Warren Buffett donates to the Gates foundation.

[Skarekrough]

At least one positive thing has come out of this thread. From a guy quoting master shake no less

Or used to at least

Yeah...the irony swings around and smacks me in the back of the head sometimes.

But no matter what it'd be funnier if it were Carl....

[Evan Skopp]

Guys! A little respect, please.

[big_black]

To start, lots of things ban the pursuit of happiness if what makes you happy is not legal in society. If killing people makes you happy, that's still not enough reason alone for it to be given legal allowance.

Smokescreen tactic, does not apply

Race is different to marriage. That was an issue of race. The relationship was marriage by its very nature. And here's where an interesting legal aspect comes in. What is now being attempted is the creation of a right to call one thing another.

The spirit is exactly the same,

The fact is marriage law has been formed over thousands of years of human society, and it has some core central elements. Unless the relationship clearly matches the criteria of marriage as they have been understood in human society then it's not a fight to allow same-sex marriage, but a fight to call something whatever you want to call it, regardless of whether it fits the characteristics of what you wish to call it.

Same-sex couples CAN have a marriage in the State of Massachusetts. Yes it is a M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E. Other states must recognize that marriage or risk violation of the Constitution. It is that simple. Our government and its laws were designed to change with the times...as is the English language.

I am not concerned with what happened 1,000 years ago. That does not apply here. We started from scratch 230 years ago.

[big_black]

6. If homosexual relationships are, in this manner, legally recognized as marriages, no realities will change. Heterosexual marriage partners will still be able to engage in sexual intercourse and potentially procreate children; homosexual partners will still not be able to engage in such intercourse. Pregnancy will still be possible only by implanting a male sperm in a female egg, whether that is done by sexual intercourse inside or outside of marriage, or by in vitro fertilization, or by implanting male sperm in the uterus of a woman not married to the man whose sperm are being used. The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships.

That is just silly. We all know at the heart of a marriage there is a commitment.

7. Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship. Which means henceforth that there will be no legal basis for restrictions against a homosexual couple obtaining children in any way they choose, for such restrictions would constitute discrimination. And it will mean that when a mature mother and son, or father and daughter, or trio or quartet of partners come to the courts or to the marriage-license bureau to ask that their sexually active relationship be recognized as marriage, there will be no legal grounds of a non-arbitrary kind to reject the requests. Because if it is now arbitrary and unjust to recognize heterosexual marriage as something exclusive and different from homosexual relationships, then it will be arbitrary and unjust not to grant the request of other partners to call their sexually intimate and enduring relationships marriage.

What is to stop that from happening when you rule our counrty?

Marriage = man + woman.

There are no plans I know of to add language that would prevent your paranoid scenerio from happening.

[big_black]

But, of course, since legal declarations cannot turn reality into something it cannot become, a variety of conundrums, contradictions, and anomalies will inevitably arise. And the only way to resolve them will be to revise the law so it squares with, and does justice to, reality. If, that is, anyone is interested in crafting the law to do justice to reality.

The question behind marriage, in other words, is a structural one that precedes lawmaking. The argument about the structural identity of marriage is not a legal argument about how people should be treated within the bonds of that structure. Rather, it is about whether homosexual relationships should be identified as having the structure of marriage, and only after that can civil rights considerations emerge about how citizens should be treated fairly with respect to marriage.

Those who want homosexual relationships to be redefined as marriages say that many aspects of their relationships are like marriage--having sexual play, living together, loving one another, etc.--and therefore they should be allowed to call their relationships marriages and should be recognized in the law as marriage partners. But this cannot be a proper legal matter until the empirical case has been made that a homosexual partnership and a marriage are indistinguishable. Otherwise, the appeal amounts to nothing more than a request that homosexual partners be allowed to call themselves what they want to call themselves regardless of the differences that exist in reality. The answer they want is for law making and adjudicating authorities to change the law based on the principle that reality is defined by the will and declarations of individuals, all of whom should be treated without discrimination.

So is there no difference between a dating realtionship and a marriage? Of course there is.

[big_black]

The appeal now being made for homosexual marriage rights is not an appeal for judges and lawmakers to reconsider past empirical judgments about similarities and differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Rather, it is an appeal for judges and lawmakers to ignore those distinctions in order not to deny citizens the right to call things what they want to call them. It is a version of an appeal for the protection of free speech, and in this case it is a demand that the speech of particular persons carry the authority to define the structure of reality without regard to the basis of past legal judgments. The antidiscrimination principle is appealed to not in order to show that some married couples have previously been denied the recognition of their marriage. Rather the antidiscrimination principle is being used to ask that no citizen be denied the right to call something what he or she wants to call it.

You are free to call whatever you want, whatever you want.

So would I. It removes the effort to call one thing another, and focuses on the actual needs that are often put forth as the reasons for this debate. Let's address those instead.
We can have property and power of attorney rights for a relationship without calling it marriage.

Nah, I think I'll pass. We'll go for the whole thing.

[big_black]

On noes! Webster's Dictionary says so! He's like THE authority!
</sarcasm>

I suppose you get your definitions straight from God.

[big_black]

And if society defines marriage as one man, one woman, those who value society's laws would understand and not worry about it.

We have laws that are independent of what society might feel. We have a Constitution that must be upheld.

Note that they're being selfish and self-centered. They only want "their rights", when that isn't a right given to them by their own country's laws. Granted, no one is saying that they aren't allowed to live together and do whatever-the-hell else they want.

Same-sex couple do have the right to marry...right now...today.

And yes, states must recognize that, or risk violating the Constitution.

All they want is equal protection under the law.

But sure, next it will be wrong to throw public nudists in jail.

HUH?

[JB_From_Hell]

If it's not a choice to commit homosexual acts then they need to be removed from society to a mental institution because they lack the ability to control their actions and lack the ability to make decisions.

Jesus H. Christ.... did you get all your knowledge on gay folks from your preacher?

You seriously have the balls to say that the crap you're puking all over this forum isn't bigotry? I guess if the church says it's ok, it transcends reason.

Again, I'd like to point out how it seems a tad askew that swearing will get you banned, yet labelling all gays everywhere as in need of institutionalization is a-ok.

[big_black]

You must've learned the definition of "bigot" in church.

Should'a used Webster's, maybe then he would have actually got it right.

[JB_From_Hell]

Should'a used Webster's.

Should quit descriminating based upon stuff he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about

[big_black]

We don't need to call him anything. He does enough damage (to himself) on his own. People recognize him for what he is.

Wind him up and laugh for hours.

[Skarekrough]

Should'a used Webster's, maybe then he would have actually got it right.

...why is it you keep referencing that old sticom?

[Willis]

So they're gay, how does a choice they made blah blah blah

So, just out of curiosity, when did you make your choice to be heterosexual?

[JB_From_Hell]

So, just out of curiosity, when you make your choice to be heterosexual?

God made it for him.

[Arkitkt]

There are plenty of homosexuals that have come forward to admit the truth. I believe the movie they made was called "It's Not Gay".

But beyond that, it's a choice. If it's not a choice to commit homosexual acts then they need to be removed from society to a mental institution because they lack the ability to control their actions and lack the ability to make decisions.

I just made the decision to stop discussing this issue with you. We're definitely not going to find any common ground.

...\bows out.

[Arkitkt]

Here's my solution for the same-sex marriage "problem".

Leave marriage to the institution it belongs to: The Churches.
IMHO, Government should completely get out of the marriage business and allow civil unions for every couple of 2 consenting adults instead. Give them all the same rights and duties, the same tax options and the same inheritance rules.

If people want to get married, they can go to the church (mosque, synagogue, temple or stone circle) of their choosing and say their "I do s"
If a religious organisation accepts marriages between same-sex couples, gays and lesbians can get married there.

Everybody's happy.

[JB_From_Hell]

Everybody's happy.

Unfortunately, they wouldn't be. Certain folks don't think gays should be entitled to any of the "priveleges" (tax stuff, insurance) associated with marriage.

However, I agree with you completely.

[Guitar Toad]

Here's my solution for the same-sex marriage "problem".

Leave marriage to the institution it belongs to: The Churches.
IMHO, Government should completely get out of the marriage business and allow civil unions for every couple of 2 consenting adults instead. Give them all the same rights and duties, the same tax options and the same inheritance rules.

If people want to get married, they can go to the church (mosque, synagogue, temple or stone circle) of their choosing and say their "I do s"
If a religious organisation accepts marriages between same-sex couples, gays and lesbians can get married there.

Everybody's happy.

That's a great solution. I think it should/would work. I'm down with that.

[Skarekrough]

Unfortunately, they wouldn't be. Certain folks don't think gays should be entitled to any of the "priveleges" (tax stuff, insurance) associated with marriage.

However, I agree with you completely.

The other aspect is inherently tied to legal grounds; things like estate, wills and care of children if they've raised them together.