Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I see this as denial of equal rights to a portion of the population based on prejudice and religion.

Yes! Absolutely!

30 years ago I worked for a company that hired gays/lesbians/couples predominately. As a straight female divorcee - I was the minority. I was literally immersed in "gay" 8 hours a day for 6 years (and then there were weekend get togethers). Besides that my straight Hollywood daughter has had gay roommates.

So - if it seems I am disinterested in all the blah blah blah excuses (and they are excuses) - its because I have heard it all ad nauseum in this fight for equality for the last 30 years of my life.

There simply is NO legitimate reason to deny Equal Rights for Gay Marriage.

Originally posted by Annee


Not going to discuss morality/procreation/age of consent - - - as I find them unnecessary padding to any legitimate argument of consenting adults joining in marriage.

Edited to fix quote brackets

[edit on 13-9-2009 by Annee]

You talk a good game fast and loose with the law and adhere to it but only when it suits you and your own special world view. Sort of like the way you described your religion making God in YOUR own image

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Lol, are you kidding?
The vast majority of our laws are based on social and moral values.

I am not kidding. Society evolves just like everything else.

Yes - moral would be "cause no harm" as I stated.

There is NO harm in consenting gays marrying.

NO Religion in government - Period!

-------------------------------------------------

You are trying to legislate me by your beliefs - I'm not interested.


EQUAL is EQUAL - - - its that simple.

Yeah but its not that simple anne. The 14th amendment isn't elastic and it doesn't make fairness for EVERYTING a damn Government entitlement and you better get over your angst for religion because YOU CAN have religion in Government, where are you getting this idea? That BS propaganda about the separation powers? Looks like I am going to have to give Binghams interpretation on that too.

It is basically THIS simple, The Government puts the ten commandments on the stairs of a court house, the ACLU sues them, a Judge that knows what this is about wisely says: Has Congress decided to establish a state religion over this? Answer, NO, then their is no issue.

I am not trying to legislate you by my beliefs - which you have no interest in.

Sure you are anne, yo uare trying to force society in legitimizing same sex couple as deserving of the same sacrifices the same contributions to society as opposite sex couples marriage was designed to assist and you inisis, no gays get it based on equal protections of the 14th amendment using logic xtrozero has artfully exploited the reesulting humor to it if in fact it meant what YOU think it means BUT it DOESN'T!

Got it anne, this isn't anne world. It's America.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I see this as denial of equal rights to a portion of the population based on prejudice and religion.

Yes! Absolutely!

30 years ago I worked for a company that hired gays/lesbians/couples predominately. As a straight female divorcee - I was the minority. I was literally immersed in "gay" 8 hours a day for 6 years (and then there were weekend get togethers). Besides that my straight Hollywood daughter has had gay roommates.

So - if it seems I am disinterested in all the blah blah blah excuses (and they are excuses) - its because I have heard it all ad nauseum in this fight for equality for the last 30 years of my life.

There simply is NO legitimate reason to deny Equal Rights for Gay Marriage.

Look Anne how many times do I have to tell you MARRIAGE DOES Discriminate it is SUPPOSED TO and has immunity from your determined efforts to change hundreds of years of religion and secualr tradition and Government mandated rules and laws so that it can't be given to just anyone. You wanna say your married if your gay GO AHEAD! But Gays have got to quit forcing themselves into things they have no business being in or changing the definition of American institutions that you have no business being involved in if you don't fit the definition.

It was never created that way for a reason, just because gays covet the political and status it has for legitimate relationships because they deep down know theirs can not be the kind of relationship opposite sex couples have IT IS FOR THEM and ONLY them and has the same rights under the 14th amendment to KEEP GAYS OUT and I have given the entire history and legal reasons why it was made for one man and one woman relationships.

Under YOUR idea of the 14th amendment we would all be perfectly the same doing what ever the hell we wanted according to our own unique moral guide and what a clusterfrag THAT would be. If you are going to continue to attache your toxic attitude to the term "Morals" for its religious implication, Ill give you a clue to how long this country would last without morals and morality and a BOOK we got MOST of them from where thank god they never change and they never should.

Originally posted by Annee

NO Religion in government - Period!

Not to get off on a different subject, but you seem to say this statement a lot. Do you know the whole separation of church and state is not to keep religion out of the government but to keep government out of religion. Our forefathers were religious people, but they didn’t want to see a state sponsored religion like England had, and so they wanted freedom in religion without state influence.

Religion is here to stay… sorry

Values and morals are based on something; do you think they just happen? And do you think a world with no religion would be better? History says otherwise, so I wouldn’t be so quick to think religion is the curse that prevents you from achieving your own personal utopia.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

NO Religion in government - Period!

Not to get off on a different subject, but you seem to say this statement a lot. Do you know the whole separation of church and state is not to keep religion out of the government but to keep government out of religion. Our forefathers were religious people, but they didn’t want to see a state sponsored religion like England had, and so they wanted freedom in religion without state influence.

I am fully aware of what separation of church and state is and where it came from.

I personally do not support ANY faith based belief (including my own) in government - - and will continue to campaign for a 100% completely secular government.

This country was built on diversity of culture. E Pluribus Unum - "one from many" or "out of many one" - - One secular government representing every citizen. That can not be accomplished using any mythology belief system.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Values and morals are based on something; do you think they just happen? And do you think a world with no religion would be better? History says otherwise, so I wouldn’t be so quick to think religion is the curse that prevents you from achieving your own personal utopia.

Morals and values come from simple logic and respect for others You don't need any type of mysticism.

Some animals - such as the Timber wolf & elephants have extremely complex social structures - - without reading a bible.

Where did I say a "world without religion"? I didn't.

History? I would say selective reading.

Originally posted by Annee

This country was built on diversity of culture. E Pluribus Unum - "one from many" or "out of many one" - - One secular government representing every citizen. That can not be accomplished using any mythology belief system.

And I'm sure you mean a government that supports and officially recognizes EVERY lifestyle and behavior that is different from the majority.

Maybe the answer is to leave marriage in the hands of the church and do away with the state recognition of it. Then just make everything a civil union with a legal binding document, I guess that would satisfy you. That way if 10 people wanted a civil union, or a 15 year old to a 50 year old, or a brother and sister, or two men, or dare I say it… one man and one woman, they all could have it.

But let me ask you a question? Is there any way today that you can be legally obligated to a partner with about everything that a married couple would be except maybe for the tax break?

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

This country was built on diversity of culture. E Pluribus Unum - "one from many" or "out of many one" - - One secular government representing every citizen. That can not be accomplished using any mythology belief system.

And I'm sure you mean a government that supports and officially recognizes EVERY lifestyle and behavior that is different from the majority.

Again: you try to pad and complicate the simplicity of: Equal is Equal

Again: Consenting Adults and Cause No Harm.

I'm sure there are many hetero "people of faith" who role play to keep their sex life alive. Probably many who are in to some form of S&M. There are heteros who practice anal sex and homos who find it disgusting.

It is none of my business.

You can't give up the control.

Originally posted by Xtrozero


But let me ask you a question? Is there any way today that you can be legally obligated to a partner with about everything that a married couple would be except maybe for the tax break?

Your sentence structure is a bit confusing.

But I am sure this question has already been answered quite clearly in this thread.

Originally posted by Annee


Homosexuality, by these observations, is no more perverse then being red-headed or being left-handed (and actually exhibiting "left-handed behavior").

The difference is a red head/left hander (which I am left handed) doesn't produce behaviors contrary to societies’ norms.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee


Homosexuality, by these observations, is no more perverse then being red-headed or being left-handed (and actually exhibiting "left-handed behavior").

The difference is a red head/left hander (which I am left handed) doesn't produce behaviors contrary to societies’ norms.

Behaviors?

Your prejudice is showing.

duplicate post

[edit on 14-9-2009 by Annee]

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The difference is a red head/left hander (which I am left handed) doesn't produce behaviors contrary to societies’ norms.

Social norms (behaviors):

Get married and have a family
Shaking hands upon meeting someone
Women shaving their legs/underarms
Standing quietly while in an elevator

There's noting inherently wrong with behaviors that do not conform to social norms. The thought that everyone should conform or comply with socially acceptable behavior flies in the face of the ideals of freedom that we hold so dear in this country. Surely you're not suggesting that people that exhibit behaviors contrary to society’s norms should not be permitted to do so? Or should be outcast from society? Or, most importantly, should not have their legal rights protected?