<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fine then, keep the damn word. Now I have to take issue with the fact that a ridiculously obvious solution to the problem exists - allow civil unions between **** couples and grant them the same legal rights as marriages - yet Republicans aren't even trying to compromise. This entire debate would be ended - or at least largely abated - if just that simple change of legislation were to take place, but no. No, that would be too close to marriage to suit the religious Right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think they wouldn't like it, not just because it's too close to **** marriage, but because much of the Religious Right is theocratic. They don't want the government to get out of the marriage business.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 27 2005, 06:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 27 2005, 06:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 27 2005, 11:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 27 2005, 11:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 26 2005, 11:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 26 2005, 11:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, if you look back you'll notice that you are the first one to even bring up that point. I've never even mentioned my views on homosexuality itself, merely my views on marriage. And my faith dictates that marriage is reserved for 1 man and 1 woman. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh...you say that marriage is between a man and a woman, but you also say that you have no opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage? There's a dot in London and a dot in New York; connect them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Big jump in logic there. I didn't say "no opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage", I said I hadn't stated an opinion on the homosexual lifestyle (in response to your post "No, you've explained that your faith dictates that homosexuality is a sin.") I have a very clear opinion on homosexual marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The only possible explanation I have seen so far for why you oppose homosexual marriage is because Christianity says it's a sin. The fact that Christianity also says marriage is a bond between a man and a woman is a direct result of that belief. So to say that you oppose homosexual marriage, yet you have no opinion on homosexuality in general, is itself a rather big jump of logic. I just bridged said gap with my own jump of logic, because I was trying to reconcile what you said with what you have to believe in order for your stance to make logical sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fine then, keep the damn word. Now I have to take issue with the fact that a ridiculously obvious solution to the problem exists - allow civil unions between **** couples and grant them the same legal rights as marriages - yet Republicans aren't even trying to compromise. This entire debate would be ended - or at least largely abated - if just that simple change of legislation were to take place, but no. No, that would be too close to marriage to suit the religious Right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't speak for them, only for myself. If you want to attack them, go ahead.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am attacking them; it's why I made this thread. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 27 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 27 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 27 2005, 06:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 27 2005, 06:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Big jump in logic there. I didn't say "no opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage", I said I hadn't stated an opinion on the homosexual lifestyle (in response to your post "No, you've explained that your faith dictates that homosexuality is a sin.") I have a very clear opinion on homosexual marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only possible explanation I have seen so far for why you oppose homosexual marriage is because Christianity says it's a sin. The fact that Christianity also says marriage is a bond between a man and a woman is a direct result of that belief. So to say that you oppose homosexual marriage, yet you have no opinion on homosexuality in general, is itself a rather big jump of logic. I just bridged said gap with my own jump of logic, because I was trying to reconcile what you said with what you have to believe in order for your stance to make logical sense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say I had no opinion on homosexuality in general. I just said I hadn't stated it, because I don't think its really relevant to this argument. You're free to speculate however you want on what it might be, but I will neither confirm nor deny any of those speculations. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 27 2005, 10:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 27 2005, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 27 2005, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 27 2005, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 27 2005, 06:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 27 2005, 06:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Big jump in logic there. I didn't say "no opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage", I said I hadn't stated an opinion on the homosexual lifestyle (in response to your post "No, you've explained that your faith dictates that homosexuality is a sin.") I have a very clear opinion on homosexual marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The only possible explanation I have seen so far for why you oppose homosexual marriage is because Christianity says it's a sin. The fact that Christianity also says marriage is a bond between a man and a woman is a direct result of that belief. So to say that you oppose homosexual marriage, yet you have no opinion on homosexuality in general, is itself a rather big jump of logic. I just bridged said gap with my own jump of logic, because I was trying to reconcile what you said with what you have to believe in order for your stance to make logical sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I didn't say I had no opinion on homosexuality in general. I just said I hadn't stated it, because I don't think its really relevant to this argument. You're free to speculate however you want on what it might be, but I will neither confirm nor deny any of those speculations. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> To quote the daily show again.
Imagine the paperclip talking to you as you are writing that post. "Looks like you are trying to compose a lame cop-out. Do you need assistance?"
In what way is that a cop out? I haven't used my opinion on the homosexual lifestyle as a justification for any of my opinions or arguments on any other issue, so I don't see why it should be relevant for me to debate it. So to ensure that you can't make me debate it, it will stay officially unconfirmed.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 28 2005, 09:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 28 2005, 09:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In what way is that a cop out? I haven't used my opinion on the homosexual lifestyle as a justification for any of my opinions or arguments on any other issue, so I don't see why it should be relevant for me to debate it. So to ensure that you can't make me debate it, it will stay officially unconfirmed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In that case, your entire arguement for this thread means absolutely nothing.
Incorrect. I have made numerous arguments against allowing homosexual marriage, and not a one of them has one bit of connection with the validity of the homosexual lifestyle. They are two separate topics. I could equally well say "I think homosexuality is a sin", or "I think homosexuals can do whatever they want behind closed doors", and neither would have any bearing on my reasoning for why they shouldn't have access to the ritual of Marriage.
Well actually, you said your opinions on homosexual marriage were derived from your religion, and your religion's opinions towards homosexual marriage are obviously derived from its opinions towards homosexuals in general. Allow me to quote: <!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just throwing certain things you should be aware of. 1. Homosexual marriage does not affect you. 2. If it doesn't affect you directly, you should not be against anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Shaky logic there. To use an example: it doesn't particularly affect you or me if the US decides to go bomb some random foreign country. Yet every time a president proposes that, you can be sure thousands of people will speak up in protest that we shouldn't let the government do that.
Now that I have established that I am allowed to have an opinion on the matter, I have no trouble admitting that my opinion is determined primarily based on religious beliefs. But as already pointed out, marriage is a religious institution...so religious beliefs ought to count for something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Also, the only real argument I've seen from you against homosexual marriage has been some variation of "religion created marriage, so the government shouldn't control it". Excellent, then same-sex marriages shouldn't be banned by the government.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, the only real argument I've seen from you against homosexual marriage has been some variation of "religion created marriage, so the government shouldn't control it". Excellent, then same-sex marriages shouldn't be banned by the government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except thats not really what you're asking--you're not asking the government to <i>not ban</i> homosexual marriage, you are asking it to specifically <i>authorize</i> homosexual marriage. As long as religion is controling marriage, the general consensus of religion (though admittedly not perfect consensus) is that the institution of marriage should not be applied to two members of the same sex. So if we've banned it, the government shouldn't unban it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well actually, you said your opinions on homosexual marriage were derived from your religion, [snip] Allow me to quote:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have successfully determined that my opinions on homosexual marriage are drawn from religious beliefs. Congratulations on your excellent detective work! However-- <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and your religion's opinions towards homosexual marriage are obviously derived from its opinions towards homosexuals in general. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Speculation, my friend. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To be more precise, I have drawn my opinions from quotes where God specifically describes his intentions for marriage, which contain no reference to homosexuality at all. While there are other passages where God offers opinions on homosexuality, that does not mean they serve as the sole basis for his ideas on Marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 28 2005, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 28 2005, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, the only real argument I've seen from you against homosexual marriage has been some variation of "religion created marriage, so the government shouldn't control it". Excellent, then same-sex marriages shouldn't be banned by the government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except thats not really what you're asking--you're not asking the government to <i>not ban</i> homosexual marriage, you are asking it to specifically <i>authorize</i> homosexual marriage. As long as religion is controling marriage, the general consensus of religion (though admittedly not perfect consensus) is that the institution of marriage should not be applied to two members of the same sex. So if we've banned it, the government shouldn't unban it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Forgive me if I've just missed something here, but what is wrong with separating the religious part from government? That way, there's no conflict - a couple can get a civil union, and then go to a church and get married. (As said before, the civil union would be the thing that grants the rights.) Churches would be free to uphold their views on marriage, but it doesn't interfere with law; the government doesn't stop you from banning it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 28 2005, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 28 2005, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, the only real argument I've seen from you against homosexual marriage has been some variation of "religion created marriage, so the government shouldn't control it". Excellent, then same-sex marriages shouldn't be banned by the government.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Except thats not really what you're asking--you're not asking the government to <i>not ban</i> homosexual marriage, you are asking it to specifically <i>authorize</i> homosexual marriage. As long as religion is controling marriage, the general consensus of religion (though admittedly not perfect consensus) is that the institution of marriage should not be applied to two members of the same sex. So if we've banned it, the government shouldn't unban it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, homosexual marriage isn't banned right now. It's only banned in, what was it, 9 states? The other 41 are just kinda iffy right now. And general consensus of religion? Consensus? Christians may be the most well-represented religion in this country, but they surely are not the only. To say that everybody's respective religions have formed a consensus is a rather broad statement, especially when you consider how much dissention there is within each denomination. If anything, there has been a fundamentalist consensus. There may be a lot of Christians in the US, but I can pretty much guarantee that there are more moderate Christians than fundamentalists. Therefore, the "consensus" of the religious peole as a whole would be far more receptive towards **** marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well actually, you said your opinions on homosexual marriage were derived from your religion, [snip] Allow me to quote:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have successfully determined that my opinions on homosexual marriage are drawn from religious beliefs. Congratulations on your excellent detective work! However-- <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and your religion's opinions towards homosexual marriage are obviously derived from its opinions towards homosexuals in general. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Speculation, my friend. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To be more precise, I have drawn my opinions from quotes where God specifically describes his intentions for marriage, which contain no reference to homosexuality at all. While there are other passages where God offers opinions on homosexuality, that does not mean they serve as the sole basis for his ideas on Marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you don't even consider the other passages concerning homosexuals to intrude on your decision making processs? I'm sorry, but I gotta call BS on that one.
@Snidely: he already said he'd be fine with that. He has also said that he thinks that particular solution unworkable because homosexuals would be too preoccupied with the name. Not being ****, I can't exactly comment on the veracity of that statement, but I will say that if that ends up being the solution, I'd be happy. It's not exactly the perfect vision of acceptance I was aiming for, but meh. Right now we're more arguing about who has jurisdiction over marriage - the government or the Church. Because if it's 100% the Church then nothing will ever change; the leadership of the Church is by its very nature conservative.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Forgive me if I've just missed something here, but what is wrong with separating the religious part from government? That way, there's no conflict - a couple can get a civil union, and then go to a church and get married. (As said before, the civil union would be the thing that grants the rights.) Churches would be free to uphold their views on marriage, but it doesn't interfere with law; the government doesn't stop you from banning it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You didn't miss anything. That very solution has been brought up several times, and no one has objected yet--except to point out that for some reason, the political forces actually fighting this battle in the real world all refuse to accept this compromise. G.ay rights groups think civil unions aren't good enough and insist on full marriage rights, while large portions of the Religious Right think that even civil unions are going to far and want to block even that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 28 2005, 06:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 28 2005, 06:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually, homosexual marriage isn't banned right now. It's only banned in, what was it, 9 states? The other 41 are just kinda iffy right now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I wouldn't recommend quoting Cyndane on anything. I repeat, only about 9 states have constitutionally banned homosexual marriages. The others have laws like these, passed through the normal legislative process:
<!--QuoteBegin-California State Law+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (California State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->300. Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing with Section 500).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Arkansas State Law+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Arkansas State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->9-11-109. Validity of same-sex marriages.
Marriage shall be only between a man and a woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex is void.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Ohio State Law+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ohio State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Section 3101.01 A) Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could go on. But I believe ONLY Massachusetts currently has procedures for a union between man and man, and I believe that is still in Civil-Union status, not full marriage. (dont quote me on MA though, haven't followed news from MA for awhile)
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 27 2005, 04:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 27 2005, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would just like to point out that almost all states have this as their marriage law (quote from the SD state law)
<!--QuoteBegin-South Dakota State Law+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (South Dakota State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between two people, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization.
Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0101; SL 1959, ch 50, § 1; SL 1996, ch 161. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between a man and a woman, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization
Notice the small but important change Cyndane made to this law? Here's a link to the law itself, so no one can accuse me of making this up.
<a href='http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/index.aspx?FuseAction=DisplayStatute&Type=Statute&Statute=25-1-1' target='_blank'>Link to South Dakota Law</a>
Oh, and here's another excerpt from South Dakota law.
25-1-38. Validity of marriages contracted outside state--Same-sex marriages excluded. Any marriage contracted outside the jurisdiction of this state, except a marriage contracted between two persons of the same gender, which is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which such marriage was contracted, is valid in this state.
Fine then. That still doesn't say anything about the laws being the "consensus of the religious". Most people are moderates by nature; do you really think 51% of the country endorses Bush wholeheartedly? Of course not. The true fact of the matter is that most of the people who bother to vote in this country are the extremists. Moderates have yet to find someone who they can rally behind, so apathy is much higher in that group. Not to mention the fact that moderates in general are moderates because they don't have strong opinions, and who's going to go to a rally to basically say, "Why do you all care?"
All of these principles transfer quite nicely to the current debate. The people who go to these mass Christian rallies are not the moderate Christians, the people who would be willing to compromise. They are the fundamentalists, the people who are stuck on the idea that their way is the right way, and that everyone should listen to them. It really is rather silly, to think your morality is the only morality.
Basically, what this means for these laws is that they are not the opinion of the majority, either in the political or in the religious arena. So while legalizing g.ay marriage at this time may not be the best route to take, it is just as much if not more of a folly to say that the current laws are the best ones, or that they come from the opinion of the majority.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cxwf+Apr 28 2005, 07:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cxwf @ Apr 28 2005, 07:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 27 2005, 04:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 27 2005, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would just like to point out that almost all states have this as their marriage law (quote from the SD state law)
<!--QuoteBegin-South Dakota State Law+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (South Dakota State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between two people, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization.
Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0101; SL 1959, ch 50, § 1; SL 1996, ch 161. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between a man and a woman, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization
Notice the small but important change Cyndane made to this law? Here's a link to the law itself, so no one can accuse me of making this up.
<a href='http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/index.aspx?FuseAction=DisplayStatute&Type=Statute&Statute=25-1-1' target='_blank'>Link to South Dakota Law</a>
Oh, and here's another excerpt from South Dakota law.
25-1-38. Validity of marriages contracted outside state--Same-sex marriages excluded. Any marriage contracted outside the jurisdiction of this state, except a marriage contracted between two persons of the same gender, which is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which such marriage was contracted, is valid in this state.
Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0103; SL 2000, ch 115, § 1. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Assuming I modified anything... tsk. That definition has since been reversed with the verbage I provided during THIS legislative term. As for the out of state marriages, that has remained the same. As to why.. you would have to contact our legislature... sometimes they can be less the... intelligent. Or perhaps not even aware of it.
Doesn't the Constitution state that all states have to honor the court decisions of other states? I would assume that would include marriage. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yes, but things like that generally aren't enforced until someone sues over them. So I have no doubt that after the first state officially legalizes g.ay marriage (assuming any state does), within a few months we'll start seeing legal battles as people get married in that state and then move to other states which refuse to recognize the marriages. And won't that be fun to watch!! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 28 2005, 08:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 28 2005, 08:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Fine then. That still doesn't say anything about the laws being the "consensus of the religious". Most people are moderates by nature; do you really think 51% of the country endorses Bush wholeheartedly? Of course not. The true fact of the matter is that most of the people who bother to vote in this country are the extremists. Moderates have yet to find someone who they can rally behind, so apathy is much higher in that group. Not to mention the fact that moderates in general are moderates because they don't have strong opinions, and who's going to go to a rally to basically say, "Why do you all care?" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Granted.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All of these principles transfer quite nicely to the current debate. The people who go to these mass Christian rallies are not the moderate Christians, the people who would be willing to compromise. They are the fundamentalists, the people who are stuck on the idea that their way is the right way, and that everyone should listen to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted again. However, while the "apathetic moderates" may be much less likely to oppose homosexuality as a lifestyle, even many of them have issues with homosexual marriage. Considering how easily defense-of-marriage amendments are passing everywhere they come to a vote, it's not much a stretch to say that at least 51% of the populace is still opposed to extending marriage to homosexual relationships.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 28 2005, 08:32 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 28 2005, 08:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Doesn't the Constitution state that all states have to honor the court decisions of other states? I would assume that would include marriage. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah.
<!--QuoteBegin-US Constitution+ Article IV, Section 1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (US Constitution @ Article IV, Section 1)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, here is a comprehensive survey on beliefs about **** marriage: <a href='http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39' target='_blank'>http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39</a>
If the trends hold, in 30 years, **** marriage will be legal nationwide, since young people are more likely to think that it's ok.
Am I correct in assuming at this point that everyone here would support a split between marriage under the law (henceforth called civil unions) and marriage under God (which would retain the name "marriage")? Meaning the only problem...is that the politics in this country right now are so screwed up, that this change won't happen anytime soon?
If so, than this might actually be the first Discussion forum topic I've ever seen where the two sides have reached a consensus.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 28 2005, 10:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 28 2005, 10:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Am I correct in assuming at this point that everyone here would support a split between marriage under the law (henceforth called civil unions) and marriage under God (which would retain the name "marriage")? Meaning the only problem...is that the politics in this country right now are so screwed up, that this change won't happen anytime soon?
If so, than this might actually be the first Discussion forum topic I've ever seen where the two sides have reached a consensus. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Not everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-Me+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Me)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think they wouldn't like it, not just because it's too close to **** marriage, but because much of the Religious Right is theocratic. They don't want the government to get out of the marriage business.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take this from the May issue of Harper's Magazine (great issue, by the way; I often find myself irritated with Harper's adamantly partisan ideology, but this issue was fascinating). I can't find a copy on the internet, but there's a decent summary of the three articles dealing with evangelics here: <a href='http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2005/04/theocracy_anyon.html' target='_blank'>http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2005/...racy_anyon.html</a>
Well of course not <i>everyone</i>. You will never have a topic where everyone agrees...but to even find agreement between all of the people debating a topic online is pretty astonishing. (which I think is what he was referring to)
Edit: Just looked through theClams link on survey results, and thats pretty interesting. Some relevant numbers: Overall, americans strongly oppose homosexual marriage 59 to 32, and also oppose civil unions by a smaller margin, 51 to 41. Although younger respondants were more likely to support homosexual marriage, no demographic in the survey cracked 50% support, and only one demographic recorded opposition dropping below 50%: college grads opposed g.ay marriage 49 to 44.
30 years from now, who can say? But based on those results, I think it's pretty safe to say that at least for the next 5-10 years, the only majority thats going to pass a g.ay marriage law is 5 of 9 people on a court. (insert obligatory flames about activist judges)
If <i> any </i> state legalizes homosexual marriage. Wow.. talk about naivity here.
Massachusetts has legalized it. <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/' target='_blank'>MA legalized homosexual marriage (CNN article)</a>
As did Washington state. <a href='http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/030205waCourt.htm' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage</a>
California: <a href='http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/042505calMarr.htm' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage admendment</a>
Omg, look even the british are being smart. <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Britain-****-Partnerships.html' target='_blank'>Britian passes civil union.</a>
As did spain, but you knew that from the daily show. <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/international/europe/22spain.html' target='_blank'>Spain approves homosexual marriage</a>
Heres a nice list of what states have passed a homosexual marriage ban. <a href='http://www.gaymarriagenews.com/amendments.phtml' target='_blank'>List of states amendments</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 29 2005, 08:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 29 2005, 08:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If <i> any </i> state legalizes homosexual marriage. Wow.. talk about naivity here.
Massachusetts has legalized it. <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/' target='_blank'>MA legalized homosexual marriage (CNN article)</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Theres a lot of distortion in that summary...
Starting with MA--there are currently no rules allowing homosexual marriage. 4 judges on a 7 judge panel ruled that the state must MAKE rules allowing it, even though the legislature does not want to. (see my last post...)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As did Washington state. <a href='http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/030205waCourt.htm' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Currently no rules allowing homosexual marriage. The state supreme court is planning to hear arguments in a case similar to MAs, where they <i>might</i> order the legislature to make some. (see my last post...)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->California: <a href='http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/042505calMarr.htm' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage admendment</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Currently no rules allowing homosexual marriage. The legislature is discussing a rule to legalize it, which is supported by one party and opposed by another. It has not yet come up for a vote.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Vermot: <a href='http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct-xgr--same-sexmarri0224feb24,0,4207011.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Link broken so I can't check this one, but chances are its much like the other cases.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Omg, look even the british are being smart. <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Britain-****-Partnerships.html' target='_blank'>Britian passes civil union.</a>
As did spain, but you knew that from the daily show. <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/international/europe/22spain.html' target='_blank'>Spain approves homosexual marriage</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And we care what rules Europe passes because...?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Heres a nice list of what states have passed a homosexual marriage ban. <a href='http://www.gaymarriagenews.com/amendments.phtml' target='_blank'>List of states amendments</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I count 13, thats even better than I thought. Note again, that list mentions states with CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENTS barring homosexual marriage, not laws. Every state has laws banning it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You mean I am actually correct? No way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, "No Way" is quite appropriate there. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Nine have passed it, the other four are pending congress of the respective states, might want to read that list again.
We care about what european countries are doing because last time I checked majority of them are quite obviously smarter then the US. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hehe.. your attempt at the "distorted" view of the CNN article.. here are a few quotes from that article.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has cleared the way for lesbian and **** couples in the state to marry, ruling Tuesday that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CNN article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CNN article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Vermont is the only state in the United States that allows same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California's State Assembly recently passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing *** to marry. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CNN article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CNN article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In June the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. On June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-sex marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes it is so unclear.
Next one... <!--QuoteBegin-http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/08/080404washCourt.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/08/080404washCourt.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Seattle, Washington) A Washington state court Wednesday ruled today same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.
The case involved eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in King County.
Downing's ruling went on to say that the couples must be given marriage licenses <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh my, they ARE legal. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Next one... <!--QuoteBegin-http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/031405CalMarr.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/031405CalMarr.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (San Francisco, California) A San Francisco judge ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional for the state of California to deny marriage to **** and lesbian couples.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling.
In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage Kramer wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for *** and lesbians. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh wow... it is LEGAL... :-)
Next one... (side note, vermont legalized homosexual marriage in 1999...) <!--QuoteBegin-http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/122004vermont.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/122004vermont.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Montpelier, Vermont) Monday marked the fifth anniversary of the landmark ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court ordering the legislature "to assign to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law."
The ruling led to the creation of "civil unions", making Vermont the first state in the country to formally recognize same-sex relationships. Since then some 7,000 **** and lesbian couples from around the country have affirmed their commitments in Vermont. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, you failed to read the articles... how about actually reading them next time. So yes, "no way, I was right" still stands.
I didn't read the Vermont one because your link was broken. I did read the others, and you are mischaracterizing them with your quotes.
Starting with MA: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of **** couples.
The ruling by the court on the Massachusetts Constitution could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts' governor immediately denounced Tuesday's decision and said he would work for a constitutional amendment to overturn it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So no, not legal yet.
WA: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One month later, a court in Thurston County ruled similarly. Both decisions were appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Lower court ruled for it, but it still has to go through Supreme Court. So no, not legal yet.
CA: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kramer's ruling will be appealed and the California Supreme Court will make a final ruling.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is expected to file a notice of appeal later this week. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So no, not legal yet.
And Vermont I don't even need to make a quote...your own quote points out that they have "Civil Unions", not marriage.
Who cares how many places have legalised it or how many people are for it in a vote. The point is that it does make sense, we all know that real life doesn't but we can all at least agree that hypothetically the world <i>should</i> legalise it.
In the same way, we wouldn't argue about how many people were murderers or various homicide rates in different countries/areas, just that murder shouldn't be legal.
Wow... you are just as bad as AvengerX with your reading comphrension. The links are on the top of the posts.. yes, they are legal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not read them throughly.
Vermont made civil union mean the same thing as marriage, so yes it is a marriage. Not to mention it was done in 1999, I really applaud them for that. Ct, did the same as well not long after, which is not surprising considering the two border each other.
Actually East it does matter, because if a majority of states to pass admendments to either ban or support homosexual marriage that usually indicates what the people who are in power are supporting. Majority or not of the populace. Common sense dictates we do not discriminate against anyone. Else, we are flung back into the 1800s, or the 1960s, whichever time period is preferable for comparison for you.
*edit*
I read through this <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=86680' target='_blank'>thread</a> and I must say.. some of that is such utter bs. If you wish to continue the debate on homosexual marriage, (speaking to cwxf), move it ot that thread and see that almost every single arguement you have made has be debunked.. multiple times, by multiple people. What is the point of this rant?
Do you even read your own articles before blindly claiming that they support your points? I was quoting lines from <i>your</i> articles which clearly pointed out that **** marriage had <i>not</i> been legalized in those places. How can you accuse me of being the one who failed to read them?
And I haven't read through AvengerXs homosexuality thread in depth, just skimmed a little of it while searching up his points. But I don't think very many of my points were even brought up in that thread, let alone "debunked multiple times". If you really think they are that easy to debunk, debunk them here. Simply claiming that my "argument has absolutely no logic" does not even come close to counting as proof.
Comments
I think they wouldn't like it, not just because it's too close to **** marriage, but because much of the Religious Right is theocratic. They don't want the government to get out of the marriage business.
Actually, if you look back you'll notice that you are the first one to even bring up that point. I've never even mentioned my views on homosexuality itself, merely my views on marriage. And my faith dictates that marriage is reserved for 1 man and 1 woman. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh...you say that marriage is between a man and a woman, but you also say that you have no opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage? There's a dot in London and a dot in New York; connect them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Big jump in logic there. I didn't say "no opinion on the issue of homosexual marriage", I said I hadn't stated an opinion on the homosexual lifestyle (in response to your post "No, you've explained that your faith dictates that homosexuality is a sin.") I have a very clear opinion on homosexual marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The only possible explanation I have seen so far for why you oppose homosexual marriage is because Christianity says it's a sin. The fact that Christianity also says marriage is a bond between a man and a woman is a direct result of that belief. So to say that you oppose homosexual marriage, yet you have no opinion on homosexuality in general, is itself a rather big jump of logic. I just bridged said gap with my own jump of logic, because I was trying to reconcile what you said with what you have to believe in order for your stance to make logical sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fine then, keep the damn word. Now I have to take issue with the fact that a ridiculously obvious solution to the problem exists - allow civil unions between **** couples and grant them the same legal rights as marriages - yet Republicans aren't even trying to compromise. This entire debate would be ended - or at least largely abated - if just that simple change of legislation were to take place, but no. No, that would be too close to marriage to suit the religious Right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't speak for them, only for myself. If you want to attack them, go ahead.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I am attacking them; it's why I made this thread. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The only possible explanation I have seen so far for why you oppose homosexual marriage is because Christianity says it's a sin. The fact that Christianity also says marriage is a bond between a man and a woman is a direct result of that belief. So to say that you oppose homosexual marriage, yet you have no opinion on homosexuality in general, is itself a rather big jump of logic. I just bridged said gap with my own jump of logic, because I was trying to reconcile what you said with what you have to believe in order for your stance to make logical sense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say I had no opinion on homosexuality in general. I just said I hadn't stated it, because I don't think its really relevant to this argument. You're free to speculate however you want on what it might be, but I will neither confirm nor deny any of those speculations. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The only possible explanation I have seen so far for why you oppose homosexual marriage is because Christianity says it's a sin. The fact that Christianity also says marriage is a bond between a man and a woman is a direct result of that belief. So to say that you oppose homosexual marriage, yet you have no opinion on homosexuality in general, is itself a rather big jump of logic. I just bridged said gap with my own jump of logic, because I was trying to reconcile what you said with what you have to believe in order for your stance to make logical sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't say I had no opinion on homosexuality in general. I just said I hadn't stated it, because I don't think its really relevant to this argument. You're free to speculate however you want on what it might be, but I will neither confirm nor deny any of those speculations. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
To quote the daily show again.
Imagine the paperclip talking to you as you are writing that post. "Looks like you are trying to compose a lame cop-out. Do you need assistance?"
In that case, your entire arguement for this thread means absolutely nothing.
<a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/tv_shows/thedailyshowwithjonstewart/videos.jhtml' target='_blank'>Pwnage. </a>
So yes, that is a cop-out.
<!--QuoteBegin-cxwf+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (cxwf)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just throwing certain things you should be aware of.
1. Homosexual marriage does not affect you.
2. If it doesn't affect you directly, you should not be against anything.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Shaky logic there. To use an example: it doesn't particularly affect you or me if the US decides to go bomb some random foreign country. Yet every time a president proposes that, you can be sure thousands of people will speak up in protest that we shouldn't let the government do that.
Now that I have established that I am allowed to have an opinion on the matter, I have no trouble admitting that my opinion is determined primarily based on religious beliefs. But as already pointed out, marriage is a religious institution...so religious beliefs ought to count for something. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, the only real argument I've seen from you against homosexual marriage has been some variation of "religion created marriage, so the government shouldn't control it". Excellent, then same-sex marriages shouldn't be banned by the government.
Except thats not really what you're asking--you're not asking the government to <i>not ban</i> homosexual marriage, you are asking it to specifically <i>authorize</i> homosexual marriage. As long as religion is controling marriage, the general consensus of religion (though admittedly not perfect consensus) is that the institution of marriage should not be applied to two members of the same sex. So if we've banned it, the government shouldn't unban it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well actually, you said your opinions on homosexual marriage were derived from your religion, [snip]
Allow me to quote:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have successfully determined that my opinions on homosexual marriage are drawn from religious beliefs. Congratulations on your excellent detective work! However--
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and your religion's opinions towards homosexual marriage are obviously derived from its opinions towards homosexuals in general. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speculation, my friend. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To be more precise, I have drawn my opinions from quotes where God specifically describes his intentions for marriage, which contain no reference to homosexuality at all. While there are other passages where God offers opinions on homosexuality, that does not mean they serve as the sole basis for his ideas on Marriage.
Except thats not really what you're asking--you're not asking the government to <i>not ban</i> homosexual marriage, you are asking it to specifically <i>authorize</i> homosexual marriage. As long as religion is controling marriage, the general consensus of religion (though admittedly not perfect consensus) is that the institution of marriage should not be applied to two members of the same sex. So if we've banned it, the government shouldn't unban it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forgive me if I've just missed something here, but what is wrong with separating the religious part from government? That way, there's no conflict - a couple can get a civil union, and then go to a church and get married. (As said before, the civil union would be the thing that grants the rights.) Churches would be free to uphold their views on marriage, but it doesn't interfere with law; the government doesn't stop you from banning it.
Except thats not really what you're asking--you're not asking the government to <i>not ban</i> homosexual marriage, you are asking it to specifically <i>authorize</i> homosexual marriage. As long as religion is controling marriage, the general consensus of religion (though admittedly not perfect consensus) is that the institution of marriage should not be applied to two members of the same sex. So if we've banned it, the government shouldn't unban it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, homosexual marriage isn't banned right now. It's only banned in, what was it, 9 states? The other 41 are just kinda iffy right now.
And general consensus of religion? Consensus? Christians may be the most well-represented religion in this country, but they surely are not the only. To say that everybody's respective religions have formed a consensus is a rather broad statement, especially when you consider how much dissention there is within each denomination. If anything, there has been a fundamentalist consensus. There may be a lot of Christians in the US, but I can pretty much guarantee that there are more moderate Christians than fundamentalists. Therefore, the "consensus" of the religious peole as a whole would be far more receptive towards **** marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well actually, you said your opinions on homosexual marriage were derived from your religion, [snip]
Allow me to quote:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have successfully determined that my opinions on homosexual marriage are drawn from religious beliefs. Congratulations on your excellent detective work! However--
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and your religion's opinions towards homosexual marriage are obviously derived from its opinions towards homosexuals in general. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Speculation, my friend. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To be more precise, I have drawn my opinions from quotes where God specifically describes his intentions for marriage, which contain no reference to homosexuality at all. While there are other passages where God offers opinions on homosexuality, that does not mean they serve as the sole basis for his ideas on Marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you don't even consider the other passages concerning homosexuals to intrude on your decision making processs? I'm sorry, but I gotta call BS on that one.
@Snidely: he already said he'd be fine with that. He has also said that he thinks that particular solution unworkable because homosexuals would be too preoccupied with the name. Not being ****, I can't exactly comment on the veracity of that statement, but I will say that if that ends up being the solution, I'd be happy. It's not exactly the perfect vision of acceptance I was aiming for, but meh. Right now we're more arguing about who has jurisdiction over marriage - the government or the Church. Because if it's 100% the Church then nothing will ever change; the leadership of the Church is by its very nature conservative.
You didn't miss anything. That very solution has been brought up several times, and no one has objected yet--except to point out that for some reason, the political forces actually fighting this battle in the real world all refuse to accept this compromise. G.ay rights groups think civil unions aren't good enough and insist on full marriage rights, while large portions of the Religious Right think that even civil unions are going to far and want to block even that.
I wouldn't recommend quoting Cyndane on anything. I repeat, only about 9 states have constitutionally banned homosexual marriages. The others have laws like these, passed through the normal legislative process:
<!--QuoteBegin-California State Law+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (California State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->300. Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the
parties capable of making that contract is necessary. Consent alone
does not constitute marriage. Consent must be followed by the
issuance of a license and solemnization as authorized by this
division, except as provided by Section 425 and Part 4 (commencing
with Section 500).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Arkansas State Law+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Arkansas State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->9-11-109. Validity of same-sex marriages.
Marriage shall be only between a man and a woman. A marriage between persons of the same sex is void.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Ohio State Law+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ohio State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Section 3101.01
A) Male persons of the age of eighteen years, and female persons of the age of sixteen years, not nearer of kin than second cousins, and not having a husband or wife living, may be joined in marriage. A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could go on. But I believe ONLY Massachusetts currently has procedures for a union between man and man, and I believe that is still in Civil-Union status, not full marriage. (dont quote me on MA though, haven't followed news from MA for awhile)
<!--QuoteBegin-South Dakota State Law+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (South Dakota State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between two people, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization.
Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0101; SL 1959, ch 50, § 1; SL 1996, ch 161.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between a man and a woman, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization
Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0101; SL 1959, ch 50, § 1; SL 1996, ch 161.
Notice the small but important change Cyndane made to this law? Here's a link to the law itself, so no one can accuse me of making this up.
<a href='http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/index.aspx?FuseAction=DisplayStatute&Type=Statute&Statute=25-1-1' target='_blank'>Link to South Dakota Law</a>
Oh, and here's another excerpt from South Dakota law.
25-1-38. Validity of marriages contracted outside state--Same-sex marriages excluded. Any marriage contracted outside the jurisdiction of this state, except a marriage contracted between two persons of the same gender, which is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which such marriage was contracted, is valid in this state.
Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0103; SL 2000, ch 115, § 1.
All of these principles transfer quite nicely to the current debate. The people who go to these mass Christian rallies are not the moderate Christians, the people who would be willing to compromise. They are the fundamentalists, the people who are stuck on the idea that their way is the right way, and that everyone should listen to them. It really is rather silly, to think your morality is the only morality.
Basically, what this means for these laws is that they are not the opinion of the majority, either in the political or in the religious arena. So while legalizing g.ay marriage at this time may not be the best route to take, it is just as much if not more of a folly to say that the current laws are the best ones, or that they come from the opinion of the majority.
<!--QuoteBegin-South Dakota State Law+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (South Dakota State Law)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between two people, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization.
Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0101; SL 1959, ch 50, § 1; SL 1996, ch 161.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
25-1-1. Marriage defined--Consent and solemnization required. Marriage is a personal relation, between a man and a woman, arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of parties capable of making it is necessary. Consent alone does not constitute a marriage; it must be followed by a solemnization
Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0101; SL 1959, ch 50, § 1; SL 1996, ch 161.
Notice the small but important change Cyndane made to this law? Here's a link to the law itself, so no one can accuse me of making this up.
<a href='http://legis.state.sd.us/statutes/index.aspx?FuseAction=DisplayStatute&Type=Statute&Statute=25-1-1' target='_blank'>Link to South Dakota Law</a>
Oh, and here's another excerpt from South Dakota law.
25-1-38. Validity of marriages contracted outside state--Same-sex marriages excluded. Any marriage contracted outside the jurisdiction of this state, except a marriage contracted between two persons of the same gender, which is valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which such marriage was contracted, is valid in this state.
Source: SDC 1939, § 14.0103; SL 2000, ch 115, § 1. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Assuming I modified anything... tsk. That definition has since been reversed with the verbage I provided during THIS legislative term. As for the out of state marriages, that has remained the same. As to why.. you would have to contact our legislature... sometimes they can be less the... intelligent. Or perhaps not even aware of it.
Granted.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All of these principles transfer quite nicely to the current debate. The people who go to these mass Christian rallies are not the moderate Christians, the people who would be willing to compromise. They are the fundamentalists, the people who are stuck on the idea that their way is the right way, and that everyone should listen to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Granted again. However, while the "apathetic moderates" may be much less likely to oppose homosexuality as a lifestyle, even many of them have issues with homosexual marriage. Considering how easily defense-of-marriage amendments are passing everywhere they come to a vote, it's not much a stretch to say that at least 51% of the populace is still opposed to extending marriage to homosexual relationships.
Yeah.
<!--QuoteBegin-US Constitution+ Article IV, Section 1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (US Constitution @ Article IV, Section 1)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, here is a comprehensive survey on beliefs about **** marriage:
<a href='http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39' target='_blank'>http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39</a>
If the trends hold, in 30 years, **** marriage will be legal nationwide, since young people are more likely to think that it's ok.
If so, than this might actually be the first Discussion forum topic I've ever seen where the two sides have reached a consensus.
If so, than this might actually be the first Discussion forum topic I've ever seen where the two sides have reached a consensus. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not everyone.
<!--QuoteBegin-Me+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Me)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think they wouldn't like it, not just because it's too close to **** marriage, but because much of the Religious Right is theocratic. They don't want the government to get out of the marriage business.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I take this from the May issue of Harper's Magazine (great issue, by the way; I often find myself irritated with Harper's adamantly partisan ideology, but this issue was fascinating). I can't find a copy on the internet, but there's a decent summary of the three articles dealing with evangelics here:
<a href='http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2005/04/theocracy_anyon.html' target='_blank'>http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2005/...racy_anyon.html</a>
Edit: Just looked through theClams link on survey results, and thats pretty interesting. Some relevant numbers:
Overall, americans strongly oppose homosexual marriage 59 to 32, and also oppose civil unions by a smaller margin, 51 to 41. Although younger respondants were more likely to support homosexual marriage, no demographic in the survey cracked 50% support, and only one demographic recorded opposition dropping below 50%: college grads opposed g.ay marriage 49 to 44.
30 years from now, who can say? But based on those results, I think it's pretty safe to say that at least for the next 5-10 years, the only majority thats going to pass a g.ay marriage law is 5 of 9 people on a court. (insert obligatory flames about activist judges)
Massachusetts has legalized it.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/' target='_blank'>MA legalized homosexual marriage (CNN article)</a>
As did Washington state.
<a href='http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/030205waCourt.htm' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage</a>
California:
<a href='http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/042505calMarr.htm' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage admendment</a>
Vermot:
<a href='http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct-xgr--same-sexmarri0224feb24,0,4207011.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage</a>
Omg, look even the british are being smart.
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Britain-****-Partnerships.html' target='_blank'>Britian passes civil union.</a>
As did spain, but you knew that from the daily show.
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/international/europe/22spain.html' target='_blank'>Spain approves homosexual marriage</a>
Heres a nice list of what states have passed a homosexual marriage ban.
<a href='http://www.gaymarriagenews.com/amendments.phtml' target='_blank'>List of states amendments</a>
You mean I am actually correct? No way.
Massachusetts has legalized it.
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/' target='_blank'>MA legalized homosexual marriage (CNN article)</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres a lot of distortion in that summary...
Starting with MA--there are currently no rules allowing homosexual marriage. 4 judges on a 7 judge panel ruled that the state must MAKE rules allowing it, even though the legislature does not want to. (see my last post...)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As did Washington state.
<a href='http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/030205waCourt.htm' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Currently no rules allowing homosexual marriage. The state supreme court is planning to hear arguments in a case similar to MAs, where they <i>might</i> order the legislature to make some. (see my last post...)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->California:
<a href='http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/042505calMarr.htm' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage admendment</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Currently no rules allowing homosexual marriage. The legislature is discussing a rule to legalize it, which is supported by one party and opposed by another. It has not yet come up for a vote.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Vermot:
<a href='http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct-xgr--same-sexmarri0224feb24,0,4207011.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut' target='_blank'>Homosexual marriage</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Link broken so I can't check this one, but chances are its much like the other cases.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Omg, look even the british are being smart.
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Britain-****-Partnerships.html' target='_blank'>Britian passes civil union.</a>
As did spain, but you knew that from the daily show.
<a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/22/international/europe/22spain.html' target='_blank'>Spain approves homosexual marriage</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And we care what rules Europe passes because...?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Heres a nice list of what states have passed a homosexual marriage ban.
<a href='http://www.gaymarriagenews.com/amendments.phtml' target='_blank'>List of states amendments</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I count 13, thats even better than I thought. Note again, that list mentions states with CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENTS barring homosexual marriage, not laws. Every state has laws banning it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You mean I am actually correct? No way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, "No Way" is quite appropriate there. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
We care about what european countries are doing because last time I checked majority of them are quite obviously smarter then the US. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hehe.. your attempt at the "distorted" view of the CNN article.. here are a few quotes from that article.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/18/samesex.marriage.ruling/)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has cleared the way for lesbian and **** couples in the state to marry, ruling Tuesday that government attorneys "failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason" to deny them the right.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CNN article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CNN article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Vermont is the only state in the United States that allows same-sex couples the rights and benefits of marriage. Vermont calls them civil unions, rather than marriage. California's State Assembly recently passed a domestic partnership law to provide similar benefits, but it stops short of allowing *** to marry.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-CNN article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CNN article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In June the Supreme Court ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional. On June 10, an appeals court in the Canadian province of Ontario struck down a ban on same-sex marriage.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes it is so unclear.
Next one...
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/08/080404washCourt.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/08/080404washCourt.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
(Seattle, Washington) A Washington state court Wednesday ruled today same-sex couples must be allowed to marry.
The case involved eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in King County.
Downing's ruling went on to say that the couples must be given marriage licenses
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh my, they ARE legal. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Next one...
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/031405CalMarr.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/031405CalMarr.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
(San Francisco, California) A San Francisco judge ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional for the state of California to deny marriage to **** and lesbian couples.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said in a written ruling.
In striking down the state ban on same-sex marriage Kramer wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for *** and lesbians.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh wow... it is LEGAL... :-)
Next one... (side note, vermont legalized homosexual marriage in 1999...)
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/122004vermont.htm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/12/122004vermont.htm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
(Montpelier, Vermont) Monday marked the fifth anniversary of the landmark ruling by the Vermont Supreme Court ordering the legislature "to assign to same-sex couples the common benefits and protections that flow from marriage under Vermont law."
The ruling led to the creation of "civil unions", making Vermont the first state in the country to formally recognize same-sex relationships. Since then some 7,000 **** and lesbian couples from around the country have affirmed their commitments in Vermont.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, you failed to read the articles... how about actually reading them next time. So yes, "no way, I was right" still stands.
Starting with MA:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In a 4-3 ruling, the court gave the Massachusetts state Legislature six months to rewrite the state's marriage laws for the benefit of **** couples.
The ruling by the court on the Massachusetts Constitution could set new legal ground, and drew quick reaction from advocates on both sides of the issue. Massachusetts' governor immediately denounced Tuesday's decision and said he would work for a constitutional amendment to overturn it.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So no, not legal yet.
WA:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One month later, a court in Thurston County ruled similarly. Both decisions were appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Lower court ruled for it, but it still has to go through Supreme Court. So no, not legal yet.
CA:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Kramer's ruling will be appealed and the California Supreme Court will make a final ruling.
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is expected to file a notice of appeal later this week.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So no, not legal yet.
And Vermont I don't even need to make a quote...your own quote points out that they have "Civil Unions", not marriage.
In the same way, we wouldn't argue about how many people were murderers or various homicide rates in different countries/areas, just that murder shouldn't be legal.
The links are on the top of the posts.. yes, they are legal. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not read them throughly.
Vermont made civil union mean the same thing as marriage, so yes it is a marriage. Not to mention it was done in 1999, I really applaud them for that. Ct, did the same as well not long after, which is not surprising considering the two border each other.
Actually East it does matter, because if a majority of states to pass admendments to either ban or support homosexual marriage that usually indicates what the people who are in power are supporting. Majority or not of the populace. Common sense dictates we do not discriminate against anyone. Else, we are flung back into the 1800s, or the 1960s, whichever time period is preferable for comparison for you.
*edit*
I read through this <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=86680' target='_blank'>thread</a> and I must say.. some of that is such utter bs.
If you wish to continue the debate on homosexual marriage, (speaking to cwxf), move it ot that thread and see that almost every single arguement you have made has be debunked.. multiple times, by multiple people.
What is the point of this rant?
Your arguement has absolutely no logic.
And I haven't read through AvengerXs homosexuality thread in depth, just skimmed a little of it while searching up his points. But I don't think very many of my points were even brought up in that thread, let alone "debunked multiple times". If you really think they are that easy to debunk, debunk them here. Simply claiming that my "argument has absolutely no logic" does not even come close to counting as proof.