturalist dogmatist/intuitonist philosophical arguments please, but consequentialist.

In increased rates of things that are worse for society than the alternative. Like teen pregnancy. More broken homes/families. Fatherless or motherless children who turn to gangs/drugs/crime because of their situation.

Removing the social stigma of such things results in harm to society via increased crime rates/inceased demand of money for social programs/increased burden on those who are productive. It slows the successful growth of society and increases unrest (in civ terms).

 

[Rik Meleet]

Then there was Marla Spivak.

Spivak, a senior from Hamden, was one of the students invited to have lunch earlier with Rove. That left her somewhat emboldened as she stood before the crowd and asked Rove to explain how giving gay people the right to marry would endanger other people.

Rove took issue with the way the first gay marriages came about, through the Massachusetts Supreme Court. An issue as important as the definition of marriage should be resolved by a legislature or a referendum, not a court, he said.

Gay couples could gain the legal rights of married couples through legislation without actually getting married, he said.

But wouldn't creating a separate body of legislation for gay people be creating a separate but equal system, a step back?, Spivak asked.

Rove replied with an answer about Mormons changing their views on marriage to conform with the nation's laws.

Spivak kept pressing. "You never actually answered, how does it threaten anyone?" she asked.

Rove asked, what's the compelling reason to throw out 5,000 years of understanding the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman?

What, Spivak countered, was the compelling reason for society to allow interracial relationships when they had once been outlawed.

Then Rove invoked the Declaration of Independence before Spivak interjected that its reference to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" seemed to support her claims.

Their verbal pingpong match tapered off after Rove brought up polygamy and Spivak acknowledged that she did not know enough about polygamy to answer. Rove later asked when she planned to run for political office.

If he cannot answer a simple question, than that is a sign that he is wrong and that there is no threat to anyone.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

MobBoss,

But what has gay marriage harmed?

Cleo

 

[amadeus]

Isn't she about five years behind the times?

 

[Rik Meleet]

Isn't she about five years behind the times?

And that is important in what way ??

 

[.Shane.]

MobBoss,

But what has gay marriage harmed?

Cleo

Cleo, duh, if you erase the stigma for gay marriage, clearly, 1000s of young people will go gay just to get married and spite their parents. WTF is wrong with you? Its just so obvious!

More seriously, its inevitable, so I'm not too worried about arguing w/ those who are trying to cling to the past.