quote:

---

The Amendment wrote:

16. Marriage (a) The marriage contract is to be considered in law as a civil contract. Marriage shall be constituted by one man and one woman only. All other marriages are declared to be contrary to the public policy of this state and are void.

(b) No relationship, other than a marriage, shall be recognized by the state as entitling the parties to the rights or incidents of marriage.

---

As I understand it, this is the strictest ban in the nation. Not only does it ban gay marriage, but it bans civil unions and may be used by private companies to deny benefits to same-sex partners or straight couples who simply don't want to get married, or by the state to deny companies the ability to provide benefits, if they so desired. And, since it's part of the state constitution, the only recourse people have now is SCOTUS.

Even the crazy far-right talk radio show I listen to supports civil unions.

quote:

---

And coming in at #1 is Maradon! with "Reply." I'm Casey Casem.
I can't understand how this can seriously be the will of the people. I can't think of a rational person who would oppose civil unions at least.

Even the crazy far-right talk radio show I listen to supports civil unions.

---

I think this is a case of a vocal minority pushing for and getting more than what is necessarily the will of the people. The most ardent supporters of a gay marriage ban are, simply put, so bigoted against homosexuals that they want to do everything they can to hurt them within the scope of the law. As it turns out, the will of the people may only realistically extend so far as to banning gay marriage, but they don't mind the inclusion of a civil union ban enough to vote against the amendment.

Something I have heard that scares me even more is the idea that other "alternate lifestyle" minorities would come forward demanding the same rights as the same-sex marriages.

Let's explore this:

Bigamy made legal. (Utah rejoices)

Marrying your first cousins or siblings. (with the gene pool being deeper than it used to be for small rural farm towns this wouldn't cause two headed children like it might have in the past. )

Baaa. Baaa. Yes, the first man to marry a sheep. (Jerry Springer rejoices)

Age of consent done away with. Child brides / grooms being married to old people. (Pedophiles rejoice)

I have no problem with Civil Unions per se. Hell one of my former bosses at my current job is a gay man and a great person. I'm even using him as a reference for my resume. Even he sees where some of these precidences could really set us on the pathway to social chaos.

Kaglaaz How'ler fucked around with this message on 04-05-2005 at 06:40 PM.

quote:

---

Noxhil2's fortune cookie read:
Who are you to tell people they cannot marry a cousin?

---

This is law on some books akin to spitting on the sidewalk on Sunday being a crime. There are some laws that do exist to keep family trees from being a straight line. I imagine it stemmed from a run of birth defects from the gene pool getting too shallow. Generally marrying your uncles daughter is frowned upon. [joke] unless you're from Arkansas [/joke]

quote:

---

A sleep deprived Kaglaaz How'ler stammered:
No matter what it's a slippery slope because the gays wanting to get married are a "vocal minority" as well.

Something I have heard that scares me even more is the idea that other "alternate lifestyle" minorities would come forward demanding the same rights as the same-sex marriages.

Let's explore this:

Bigamy made legal. (Utah rejoices)

Marrying your first cousins or siblings. (with the gene pool being deeper than it used to be for small rural farm towns this wouldn't cause two headed children like it might have in the past. )

Baaa. Baaa. Yes, the first man to marry a sheep. (Jerry Springer rejoices)

Age of consent done away with. Child brides / grooms being married to old people. (Pedophiles rejoice)

I have no problem with Civil Unions per se. Hell one of my former bosses at my current job is a gay man and a great person. I'm even using him as a reference for my resume. Even he sees where some of these precidences could really set us on the pathway to social chaos.

---

Looks like a lot of "what ifs" that try to take away from the issue at hand.

Making it legal to marry a sheep?? Why would that even be necessary? A sheep can't inherant your estate, or help carry out your living will. If the only reason is for sex, you can fuck a sheep whenever you please.

Age of consent going away? Not likely, unless you want to do away with that whole "Bill of Rights" thing.

Try to argue the issue without going into crazy hypothetical situations that will never come true.

quote:

---

Reynar sent this coded message via a team of nanites:
Looks like a lot of "what ifs" that try to take away from the issue at hand.

Making it legal to marry a sheep?? Why would that even be necessary? A sheep can't inherant your estate, or help carry out your living will. If the only reason is for sex, you can fuck a sheep whenever you please.

Age of consent going away? Not likely, unless you want to do away with that whole "Bill of Rights" thing.

Try to argue the issue without going into crazy hypothetical situations that will never come true.

---

I think the (incredibly poorly expressed) point that Kag is trying to make is that he's worried about how people are saying "if gay marriage is allowed, than it leads to insanity".

quote:

---

Azizza's account was hax0red to write:
A few years ago it could have been said that gay people would never be crazy enough to try to get married. The slippery slope argument is very valid despite what some people here think. It is one of the reasons I am opposed to Gay Marriage. This opens up a whole pandora's box. Now if a Private company wants to offer equal benefits to a a gay couple, then more power to them. I support that. If there is some sort of device put into place to give gay couples some limited legal power, then I am all for that to. However I can never see myself supporting full marriage for Gay couples.

---

I wish this was a flame thread

hint: slippery slope is a fallacy in and of itself just fyi. I promise you there won't be any goat marriages.

Kegwen fucked around with this message on 04-05-2005 at 07:22 PM.

quote:

---

Azizza didn't get much USO. He was dug in too deep or moving too fast. His idea of great R&R was cold rice and a little rat meat. He had only two ways home: death, or victory.
Human nature is to constantly want more. The old adage of "Give them an inch and they will take a mile" is alive and well in todays world. It boils down to human greed.

---

Damned dirty goatfuckers.

quote:

---

Azizza had this to say about dark elf butts:
Nice way to twist my words Demos. They have the same civil rights as everyone else. They can not be denied employment, healthcare, etc due to their sexual preference. But two guys or two women can not marry anymore than two 5 year olds can.

---

See this is where church and state need to be seperated. So they can't marry under the eyes of the catholic church, I can understand that. However, why shouldn't two men acting in the same fashion as a married man and woman get the same benefits? State needs to have a seperate version of marriage than church.

By "acting" I mean living together in every way the same as marriage and wish to take "the leap" so to speak.

Fizodeth fucked around with this message on 04-05-2005 at 07:46 PM.

quote:

---

So quoth Fizodeth:
See this is where church and state need to be seperated. So they can't marry under the eyes of the catholic church, I can understand that. However, why shouldn't two men acting in the same fashion as a married man and woman get the same benefits? State needs to have a seperate version of marriage than church.

By "acting" I mean living together in every way the same as marriage and wish to take "the leap" so to speak.

---

Marriage to the state isn't really the same as marriage is to the church. The only connection is that a Priest can do the marriage. However any recognized Holy man can marry people. Along with Judges, and Justices of the peace. I do agree that they are not and should not be the same thing though.
The debate here is really the level of recognition and benefits that two people should have in the eyes of the law.

quote:

---

Azizza had this to say about dark elf butts:
Nice way to twist my words Demos. They have the same civil rights as everyone else. They can not be denied employment, healthcare, etc due to their sexual preference. But two guys or two women can not marry anymore than two 5 year olds can.

---

But not hospital visitation. A US citizen who is married can sponsor a non-American spouse for immigration, those in a civil union can't. Civil unions don't entitle people to file their taxes jointly and get standard deductions for couples. No, they don't have the same rights.

And stop mentioning the fucking slippery slope that we've disproven numberless times before: 5 year olds are not legal adults and cannot enter into any sort of legal contract let alone marriage. Its not even REMOTELY similar in circumstance.

edit: But claiming that gay couples do have the same rights is so preposterous its going back into the sig.

Demos fucked around with this message on 04-05-2005 at 07:57 PM.

quote:

---

Azizza obviously shouldn't have said:
Human nature is to constantly want more. The old adage of "Give them an inch and they will take a mile" is alive and well in todays world. It boils down to human greed.

---

Sorry, but the "guy marries goat" thing is never going to happen for three reasons:

1) A goat has no legal standing to enter into a marriage
2) A goat can't give consent to enter into a marriage
3) A goat can't hold a pen to sign a marriage license

Whenever I'd see one of the anti-gay marriage knobheads use that as an argument to ban gay marriage, I'd get the overwhelming desire to throw an idiot customer face-first through the TV screen.

Callalron fucked around with this message on 04-05-2005 at 08:16 PM.

quote:

---

Azizza enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
While I agree that the Goat argument is pretty out there, it would not be a stretch for Pedophiles to jump on this and start arguing that their rights are being violated.

---

So violate millions of peoples civil rights because something may happen? Not like anyone would pass legislation to marry 14 year olds anyway.

quote:

---

Azizza stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
While I agree that the Goat argument is pretty out there, it would not be a stretch for Pedophiles to jump on this and start arguing that their rights are being violated.

---

They can bitch about it all they want, but nobody will gave a damn about pedos.

Edit: wait...what exactly would they be arguing for? Lowering of age of consent?

Demos fucked around with this message on 04-05-2005 at 08:30 PM.

If seperation of church and state is so important, why have we taken a religious institution and turned it into a legal one?

I mean.. marriage was a Christian ceremony first, rather than forcing them to change the way their church works, wouldn't it be better, maybe not easier, but better, to create something like civil unions for legal benefits? That would leave marriage as a purely ceremonial thing.

I'm honestly curious, there has to be a reason this isn't what people want. I just don't know what it is.

quote:

---

They can bitch about it all they want, but nobody will gave a damn about pedos

---

Alaan, Millons of peoples Civil rights are not being ignored. They do not have the right to get married. See my above post.

quote:

---

Dr. Gee obviously shouldn't have said:
Which is infringing upon their civil rights to be equally treated as American citizens and to enjoy the full protection of the law the same as heterosexual couples.

---

That is like saying it infringes on a mans freedom because he is not allowed to go into a woman's bathroom.

quote:

---

The propaganda machine of Kaglaaz How'ler's junta released this statement:
No matter what it's a slippery slope because the gays wanting to get married are a "vocal minority" as well.

---

Then why the hell does it matter if that vocal minority (less than one percent of the total population) wants to get married?

quote:

---

Something I have heard that scares me even more is the idea that other "alternate lifestyle" minorities would come forward demanding the same rights as the same-sex marriages.

Let's explore this:

---

Oh. This should be funny.

quote:

---

Bigamy made legal. (Utah rejoices)

---

Sigh. OK, to put this to rest once and for all, I'm going to say this as clearly and in as big, bold, bright letters as possible:

BIGAMY IS A CONSCIOUS CHOICE. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT. YOU DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY. YOU SHOULD THEREFORE NOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO MARRY BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT IS BEYOND YOUR CONTROL.

quote:

---

Marrying your first cousins or siblings. (with the gene pool being deeper than it used to be for small rural farm towns this wouldn't cause two headed children like it might have in the past. )

---

Hmm, maybe I should have saved the big text for last. Ah well, C&P time.

BIGAMY WANTING TO MARRY YOUR COUSIN IS A CONSCIOUS CHOICE. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT. YOU DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY. YOU SHOULD THEREFORE NOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO MARRY BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT IS BEYOND YOUR CONTROL.

In addition, there is demonstrable evidence that inbreeding is dangerous, both psychologically and physically, and problems can manifest themselves within a single generation. Gay people procreating has no such inherent danger.

quote:

---

Baaa. Baaa. Yes, the first man to marry a sheep. (Jerry Springer rejoices)

---

Well, it's certainly...interesting that you consider gays wanting to marry and sheep-fuckers comparable, but--oh, wait, here it comes!

BIGAMY WANTING TO MARRY YOUR COUSIN WANTING TO MARRY A SHEEP IS A CONSCIOUS CHOICE. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT. YOU DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY. YOU SHOULD THEREFORE NOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO MARRY BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT IS BEYOND YOUR CONTROL.

Moreover, animals have no human rights to begin with, so it makes little sense to even compare the two situations, unless you think gays are sub-human? Or do you think that a kid who has a sheep for a mommy is just as psychologically damaging as a kid who has two mommies?

quote:

---

Age of consent done away with. Child brides / grooms being married to old people. (Pedophiles rejoice)

---

Dude, I think someone spiked your drink.

*knock knock knock*

Oh, there's something at the door. One sec, let me go get it.

*gets up, and opens the door*

Hey, it's--

BIGAMY WANTING TO MARRY YOUR COUSIN WANTING TO MARRY A SHEEP WANTING TO MARRY CHILDREN IS A CONSCIOUS CHOICE. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT. YOU DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT CHOOSE TO BE GAY. YOU SHOULD THEREFORE NOT BE DENIED THE RIGHT TO MARRY BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT IS BEYOND YOUR CONTROL.

And, even if child rapists have some genetic compulsion, this one fails on the fact that it children are (again, demonstrably) not mentally developed enough to make good decisions about marriage. Or did you think that gay people aren't mentally developed enough make good decisions about marriage?

So now you've thrown homosexuals in the same camp with bigamists, sheep-fuckers, incestual individuals, and child rapists. With this in mind, your next statement is absolutely hilarious:

quote:

---

I have no problem with Civil Unions per se. Hell one of my former bosses at my current job is a gay man and a great person. I'm even using him as a reference for my resume. Even he sees where some of these precidences could really set us on the pathway to social chaos.

---

Please allow me a moment for a raucous laugh.

BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Wow, I sure hope your former boss doesn't know you think he's on the same level as a pedophile, or a guy who fucks sheep, or his cousin; it might make using him as a reference a little awkward.

Seriously, though, I hope you see why your argument is completely wrong. For each of your examples, you erroneously assumed one of two things:

A) Being gay is simply a choice, an alternative lifestyle, and something you can choose to start or stop doing, or

B) Being incestual, a bigamist, sheep-fucker, or child-rapist is not a choice, but something you're instinctively born with.

Either way, both of the above statements are demonstrably wrong, or, at minimum, seriously doubtful. Furthermore, the individual arguments are specious for reasons unrelated to the people involved, but rather the acts, which I enumerated under the appropriate arguments above. Now, you have three options:

A) cede that your arguments are wrong,

B) stubbornly refuse to admit such, but offer no rebuttal,

C) try to show that pedophilia, incest, bestiality, or bigamy are somehow similar to homosexual sex by either attempting to prove that being gay is not a choice, or that being a bigamist, sheep-fucker, or child-rapist is a choice. You could also attempt to show that gay marriages would be similarly inherently damaging to potential offspring as the scenarios you've outlined above.

Your call.

Just because something is or isn't a choice doesn't mean it should be allowed. Now obviously I dont' think we should put Homosexuals in jail. However just because they have a couple wires crossed doesn't mean we should bend over backwards and start changing the constitution for them.

You don't have to change the constitution to ALLOW it, but apparently you have to in order to disallow it... even though your justification for disallowing it is stupid

Kegwen fucked around with this message on 04-05-2005 at 09:21 PM.

quote:

---

Azizza stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
And if you will look back to when that happened, I said I disagreed with a Constitutional amendment for either side.

---

Ah, I forgot. Either way, you've yet to provide a valid justification for disallowing it. Hint: logical people don't accept blatant fallacies as answers

quote:

---

Azizza stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Current evidence points towards many pedophiles, and the like being miswired. Hell a sociopath doesn't choose to be one yet we don't let them go around killing people.

Just because something is or isn't a choice doesn't mean it should be allowed. Now obviously I dont' think we should put Homosexuals in jail. However just because they have a couple wires crossed doesn't mean we should bend over backwards and start changing the constitution for them.

---

Pedophilia and a sociopath's killing spree both hurt other people. Gay marriage does not, so the comparison's not exactly valid.

MorbId fucked around with this message on 04-05-2005 at 09:26 PM.

quote:

---

Azizza's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Human nature is to constantly want more. The old adage of "Give them an inch and they will take a mile" is alive and well in todays world. It boils down to human greed.

---

Ah but the problem is that if giving someone anything like a marriage causes this, we should legally outlaw all marriages, homosexual OR heterosexual.

On that note I have to go spend time With Cathy. I will check in to replay as I can.