Slippery Slope, indeed.

[MTVike]

Since the inception of this forum, it seems that homosexuality and particularly gay marriage have been bones of contention. Fodder for lively debate.

Some of us have cited religious, natural, and even personal reasons for our objection to this lifestyle. Or, more to the point, publicly recognizing the legitimacy of this lifestyle through marriage. That it's OK, and just a normal branch of human relationships.

I admit to feeling bad/ambivalent about it, because I know gay people who seem perfectly normal except for this aspect of their lives. And I do not condemn people for being born the way they are. But still, there's something repellant about it to me...where that comes from, just my own make-up, I guess. I guess I still consider it a disorder. But it's not just personal, by many historical accounts the lifestyle is an aberration of nature.

Anyway, some of us have argued that legally recognizing homosexual relationships would pave the way for other sexual perversions (yes, that's what it used to be called) to be similarly accepted. Some folks even pulled out the Nambla card. "Foul", said the others, that's a slippery slope argument. A does not lead to B, they are separate issues. Two adults who love each other in a committed relationship should be able to marry regardless if it is same sex, period. Do not bring other sexually diverse lifestyles into the argument.

Well, the polygamists now believe it is their time to step up to the stage.

I don't know what's wrong exactly in our culture or who to blame if there is, but something ain't quite right.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008656904_apcanadapolygamists2ndldwritethru.html? syndication=rss

[KinjaKahn]

Since the inception of this forum, it seems that homosexuality and particularly gay marriage have been bones of contention. Fodder for lively debate.

Some of us have cited religious, natural, and even personal reasons for our objection to this lifestyle. Or, more to the point, publicly recognizing the legitimacy of this lifestyle through marriage. That it's OK, and just a normal branch of human relationships.

I admit to feeling bad/ambivalent about it, because I know gay people who seem perfectly normal except for this aspect of their lives. And I do not condemn people for being born the way they are. But still, there's something repellant about it to me...where that comes from, just my own make-up, I guess. I guess I still consider it a disorder. But it's not just personal, by many historical accounts the lifestyle is an aberration of nature.

Anyway, some of us have argued that legally recognizing homosexual relationships would pave the way for other sexual perversions (yes, that's what it used to be called) to be similarly accepted. Some folks even pulled out the Nambla card. "Foul", said the others, that's a slippery slope argument. A does not lead to B, they are separate issues. Two adults who love each other in a committed relationship should be able to marry regardless if it is same sex, period. Do not bring other sexually diverse lifestyles into the argument.

Well, the polygamists now believe it is their time to step up to the stage.

I don't know what's wrong exactly in our culture or who to blame if there is, but something ain't quite right.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008656904_apcanadapolygamists2ndldwritethru.html? syndication=rss
Whats wrong is that there is no common morality. Thus there is no culture. It is Multi-culture. Quickly becoming multi-lingual, soon to be multi-national. I say fuck everyone who hyphenates their American status, implying some sort of special kind of American. To me they aren't American just selfish divisive losers, xxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx.

You have every freak in the world thinking they are normal and that tradition is the problem. These morons want to change it for the sake of changing it.

Then there is the collectively pea brained SCOTUS where they make up rules where they cant find them and subject everyone to conform to their wishes.

[MTVike]

Whats wrong is that there is no common morality. Thus there is no culture. It is Multi-culture. Quickly becoming multi-lingual, soon to be multi-national. I say fuck everyone who hyphenates their American status, implying some sort of special kind of American. To me they aren't American just selfish divisive losers, xxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx.

You have every freak in the world thinking they are normal and that tradition is the problem. These morons want to change it for the sake of changing it.

Then there is the collectively pea brained SCOTUS where they make up rules where they cant find them and subject everyone to conform to their wishes.

I agree with most of what you say. But then, I'm 50 years old.

My Dad probably felt this way about my generation in the 70's...

But yeah, Jiddy's Babylonia comes to mind.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Whats wrong is that there is no common morality. Thus there is no culture. It is Multi-culture. Quickly becoming multi-lingual, soon to be multi-national. I say fuck everyone who hyphenates their American status, implying some sort of special kind of American. To me they aren't American just selfish divisive losers, xxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx.

You have every freak in the world thinking they are normal and that tradition is the problem. These morons want to change it for the sake of changing it.

Then there is the collectively pea brained SCOTUS where they make up rules where they cant find them and subject everyone to conform to their wishes.
You're normal?

Rofl

[Hotpapa666]

Whats wrong is that there is no common morality. Thus there is no culture. It is Multi-culture. Quickly becoming multi-lingual, soon to be multi-national. I say fuck everyone who hyphenates their American status, implying some sort of special kind of American. To me they aren't American just selfish divisive losers, xxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx.

You have every freak in the world thinking they are normal and that tradition is the problem. These morons want to change it for the sake of changing it.

Then there is the collectively pea brained SCOTUS where they make up rules where they cant find them and subject everyone to conform to their wishes.

Damn Kinja, you are one angry dude.

[Roy Munson]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/2152203_c98015cabe_o.jpg

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/2152203_c98015cabe_o.jpg

Brilliant!!

[residenceevil]

I don't care if you don't want to grant homosexual people the right of "marriage", but they should be able to enter into a civil union which entitles them to the same rights as a husband/wife have. If it bothers your Religion to call it "marriage", then just call it something else. But it still needs to be put in place.

In fact it's a joke that it isn't already.

[pukematrixx]

i don't like the concept of one moral standard, because my problem with it is, what happens when it's wrong and who sets it.

To me, it's about what you accept i guess.

[LionFanFormerlyInLA]

I don't care if you don't want to grant homosexual people the right of "marriage", but they should be able to enter into a civil union which entitles them to the same rights as a husband/wife have. If it bothers your Religion to call it "marriage", then just call it something else. But it still needs to be put in place.

In fact it's a joke that it isn't already.

As "marriage" is generally (though not always) considered a ceremony conducted within a church setting, I don't have much of a problem with civil unions if approved by a majority of a particular state. The problem with marriage is that if a particular religion opposes the viewpoint, I think it has to be respected.

[residenceevil]

As "marriage" is generally (though not always) considered a ceremony conducted within a church setting, I don't have much of a problem with civil unions if approved by a majority of a particular state. The problem with marriage is that if a particular religion opposes the viewpoint, I think it has to be respected.

This will be accurate as soon as all of the Religions start respecting each other which will never happen.

[KinjaKahn]

i don't like the concept of one moral standard, because my problem with it is, what happens when it's wrong and who sets it.

To me, it's about what you accept i guess.
A moral standard is the father of civilization. Destroying the morals of a civilization is destroying the civilization, you get to watch it happen literally on TV.

[BoredWithNoSB]

The problem with marriage is that if a particular religion opposes the viewpoint, I think it has to be respected.

So, from what I've bee told I cannot remarry in many religions, Christian ones at that, if I get divorced. It is immoral in the eyes of God. Why is Homosexual immoral worse than remarriage immoral? Whose Christianity wins? Which one is codified in the Constitution? I missed that one. Just says God. doesn't say Methodist God or Unitarian God, or Catholic God, or Mormon God, or Muslim God, or jewish God, or scientologist God. Just God. Unfortunately, of you say we have to live under the moriality of God, which our country was founded under we need to disallow dancing quick and start finding the witches.

[pukematrixx]

A moral standard is the father of civilization. Destroying the morals of a civilization is destroying the civilization, you get to watch it happen literally on TV.

if we don't question the direction others have set, how do we progress and evolve?

[KinjaKahn]

if we don't question the direction others have set, how do we progress and evolve?
Why do we need to do anything?

[hannitykillspuppies]

Why do we need to do anything?
are you saying we do not?

[LionFanFormerlyInLA]

So, from what I've bee told I cannot remarry in many religions, Christian ones at that, if I get divorced. It is immoral in the eyes of God. Why is Homosexual immoral worse than remarriage immoral? Whose Christianity wins? Which one is codified in the Constitution? I missed that one. Just says God. doesn't say Methodist God or Unitarian God, or Catholic God, or Mormon God, or Muslim God, or jewish God, or scientologist God. Just God. Unfortunately, of you say we have to live under the moriality of God, which our country was founded under we need to disallow dancing quick and start finding the witches.

I honestly have no idea what you are saying in relation to what I wrote. I can't vouch for all religions, but as for Catholicism, you must have a marriage annulled before you can remarry within the church after a divorce. This has nothing to do with state or federal laws, it is strictly based on what the church has decreed as valid in conjunction with their membership.

To draw it out in an area that has nothing to do with homosexuality, it would not be right for the government to rule that a marriage does not have to be annulled in order to remarry within the Catholic church. That is over-stepping the bounds of government.

[becherr]

I don't care if you don't want to grant homosexual people the right of "marriage", but they should be able to enter into a civil union which entitles them to the same rights as a husband/wife have. If it bothers your Religion to call it "marriage", then just call it something else. But it still needs to be put in place.

In fact it's a joke that it isn't already.

With that logic why don't we grant all illegals immunity and give them immediate citizenship......

[Smoke681]

If I were in charge, homosexuality would be against the law.

Thankfully, in my world (the military), it pretty much is.

[becherr]

If I were in charge, homosexuality would be against the law.

Thankfully, in my world (the military), it pretty much is.

For now.

As with anything the military is a cross section of society. There are homosexuals/lesbians in service but they don't "Go after" them as they used to.

Back in the 80s facilities would set up "Sting" operations having an Military Police Investigator act as a cruiser and see what happens. Most of these operations happened at the post Recreation facility since that seemed to be the largest area that the majority of the complains came from and the reason why I never set foot in a rec area. Of course, once caught they would be turned over for immediate discharge under Chapter 15.

In todays day and age that would never work and since there are so many loop holes I am sure a soldier with a smart lawyer could beat that sort of rap.

As for me, I have always figured if you can shoot, move, communicate, and act professionally masculine I don't give a crap what you do in your free time.

Goodness forbid it turns into what I saw in Holland when the Danish soldiers were walking out of the beer tent arm in arm kissing....then it is time for some fratriside.

[BoredWithNoSB]

To draw it out in an area that has nothing to do with homosexuality, it would not be right for the government to rule that a marriage does not have to be annulled in order to remarry within the Catholic church. That is over-stepping the bounds of government.

However, it is the church that says marriage must be between a man and a woman. That is why we have it in the public laws. So, what about the churches that do recognize it. We are marginalizing those religions by saying their definition of marriage is less viable than the Catholic Church.

Again, I see a direct comparison. Why do we not allow gay marriage? because the church says so. What church? Well, the Catholic Church. Based on that, shouldn't we codify the fact that you must have your marriage annulled before remarrying since it is apparently the catholic church that our rules are based off of?

If it is not the Catholic church, what church is it? The church down the street from me does gay marriages that are recognized within the church. So, it is not that church.

[pukematrixx]

Why do we need to do anything?

so you're cool with slavery?

[tichabou]

With that logic why don't we grant all illegals immunity and give them immediate citizenship......

http://lolwut.eu/images/lolwut.jpg

[LionFanFormerlyInLA]

However, it is the church that says marriage must be between a man and a woman. That is why we have it in the public laws. So, what about the churches that do recognize it. We are marginalizing those religions by saying their definition of marriage is less viable than the Catholic Church.

Again, I see a direct comparison. Why do we not allow gay marriage? because the church says so. What church? Well, the Catholic Church. Based on that, shouldn't we codify the fact that you must have your marriage annulled before remarrying since it is apparently the catholic church that our rules are based off of?

If it is not the Catholic church, what church is it? The church down the street from me does gay marriages that are recognized within the church. So, it is not that church.

What are you arguing? I've said that if a majority of a state is in favor of homosexuals having civil unions, that should be allowed. That is a vote by the populace. What shouldn't happen is that churches be forced to marry gay couples if it is against their morality. If they are in favor of it and it is legal by popular vote (read not just decided by a mayor) then go for it, have fun.

That said, I doubt that many states would vote this in.

[Vegas]

What are you arguing? I've said that if a majority of a state is in favor of homosexuals having civil unions, that should be allowed. That is a vote by the populace. What shouldn't happen is that churches be forced to marry gay couples if it is against their morality. If they are in favor of it and it is legal by popular vote (read not just decided by a mayor) then go for it, have fun.

That said, I doubt that many states would vote this in.

I'm pretty sure that civil unions would pass in most states.

[BoredWithNoSB]

What are you arguing? I've said that if a majority of a state is in favor of homosexuals having civil unions, that should be allowed. That is a vote by the populace. What shouldn't happen is that churches be forced to marry gay couples if it is against their morality. If they are in favor of it and it is legal by popular vote (read not just decided by a mayor) then go for it, have fun.

That said, I doubt that many states would vote this in.

There's where I have the problem. If a majority of folks decree the Catholic church the official church of the United States (or any State) should that be allowed? If Utah ruled that The Mormon faith was the official state faith and all laws would be written based on the mormon faith is that right?

Basically, I have an issue with this not being framed as a church/state issue as much as, or more than, a civil rights one.

I just don't see how you can legislated the 'morality' of this personal choice in a case where neither individual party is being harmed.

[MTVike]

I'm pretty sure that civil unions would pass in most states.

And if they do, do you see other "special interest" groups stepping up to the plate and asking for their "legal rights" to love and pork whoever/whatever they wish to?

As an aside, I had a gay couple in my office this morning. We were discussing concerns about their son, who btw has no idea who his father is.

Think he's confused?

[MTVike]

There's where I have the problem. If a majority of folks decree the Catholic church the official church of the United States (or any State) should that be allowed? If Utah ruled that The Mormon faith was the official state faith and all laws would be written based on the mormon faith is that right?

Basically, I have an issue with this not being framed as a church/state issue as much as, or more than, a civil rights one.

I just don't see how you can legislated the 'morality' of this personal choice in a case where neither individual party is being harmed.

Which brings us back to "Doe, a deer, a ...."

Re: polygamy.

[LionFanFormerlyInLA]

There's where I have the problem. If a majority of folks decree the Catholic church the official church of the United States (or any State) should that be allowed? If Utah ruled that The Mormon faith was the official state faith and all laws would be written based on the mormon faith is that right?

Basically, I have an issue with this not being framed as a church/state issue as much as, or more than, a civil rights one.

I just don't see how you can legislated the 'morality' of this personal choice in a case where neither individual party is being harmed.

I believe it would probably be Protestant over Catholic.

But as an aside, I do have a preference to states' rights in the matter. And if they vote on based on morality, religion or just whether they like it or not I don't give a shit.

[KinjaKahn]

so you're cool with slavery? i didnt know slavery was legal. where can i get one? but since you can just randomly pick a moment to regress to, why not just bring back tribal society, it's so obvious with liberal opposition to current state of america, that libs hate being #1.

[BoredWithNoSB]

Which brings us back to "Doe, a deer, a ...."

Re: polygamy.

Yep, If a majority of Utah residents voted to allow it based on their religious beliefs, is it immoral and wrong because the churches outside of Provo don't buy into it? The only time I would have an issue with it is if both parties did not enter freely into the union.

Now, when you get into people that do not have full legal decision making capacity yet (kids/animals) that is where you draw the line, IMO.

[BoredWithNoSB]

But as an aside, I do have a preference to states' rights in the matter. And if they vote on based on morality, religion or just whether they like it or not I don't give a shit.

So seperation of church and state be damned if the majority don't want it?

Can we say that in Illinois a majority of us want to ignore the second amendment (Chicago has tried) and you'd be OK with it? If so, I'm sure there's more of us in Chicago than there are of Ryr downstate.

The Constitution and Amendments are there for a reason. Even if we don't like them, we have to live with them.

[MTVike]

Yep, If a majority of Utah residents voted to allow it based on their religious beliefs, is it immoral and wrong because the churches outside of Provo don't buy into it? The only time I would have an issue with it is if both parties did not enter freely into the union.

Now, when you get into people that do not have full legal decision making capacity yet (kids/animals) that is where you draw the line, IMO.

Actually, I believe Utah was a polygamist state/territory at one time, but was pressured to outlaw the practice by the feds and other political pressures. But small factions that follow the practice remain.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

If I were in charge, homosexuality would be against the law.

Thankfully, in my world (the military), it pretty much is. lol

And there aren't any homosexuals in Iran either.

:rolleyes:

[pukematrixx]

i didnt know slavery was legal. where can i get one? but since you can just randomly pick a moment to regress to, why not just bring back tribal society, it's so obvious with liberal opposition to current state of america, that libs hate being #1.

Perhaps i'm confused but wasn't your point we shouldn't question the moral standard? If we didn't, how do we get by some of our darkest moments as a country, e.g. slavery.

[Ed Who?]

i don't like the concept of one moral standard, because my problem with it is, what happens when it's wrong and who sets it.

To me, it's about what you accept i guess.

Morality is human based. As soon as you begin to use "natural" arguments, well everything's out. I mean, in the natural world, you can find examples of just about everything that our morality would consider abomination. Killing, rape, homosexuality, it's all there. Trying to justify something that's outside of the realm of human "morality" is impossible, and only occurs because the person furthering the argument probably has a vested interest in the outcome.

[giddyup4]

For now.

As with anything the military is a cross section of society. There are homosexuals/lesbians in service but they don't "Go after" them as they used to.

Back in the 80s facilities would set up "Sting" operations having an Military Police Investigator act as a cruiser and see what happens. Most of these operations happened at the post Recreation facility since that seemed to be the largest area that the majority of the complains came from and the reason why I never set foot in a rec area. Of course, once caught they would be turned over for immediate discharge under Chapter 15.

In todays day and age that would never work and since there are so many loop holes I am sure a soldier with a smart lawyer could beat that sort of rap.

As for me, I have always figured if you can shoot, move, communicate, and act professionally masculine I don't give a crap what you do in your free time.
Goodness forbid it turns into what I saw in Holland when the Danish soldiers were walking out of the beer tent arm in arm kissing....then it is time for some fratriside.


From that statement, why do you care if they get married?

[Jiddy78]

Morality is human based. As soon as you begin to use "natural" arguments, well everything's out. I mean, in the natural world, you can find examples of just about everything that our morality would consider abomination. Killing, rape, homosexuality, it's all there. Trying to justify something that's outside of the realm of human "morality" is impossible, and only occurs because the person furthering the argument probably has a vested interest in the outcome.

Just as a counterpoint, I'm not a big fan of homosexuality and frown upon it for myself...IE I wouldn't partake...I'm also not a big fan of abortion and frown upon it in my own relationship, IE I refuse to partake and also have relations with those who would not partake as well. But as far as others are concerned, nonchalance.

Soooo...What's my vested interest in these issues?

[residenceevil]

With that logic why don't we grant all illegals immunity and give them immediate citizenship......

Soooo...now being homosexual is illegal???

With that twisted logic I'm scared to hear anything more you have to say.

[residenceevil]

If I were in charge, homosexuality would be against the law.

Thankfully, in my world (the military), it pretty much is.


Why are you scared of homosexuals?

Why do you think there aren't any in the Military?

Would interracial relationships be against the law in your "world" too?

[KinjaKahn]

Why are you scared of homosexuals?

Why do you think there aren't any in the Military?

Would interracial relationships be against the law in your "world" too?
Why do you love them?

Why do you want to teach 5 yr olds in school that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality, just a little different?

[Smoke681]

Why are you scared of homosexuals?

Why do you think there aren't any in the Military?

Would interracial relationships be against the law in your "world" too?
Wow. You just brought race into a topic where it's completely unnecessary. Good job on that.

I'm not scared of homosexuals. I just believe that the act of homosexuality is outright wrong, and I'm strongly opposed to the act. I have no hate. I have disagreement. I have no hate for a homosexual person. I strongly disagree with what they do.

And I fail to see where I said gays aren't in the military. Keep making stuff up.

It's no big deal man. It's my belief, it's a stance I'm strong on, and it's clear you're not. How you manage to infer fear and inject race is beyond me, but having said that it's also unsurprising.

[residenceevil]

Why do you love them?

Why do you want to teach 5 yr olds in school that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality, just a little different?

1.) Because they are human beings made with the Love of God.

2.) uhm...what? Where did I ever say teaching 5 year olds anything about sex is ok?

[residenceevil]

Wow. You just brought race into a topic where it's completely unnecessary. Good job on that.

I'm not scared of homosexuals. I just believe that the act of homosexuality is outright wrong, and I'm strongly opposed to the act. I have no hate. I have disagreement. I have no hate for a homosexual person. I strongly disagree with what they do.

And I fail to see where I said gays aren't in the military. Keep making stuff up.

It's no big deal man. It's my belief, it's a stance I'm strong on, and it's clear you're not. How you manage to infer fear and inject race is beyond me, but having said that it's also unsurprising.


I was simply asking because a lot of people still to this day have problems with interracial relations. I think it's gone down in the past maybe 20 years or so, but it's still an issue in the World. I'm curious in 20 years from now if the World will be more lenient (sp?) on same sex relations as well.

Sorry, you said "it pretty much isn't". I inferred you were thinking that there were a small percentage of gays in the military. It would be interesting to see what the actual numbers are.

I infer fear because you want to make something against the law, so you must be afraid of it? I fail to see how homosexuality affects you in your daily life any which way. So I fail to see why anyone has a problem with it.

[KinjaKahn]

1.) Because they are human beings made with the Love of God.
They are rejecters of God. God created the sexes, and their mission.
2.) uhm...what? Where did I ever say teaching 5 year olds anything about sex is ok?
Aligning yourself with profag groups, is your issue to deal with.

[tichabou]

I'm not scared of homosexuals. I just believe that the act of homosexuality is outright wrong


Why?

[residenceevil]

They are rejecters of God. God created the sexes, and their mission.

Aligning yourself with profag groups, is your issue to deal with.

Ok, to just clear it up though, I don't think it's ok to teach heterosexual things to 5 year olds either. I don't think the subject of sex should be brought up with kids that young at all.

[Smoke681]

I was simply asking because a lot of people still to this day have problems with interracial relations. I think it's gone down in the past maybe 20 years or so, but it's still an issue in the World. I'm curious in 20 years from now if the World will be more lenient (sp?) on same sex relations as well.

Sorry, you said "it pretty much isn't". I inferred you were thinking that there were a small percentage of gays in the military. It would be interesting to see what the actual numbers are.

I infer fear because you want to make something against the law, so you must be afraid of it? I fail to see how homosexuality affects you in your daily life any which way. So I fail to see why anyone has a problem with it.
I disagree with it. I believe it to be wrong.

Adultery is technically unlawful. I agree with that. I don't akin homosexuality to adultery, but believe they're equal on the scope of immorality.

I don't fear homosexuality. Homosexuality doesn't negatively impact MY life, to be honest.

[KinjaKahn]

Why?

LOL Perhaps a lesson on the birds and bees is in order, or maybe you're one of those "Adam & Steve" believers...

[tichabou]

LOL Perhaps a lesson on the birds and bees is in order, or maybe you're one of those "Adam & Steve" believers...

I understand that gay people can't breed. Thanks for that. Enlightening as ever. I guess I sort of understand why someone would think it's "wrong", but I really have no idea why someone would want homosexuality to be illegal.

[KinjaKahn]

My President is black, in fact he's half white
So even in a racists mind he's half right
Even if these racists come we all right
My President is black but his house is all white
Hypocrite philosophy in full effect.

[tichabou]

Hypocrite philosophy in full effect.

You got me. I like Jay-Z.

[Smoke681]

You got me. I like Jay-Z.
Shit.

I do too.

And I like to watch Eddie Murphy's "RAW"

[tichabou]

I like Richard Pryor and I hate Dane Cook.

[Jesse Helms' Ghost]

I like Richard Pryor and I hate Dane Cook. Same here.

[domenick2x]

Why do you love them?

Why do you want to teach 5 yr olds in school that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality, just a little different?
Wow. I've missed this place.

To the first, they are people. Mark 12:28-31.

Secondly, you got it exactly right. It's just a little bit different. Who cares? Or can you point me to Commandment 9b, Thou Shalt Persecute Anyone Not Like Yourself....

[Hotpapa666]

LOL Perhaps a lesson on the birds and bees is in order, or maybe you're one of those "Adam & Steve" believers...

So what about oral? Kinda kills the Birds and bees arguements.

[Hotpapa666]

I like Richard Pryor and I hate Dane Cook.

Dane Cook is a piece of shit.

[domenick2x]

So what about oral? Kinda kills the Birds and bees arguements.
Kinja probably only believes in procreative sex. All else is forbidden.

[Hotpapa666]

Kinja probably only believes in procreative sex. All else is forbidden.

I know Kinja is a Catholic. I hung out one night, getting drunk with a bunch of people one night in Madison and one was a Catholic Priest. We got loose and started talking about oral sex. Funny stuff, talking about sex with a celebate guy. He told me that he thought oral sex was all good in a loving relationship. Love is good, man.

[domenick2x]

I know Kinja is a Catholic. I hung out one night, getting drunk with a bunch of people one night in Madison and one was a Catholic Priest. We got loose and started talking about oral sex. Funny stuff, talking about sex with a celebate guy. He told me that he thought oral sex was all good in a loving relationship. Love is good, man.
Just not between two gay people, right?

[Hotpapa666]

Just not between two gay people, right?

We didn't get to that. But, the logical extention is that it's all good. Contrary to docterine...

[domenick2x]

We didn't get to that. But, the logical extention is that it's all good. Contrary to docterine...
I'm on that side of the argument.

Once, marriage was strictly the purview of the church(es). Having since been co-opted by Government, you can no longer use religious arguments about what does and does not qualify.

I'm for making gay marraige recognized at a federal level (i.e. you could add your partner to your benefits without huge penalty, etc)... if individual states choose not to recognize it, so be it. If churches choose not to recognize it, so be it. No church would be forced to perform a marriage rite, but civil servants WOULD be (if their state permitted gay marriage). Those wanting to get married could go to Vegas/Boston/San Francisco and have a ceremony.

[Hotpapa666]

I'm on that side of the argument.

Once, marriage was strictly the purview of the church(es). Having since been co-opted by Government, you can no longer use religious arguments about what does and does not qualify.

I'm for making gay marraige recognized at a federal level (i.e. you could add your partner to your benefits without huge penalty, etc)... if individual states choose not to recognize it, so be it. If churches choose not to recognize it, so be it. No church would be forced to perform a marriage rite, but civil servants WOULD be (if their state permitted gay marriage). Those wanting to get married could go to Vegas/Boston/San Francisco and have a ceremony.

As we say in Japan. Bin-Bon. O. Correct.

[Roy Munson]

I'm on that side of the argument.

Once, marriage was strictly the purview of the church(es). Having since been co-opted by Government, you can no longer use religious arguments about what does and does not qualify.

I'm for making gay marraige recognized at a federal level (i.e. you could add your partner to your benefits without huge penalty, etc)... if individual states choose not to recognize it, so be it. If churches choose not to recognize it, so be it. No church would be forced to perform a marriage rite, but civil servants WOULD be (if their state permitted gay marriage). Those wanting to get married could go to Vegas/Boston/San Francisco and have a ceremony.

Exactly... I guess the separation only goes so far...

[MTVike]

I'm on that side of the argument.

Once, marriage was strictly the purview of the church(es). Having since been co-opted by Government, you can no longer use religious arguments about what does and does not qualify.

I'm for making gay marraige recognized at a federal level (i.e. you could add your partner to your benefits without huge penalty, etc)... if individual states choose not to recognize it, so be it. If churches choose not to recognize it, so be it. No church would be forced to perform a marriage rite, but civil servants WOULD be (if their state permitted gay marriage). Those wanting to get married could go to Vegas/Boston/San Francisco and have a ceremony.

So, now that marriage is no longer grounded in relgious tradition (you say) it should be OK for gays to marry or at least have a legally recognized union. What's the harm, right? Lose the hangups.

Should polygamy therefore be allowed as well?

[domenick2x]

So, now that marriage is no longer grounded in relgious tradition (you say) it should be OK for gays to marry or at least have a legally recognized union. What's the harm, right? Lose the hangups.

Should polygamy therefore be allowed as well?
If the people want to make that law, fine and dandy. I'd personally vote against it, as I think that modern marriage is two consenting adults. And from a federal taxation standpoint, I'd prefer to keep 'single' and 'married'. I'd like to remove the 'head of household', to be honest.

But polygamy has been very popular through the ages.

[residenceevil]

If the people want to make that law, fine and dandy. I'd personally vote against it, as I think that modern marriage is two consenting adults. And from a federal taxation standpoint, I'd prefer to keep 'single' and 'married'. I'd like to remove the 'head of household', to be honest.

But polygamy has been very popular through the ages.

But don't you know that homosexual "marriage" automatically turns into people having the ability to "marry" anything they want...because it's simple to equate an adult human being with an animal that doesn't know what it's doing (accepting a marriage proposal).

[kydoty]

They are rejecters of God. God created the sexes, and their mission.

Our government follows no single religion, so throw that argument out the window.