22-01-2004 15:21									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: They want to marry them, so let them go ahead and do so.

That's not an effective argument against Ohio. Why such vitriol against their decision to affirm marriage? Same with the constitutional amendment in the States. If people want the prohibition, why stop them?

The problem I have in Canada is that the people have not had their say on the issue, but rather have had the terms dictated to them by an unelected judiciary.

G'night Napoleon.

	22-01-2004 15:42									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: So are you saying because gays can marry these married straight couples cannot procreate?

No. Read my argument. You have not understood the least part.

quote: Further, what about married couples who do not have children? There are many of them.

Infertililty? Inapplicable. I was not under the impression that homosexuals were infertile. These married folks certainly have tried to have children, but cannot.

quote: What about gay parents with children of their own?

If they have kids, they can't very well be infertile, can they?

quote: Or bisexuals with children from a previous marriage?

Same here.

quote: What about people who adopt children?

What about them? Not all people who adopt children are infertile, nor are they all married. Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I can think of about three much better counterexamples of why marriage is not always linked to procreation, yet you have failed to mention them. Oh well.

quote: There are countless holes in this argument.

Good for you. You can employ rhetoric. I was afraid for a minute you may have forgotten.

	22-01-2004 16:23									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi The problem I have in Canada is that the people have not had their say on the issue, but rather have had the terms dictated to them by an unelected judiciary. G'night Napoleon.

Hurray! Let's have government by mob rule, or countless referendums instead.

	22-01-2004 17:39									#65
	Support Apolyton

*sigh* I answered BK's trite comments in the other thread, he's ignored them and ran here. Think I wouldn't notice?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Would it increase the numbers of heterosexuals marrying?

Would it decrease it? Is this in any way relevant? Answer: no.

quote: Secondly, are there any statistics to speak of on gay marriage in the Unites States? No. So why should I be required to cite statstics showing the effects of something that has yet to happen?

First, you could seek out those countries/states where gay marriage has been legalized and see what their marriage statistics say.

Second, I'm not really asking you to provide the statistics as much as I am pointing out that you're spouting out a lot of opinion about what would happen that is utterly unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. Your argument is from bias, not any sort of knowledge. Your same silly logic could be used (and was) to decry interracial marriages.

quote: Would the birthrates increase?

Would they decrease? Can you provide an iota of empirical evidence that allowing gays to marry will somehow magically cause birthrates to fall?

Yes, I'm sure the heterosexual urge to procreate will suddenly be dampened by two guys tying the knot.

quote: Read my statement again, Boris. Extent. We do not know the extent to which gay marriage will effect society. There will be effects we cannot account for. I do not contradict myself by saying there will be some negative effects, and then saying there will be more that we do not know?

Precisely my point. We don't know the extent - good or bad. You've made claims to a lot of bad extents, but you've not provided a jot of evidence that such things would occur. So you don't know the extent in either direction. You're just making bald-faced assertions, repeating the same hackneyed lines from the religious right wing.

quote: Any evidence Boris? Why would we expect to see this? I keep hearing the that real reason for gay marriage is gay divorce.

Wait, you won't provide any evidence for your spurious claims--and you made your claims first. But I'll ask you--does marriage foster stability in relationships? I know you think it does, you've said so in the past. If that's the case, then there's no reason to think it wouldn't do so for gay people as much as straight people.

quote: You have a church shredding over this issue already. How can you say there will not be negative effects?

Shredding over gay marriage? The Episcopalians are having fits over the ordination of a gay bishop, not gay marriage. Regardless...so what? Who's to say that the breakup of that church isn't ultimately a good thing? IMO, large church structures of the like are things of evil. Individual, local parishes seems like the way to go.

quote: As for protecting marriage, you do not protect something by kicking it when it is down.

Another specious claim, and this one lamer than others. Since you have, again, not provided a jot of evidence that allowing gay marriage will harm marriage in general, this is nothing but empty hyperbole.

I'm combining posts because I hate broken up responses:

quote: Depends on what you mean by love. Should I marry my grandmother because I love her?

Are you equating the love of a gay couple to the love you and your grandmother share? That's rather disturbing.

If you think gay relationships are devoid of the same deep, emotional romantic love of heterosexual ones, then you're either woefully ignorant, in deep denial or just being an ass. Hmm, which could it be...

quote: I would get married in her church, and ignore any civil recognition of the marriage, because the civil recognition would be meaningless.

Sure, go ahead. So when the relationship fails in a few years and you head to court to sort the mess out, don't expect much help from the authorities then. And, of course, we'd have to see what the woman said about that. She might not be so keen on foregoing the civil action and the rights it entails. Frankly, I have a lot of difficulty taking you seriously in this suggestion.

quote: What is this nebulous concept, 'real equality?' You have exactly the same rights as I do with respect to marriage.

Yep, dem negroes have the same raights ta' marry as anyone else, so long as they jes' marry utha negroes.

quote: Yes, and that was my point. The less marriage means, the less people will value marriage.

Yet again, you've not substantiated the claim--at all--that people will, by and large, think marriage means less by allowing gay marriage.

It is, thankfully, only a small minority of fanatics who are so silly enough to think that their status as a married couple is dependant on who else is denied the right to get married.

And for Guynemer, since he (smartly) was fed up with your schtick:

quote: Less incentive for marriage, less encouragement for marriages that are already there. Therefore, less benefits to married people in general.

Sentence B does not logically follow from Sentence A. Furthermore, the second half of the first sentence doesn't logically follow even the sentence's first half. These are, surprise surprise, yet more unfounded speculations based on your fundamental bias, not any reality.

	22-01-2004 17:53									#66
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Infertililty? Inapplicable. I was not under the impression that homosexuals were infertile. These married folks certainly have tried to have children, but cannot.

I really don't think he was talking about infertility. At the very least, those couples who are infertile at least wish to have children. I believe what he meant was couples who simply do not wish to have children.

And I do not see how the hell this was approved. Things like this make me weep for humanity.

	22-01-2004 19:28									#67
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I suggest you refrain from answering other's questions in the future. It's a sign of respect for the other poster.

Who are you to talk about respect for others, when you have no respect for gays and lesbians?

	22-01-2004 19:53									#68
	Put an end to popups!

I think for me the questions are:

1. Does marriage benefit society?

Yes, by helping to provide stability for children in the form of a family unit.

2. Does society have the 'right' to promote marriage?

Based on the answer to 1, yes.

3. Does society have the 'right' to define what is a marriage?

Yes. Given that marriage has legal implications, it must be defined.

4. Is there any reason to believe that homosexuals or long-term unmarried partners cant provide a stable family environment?

No.

5. So whats the problem?

Most humans have the IQ of a chair.

	22-01-2004 19:56									#69
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

To respond to the posts between Ben, Napoleon and Asher about whether the govt should have a say in marriage:

I think the govt should have a say in defining what relationships are legal or not. Pedophilic relationships are forbidden, incest is forbidden, bestiality is forbidden. I think we're all in agreement with that.

OTOH, the govt should allow marriage for all kinds of legal relationships.

So, unless Ben wants to go back to the time where Homosexuals were punished by the law (if the angry mob didn't get them first), I don't think there is any valid point in preventing gays to marry.

	22-01-2004 20:10									#70
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

BTW, does this pretended amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage have any chance to pass? IIRC, an amendment needs a comfortable majority to pass, and I wonder if the Congress will vote massively for it...

	22-01-2004 20:12									#71
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I find it interesting that this thread spiralled down into the gay marriage bit without (apart from Boris) anyone commenting on the benefits ban.

This doesn't seem to be about banning gay marriages, although that is the headline. It is discriminating against anyone who doesn't get married. It goes as far as the state legislature can to saying marriage or nothing. Hopefully there will be a way to challenge the legality of this.

How long before they resurrect one of those old laws about putting people in the stocks or whipping them for not going to an approved Christian church on Sundays?

	22-01-2004 20:43									#72
	Increase Your PM Length

I've never known Ohio politics to be too reactive, even if a little on the conservative side. This is not your basic southern state that likes to meaninglessly thumb its nose at the federal gov't, for instance.

This leads me to believe that this kind of restriction could pass in many/most states in the union.

	22-01-2004 20:45									#73
	Inflate your Upload Space

Ohio sux!

	22-01-2004 20:56									#74
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Dan--

Perhaps my perspective is colored by being raised in Michigan, but I've always considered Ohio to be a very conservative state. This doesn't surprise me in the least; I doubt a benefits ban would pass elsewhere in the upper midwest.

You can pretty much bank on Republicans getting at least 5% more of the vote in Ohio than they do in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois.

	22-01-2004 20:58									#75
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Strawman. I do not say that marriage becomes invalidated, but rather the definition changes.

You know, I know you think you're smart and all, but maybe you should look at thnigs historically before being a BAM. Gay marriage has only been outlawed in the Christian world for 1,000 years. Within the United States, it was a uncommon, but accepted, practice among the Cheyanne and other groups of American Indians. Chinese and Roman emperors married other men (before the supposed fall of decadent Rome, which actually occured once Rome became X-ian).

	22-01-2004 21:00									#76
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Infertililty? Inapplicable. I was not under the impression that homosexuals were infertile. These married folks certainly have tried to have children, but cannot.

Not all married people without kids have tried to have children, *sshole. Some of us don't want children.

	22-01-2004 21:22									#77
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It's a sad day when a man believes that my love devalues his own.

	22-01-2004 21:34									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: You can pretty much bank on Republicans getting at least 5% more of the vote in Ohio than they do in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they have reactionary politics. So I am forced to consider the possibility that this is a less reactionary move on Ohio's part -- i.e., that this measure would have large support in many/most parts of the nation.

Btw, I would agree with your 5% figure. But in my book that doesn't make it very conservative. It makes it leaning conservative rather than leaning liberal.

	22-01-2004 21:39									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Starchild It's a sad day when a man believes that my love devalues his own.

yeah

	22-01-2004 21:48									#81
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV I find it interesting that this thread spiralled down into the gay marriage bit without (apart from Boris) anyone commenting on the benefits ban. This doesn't seem to be about banning gay marriages, although that is the headline. It is discriminating against anyone who doesn't get married. It goes as far as the state legislature can to saying marriage or nothing. Hopefully there will be a way to challenge the legality of this. How long before they resurrect one of those old laws about putting people in the stocks or whipping them for not going to an approved Christian church on Sundays?

Bingo. That's the only reason I find this case extraordinary beyond the 34 other states who have simply banned gay marriage. Ohio and Nebraska have taken the extra step of discriminating blatantly against non-married couples by saying state agencies can't even choose to provide domestic partner benefits. This sets a legal status for unmarried couples that is, frankly, one of second-class citizenship. In the absence of anti-discrimination laws, there is nothing stopping institutionalized discrimination against gays or anyone who isn't married.

	22-01-2004 21:49									#82
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV I find it interesting that this thread spiralled down into the gay marriage bit without (apart from Boris) anyone commenting on the benefits ban. This doesn't seem to be about banning gay marriages, although that is the headline. It is discriminating against anyone who doesn't get married. It goes as far as the state legislature can to saying marriage or nothing. Hopefully there will be a way to challenge the legality of this. How long before they resurrect one of those old laws about putting people in the stocks or whipping them for not going to an approved Christian church on Sundays?

And yet, too many people think that the concerns of gays are irrelevant to the rest of society.

	22-01-2004 21:53									#83
	Put an end to popups!

quote: How about the principle of "mind your own ****ing business"? I don't want "the people" having a say in who I (or anyone else) marry. No, really. Mind your own ****ing business. You shouldn't get a damn say.

Brilliant post! That sums it up quite well. Now if I could just get all of that on a bumper sticker!

	22-01-2004 21:59									#84
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Bingo. That's the only reason I find this case extraordinary beyond the 34 other states who have simply banned gay marriage. Ohio and Nebraska have taken the extra step of discriminating blatantly against non-married couples by saying state agencies can't even choose to provide domestic partner benefits. This sets a legal status for unmarried couples that is, frankly, one of second-class citizenship. In the absence of anti-discrimination laws, there is nothing stopping institutionalized discrimination against gays or anyone who isn't married.

I would guess that it's an anti-gay measure where they have included all unmarrieds as a way to avoid the recent SCOTUS rulings.

	22-01-2004 22:17									#85
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH I would guess that it's an anti-gay measure where they have included all unmarrieds as a way to avoid the recent SCOTUS rulings.

The SCOTUS ruling wouldn't effect marriage, AFAIK, since it it was establishing limits on government prohibiting private consensual sexual behavior.

Its a way of ensuring there won't even be civil unions, which is deplorable.

	22-01-2004 22:35									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

All these people that oppose gay marriage under the pretense that marriage needs to be defended are full of ****. Why haven’t they done anything to curb the 50%+ divorce rate of heterosexual marriages?

Since no one on this board has given valid reasons to deny gay marriage, I can only speculate. And speculate, I will.

The religious right lost the Alabama Ten Commandments case and, to top it all off, the judge got kicked out of the court house along with his Ten Commandments. They lost on school prayer. They lost on the pledge. They lost on abortion. Church attendance is declining and most of those that still attend are just going through the motions. Society is becoming increasingly secular.

With that long losing streak, the religious right is desperate for a win. Given the demographics of the population - 95% hetero, 5% gay, more or less - they feel this is their best shot to finally break their long losing streak. And as an added bonus, this isn’t an issue a campaign that would hurt them personally - unlike, a campaign to outlaw, say, gluttony.

And them they get to say to God: “Hey look, God, I’m taking up the cross in opposing gay marriage!! Sorry, I don’t have time or interest in feeding the hungry. I’m sorry that I have no interest in housing the poor. I’m sorry, that I couldn’t care less about making the world a better place and setting a good example, but, hey, I’ll darn sure pull the lever in the ballot box to prevent gays from marrying. See, Jesus, I’m a good person. Please don’t burn me. Please don’t send me to hell. I’ll do anything to keep from going to hell, Jesus. I’ll even suck your balls.” - which brings up another reason for their opposition to gay marriage: Many of them may be opposing gay marriage to “prove” their heterosexual masculinity or to mask their own gay tendencies: “Hey, I’m not gay. I’m a real man. Look at me! I oppose gay marriage.”

/end of rant

	22-01-2004 22:40									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov The SCOTUS ruling wouldn't effect marriage, AFAIK, since it it was establishing limits on government prohibiting private consensual sexual behavior. Its a way of ensuring there won't even be civil unions, which is deplorable.

AFAIK the reason the law was struck down was because it was unfairly applied to gays. If they had included hetero's it would have been OK. It seems to me thats what they're doing here. Although, as you say, it could be an all out attack on unmarried sinners.

	22-01-2004 22:40									#88
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Just because other people like to beat up strangers, does it mean you should go in and join them?

With all the talk about the "sanctity of marriage" and the US Congresswith it's melodramatic and unconstitutional "Defense of Marriage Act" there seems to be an argument that letting those evil sodomites engage in a civil marriage procedute undermines the "sanctity" of good-ol' heterosexual marriage.

Brittney Spears, heterosexual swingers, cheaters, abusers, and general flakes who get divorced half a dozen times apparently can't undermine the institution of marriage, but let a few fairies and fudgepackers have a go at it, and suddenly all the good, God-fearing heterosexual couples who are married have their marriage vows just crumble into insignificance. Atheists at Las Vegas drivethrus? No problem. Gays? Oh dear, all our marriage vows will forever be meaningless.

If that's not your argument, then tell me one good reason why the state has a compelling interest in which legally competent, consenting adults enter into civil marriage with each other?

	22-01-2004 22:46									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yaaay!!!

All Men are created equal... except gay men who are so mentally insane that they shouldn't be aloud to marry.

At least hot lezbians should be allowed to be married. If for nothing else, so that we can imagine their honeymoon.

Two legs are better than four, but god forbid if they actually use the third leg!!!

IMO, marriage is something that is personal between two people, and the government can suck my ****!


Can we really say Dick? I just won't use it in that situation

	22-01-2004 23:11									#90
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Gay Marriage Poll Gets Annulled
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,61982,00.html
By Daniel Terdiman, 02:00 AM Jan. 22, 2004 PT

When the American Family Association posted an online poll last month asking its constituents their position on gay marriage, it thought it was engaging in a straightforward exercise.

The conservative organization supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, and it planned to forward to Congress the results of the poll, which it expected would support its position, as evidence of Americans' opposition to gay marriage.

But the AFA never counted on the power of the Internet. And once the URL to the poll escaped its intended audience, everything went haywire. As of Jan. 19, 60 percent of respondents -- more than 508,000 voters -- said, "I favor legalization of homosexual marriage." With an additional 7.89 percent -- or 66,732 voters -- replying, "I favor a 'civil union' with the full benefits of marriage except for the name," the AFA's chosen position, "I oppose legalization of homosexual marriage and 'civil unions,'" was being defeated by a 2-1 ratio.

"We're very concerned that the traditional state of marriage is under threat in our country by homosexual activists," said AFA representative Buddy Smith. "It just so happens that homosexual activist groups around the country got a hold of the poll -- it was forwarded to them -- and they decided to have a little fun, and turn their organizations around the country (onto) the poll to try to cause it to represent something other than what we wanted it to. And so far, they succeeded with that."

Of course, no such poll can be said to represent an accurate picture of popular opinion. But, clearly, the AFA had hoped Congress would take the numbers it planned to produce as exactly that kind of evidence.

Now, Smith says, his organization has had to abandon its goal of taking the poll to Capitol Hill.

"We made the decision early on not to do that," Smith admitted, "because of how, as I say, the homosexual activists around the country have done their number on it."

So what happened?

Against the wishes of the AFA and its members, the poll leaked to the outside. And soon, people like Gabe Anderson began posting it to blogs, social-networking sites such as Friendster and sundry e-mail lists. When Anderson posted it to his blog on Dec. 18, 2003, the anti-gay-marriage position was leading, with 51.45 percent of respondents opposing gay marriage or civil unions.

But with his posting, in which he alerted his readers to the poll, Anderson -- and many like him -- began to unleash the democratic power that the Internet promises, and which organizations like the AFA must have forgotten: the ability to bring people together to fight for, or against, a cause.

"I definitely think that if an organization like the AFA wants to conduct a poll like this, they open up themselves to more than they expected," said Anderson. "I think it's a great example that the Internet can effect change and have an influence if there is a cause."

Surely, by now, with the rise of organizations like MoveOn.org and Internet-fueled political campaigns like Howard Dean's, such results should surprise no one.

But the AFA seems to have been caught by surprise, and is now trying to gain new currency from the outcome.

"Hopefully the results of the poll will be a wake-up call," said Smith, "to realize the need for us to get more focused and organized and to do what we need to do."

But in the meantime, the AFA and organizations like it will have to get used to the idea that if they want to use the Internet as a tool, they had better understand how it works.

"I think it's pretty cool," said Anderson. "It's empowering that the Internet can have this kind of effect. As an individual, your first reaction is, 'I don't know if I can make a difference.' This is a good example of helping people who are historically apathetic (to say), 'Maybe my vote will matter, too.'"