"No one is making homosexuality illegal. The government just isn't licensing gay marriages. Someone telling them they have to holds doesn't require a "why not", rather telling them... well, why at all. You aren't telling them to stop doing something, you're telling them to start doing something."

Ok, I see what you are getting at now, that does make sense, up until the point when states or the government start putting a ban on same sex marriage.... yes they aren't necessarily banning homosexuality, but they are putting a limit on how far the relationship can go... at that point they should have reasons to do so. (same of allowing same sex marriage as well). I guess there could be a point where not giving a vote could be the same as banning though.

"Why not licenses for someone to marry their cat? What would it hurt? Shall we discuss the over all benefit and problems of animal love? Do we need to? Nope. We just decide we will continue not doing it until we have a reason TO do it."

Heh, there are no reasons for there to be a state recognized marriage or similar union between a human and an animal... insurance, kids, taxes, inheritance, etc wouldn't apply. People like saying this is the next step, but it wont be the case.

No, they are defining the criteria for a government license in a situation where that criteria is in question.



Oh, come on. Do you really want me to go to Google and bring back instances where people left money to their cats? Where people sued one another over animals, fought over custody of animals or their offspring, etc? There's a very good reason why we don't need to worry about such things.

We HAVE defined the role which animals play in our culture. We omitted homosexuality because it was a "duh" situation where everyone agreed until suddenly we realized there were people who didn't, and who were actually now bold enough to admit it in public.

So, now we define it. I think those definitions should be in the hands of the states, because states issue the licenses. If it screws full faith and credit, well, then we have to deal with it. To pretend there is some natural law preventing us from legislating the criteria for a license, though, is a bit starry-eyed.

My point about the animals thing wasn't a 'slippery slope' one, anyway. It was why you think we need discussion on the validity of homosexuality in order to deal with gay marriage, when obviously we DON'T need to discuss bestiality to make a decision about animal marriage.

Why? Gay people can't procreate with one another either. A Man/Cat marriage could demand adoption rights, too. My insurance currently offers pet insurance, and spouse insurance, so... well, I'm not seeing the problem.

There are really no more physical obstacles preventing a man from having sex with a sheep than a man having sex with a man. Yet, one is a situation where you believe there is a natural right, and the other which obviously isn't on the table. Gratned, I'm allowed to slash the same sheep's throat and roast it, but marrying it is out of the question.

Isn't it just a matter of "moral" degrees? If so, who made up your morality? I don't believe people should marry/have sex with animals, nor am I a big fan of homosexuality. I don't believe the government really can do much about either, but it certainly CAN decide what it wants to license.

"No, they are defining the criteria for a government license in a situation where that criteria is in question."

What criteria? Gender? Love? Care of the kids? Ok, I think that is where the discussion of the validity of homosexuality comes in. They need reasons to support why the criteria matters if they are going to specify it. I dont see why you are pushing this, you need reasons to allow/ban something. If you ignore reasons and just do something because you are uninformed/ignorant, you end up with problems allowing/banning an acceptable/unacceptable activity... i.e. slavery. I am talking about the individual voter here, if they dont make an informed decision, then there might be problems with their view.

"Oh, come on. Do you really want me to go to Google and bring back instances where people left money to their cats? Where people sued one another over animals, fought over custody of animals or their offspring, etc? There's a very good reason why we don't need to worry about such things."

Eh, i was talking about it being the other way around. You cant inherit money from a cat, cant get your health converage from a cat's insurance plan, dont need to marry so the cat becomes a US citizen, you shouldnt get tax breaks or be able to adopt, etc (obviously the tax breaks and adoption could be easily abused).

"So, now we define it. I think those definitions should be in the hands of the states, because states issue the licenses. If it screws full faith and credit, well, then we have to deal with it. To pretend there is some natural law preventing us from legislating the criteria for a license, though, is a bit starry-eyed."

I wasn't trying to say that the government should mandate this, and although I think it is going to ultimately end up being that way, I dont really want to argue that here, although I could see how you could think I was trying to... it was not my intention. I merely mean the voter should be as informed as possible, understanding both sides, then deciding. Which is what I am doing.

"Isn't it just a matter of "moral" degrees? If so, who made up your morality? I don't believe people should marry/have sex with animals, nor am I a big fan of homosexuality. I don't believe the government really can do much about either, but it certainly CAN decide what it wants to license."

Yes, probably the real intention of the "marry a cat" phrase is really trying to say, if same sex marriage is moral, what next? However, that is on the assumption loving a person of the same sex is extremely immoral. Yes many people think of it that way, but should they? This leads back to reasons.... some people that though slavery was acceptable didn't really have reasons for why, they just felt that way from how they were raised, from society.... they never really thought, hey, this is wrong until people starting debating it. You NEED to have reasons past your initial thoughts.... although you and I are thinking of why homosexuality should be accepted or not, many people don't bother to examine whether they should or not and it could create problems with banning/approving. For example, think of some reasons why you don't think sex with animals is acceptable... consent, abuse, disease, are probably a couple you thought of, but until you do research for both sides and find out how accurate your reasons are, you will not be able to see beyond your limited view.

I think many people that think it is immoral are really judging the homosexual group as a whole on those that are homosexual but promiscuous, multiple partners, etc, which is not exactly a fair analysis. You cant look at the worst thing about a group and judge the entire group on that. It almost seems like there is a fine line here, but it just reeks of punishing those that aren't guilty (via marriage bans).

Why? You keep saying that, but I don't see you backing it up. We can pass any law we like, otherwise it isn't really a democracy, it is a democracy overseen by some esoteric list of ideals people make up off the top of their heads... like the one you are espousing. You can point to the Constitution, but you know very well we can amend that, too.

If you are going to tell people they can't make a law, shouldn't YOU have a reason? Please, establish why if a state wants to define marraige as only heterosexual they can't. You see, you don't see the end of it where you are telling other people what THEY can't do.



Again, why? We do, say, with Hamas. We do with drug legalization. We throw babies out with bath water every day.

It isn't just conservatives, either. Liberals judge conservative causes the same way. Gun control throws freedom out with the bathwater. Quasi-Liberals all over America want to police our language, our games, our movies, our economy, all in spite of all the stuff in the conservative stance's "pro" column.

Slavery is a GOLDEN example. We decided, in bloody fashion, what our stance on slavery would be. Was that because we "can't" have slaves by some natural law? Nope, people had owned slaves since the beginning of humanity.

We democratically decided to change things, and then enforced that change at the end of a bayonet. We didn't just arbitrarily pick something to make an esoteric ideal. It was important enough for us to actually DIE for the cause of telling people they can't choose for themselves. Telling people that SHOULD be monumental. Would you rate gay marriage even close to that?

I wouldn't. If gay people don't want to live among people who don't respect their marriage, they can move elsewhere. They aren't enslaved. They aren't prevented from marrying. They simply aren't at this point powerful enough to impose their standards on the government licensing of marriage. Perhaps if they pool their resources in a particular place, they could.

If I, today, decide that my state government doesn't suit me, and I am in the small minority, is it logical that I demand the democratically decided laws change to suit me? Or would it be more apt to choose somewhere to live where the people are like-minded? What is self-rule about? It isn't a religion.

I just got a notice that our state has a representative that is trying to ban all Clergy from performing marriages in the state leaving it only to the judges, lawyers and notaries. I think it's ridiculous but I would assume that it's because of this whole gay marriage issue. I know plenty of Pastors that will not perform a marriage or union involving two homosexuals based on biblical mandate. But then again, there are some that will. So why take the right away from them at all?

I think the rep isn't thinking clearly. All the Clergy have to do then, is become notaries.

"Why? You keep saying that, but I don't see you backing it up. We can pass any law we like, otherwise it isn't really a democracy, it is a democracy overseen by some esoteric list of ideals people make up off the top of their heads... like the one you are espousing. You can point to the Constitution, but you know very well we can amend that, too."

Perhaps you didn't read the whole paragraph, blindly passing any law you like, because it is in the majority, wont make it correct or uninfringing. Sure, you have a right to vote without even caring or knowing what the topic is about, but that doesn't make the law or criteria of the law acceptable. It does technically make it acceptable to the majority, but just that fact doesn't make the law right in the end. To prevent passing a law that is incorrect, people need to be informed... especially since you are right that states can pass whatever they want that doesn't conflict with the Constitution.

"Slavery is a GOLDEN example. We decided, in bloody fashion, what our stance on slavery would be. Was that because we "can't" have slaves by some natural law? Nope, people had owned slaves since the beginning of humanity."

I find it odd that having slaves is a natural law, but loving someone from the same sex isn't. I guess that is another reason whether homosexuality is a natural law or not doesn't matter.

"We didn't just arbitrarily pick something to make an esoteric ideal. It was important enough for us to actually DIE for the cause of telling people they can't choose for themselves. Telling people that SHOULD be monumental. Would you rate gay marriage even close to that?"

Yea, we should have to be willing to die for something before it becomes law..... it doesn't matter how many things are wrong with the law, so long the majority, even if uninformed, agree with it and those against it aren't willing to die.

"If I, today, decide that my state government doesn't suit me, and I am in the small minority, is it logical that I demand the democratically decided laws change to suit me? Or would it be more apt to choose somewhere to live where the people are like-minded? What is self-rule about? It isn't a religion."

I already said I didn't want to argue about state vs government licensing. All this talk about law passing doesn't seem to add much to the homosexuality debate anyways. I was simply trying to say, you should make informed decision when you vote.

KFC - "I just got a notice that our state has a representative that is trying to ban all Clergy from performing marriages in the state leaving it only to the judges, lawyers and notaries. I think it's ridiculous but I would assume that it's because of this whole gay marriage issue. I know plenty of Pastors that will not perform a marriage or union involving two homosexuals based on biblical mandate. But then again, there are some that will. So why take the right away from them at all?"

If you state doesn't allow same sex marriage (by a law, or lack of law), it doesn't matter if the Pastor approves or not, the state doesn't recognize it, so a ban seems pointless. If they just wanted a marriage through god, I dont see how they could prevent a Pastor from doing that either. If your state does allow same sex marriage through law, it still seems pointless since if you can't get a pastor to do it, you could get a lawyer/notary right? No point in forcing religious people to get married through a lawyer...

Lol, I meant to hit reply but hit delete, then hit cancel and it still deleted your post..... I tried to go back into my browser's history and recover it but it was gone. Go ahead and repost if you want to/can.... i will reply to what I remember.

So to try and clear some things up by "Right" and "Uninfringing" I was referring to the equal protection clause.

Informed may not have been the best word for it... but if the person doesn't try to understand both sides of the issue then they aren't caring to try an understand why people feel differently, which is not a good way to make a law.

You are right, I and many other people dont know much about legislature that is going on in the state, however, those that ARE involved in the issue and voting, I would hope they make an attempt to understand both sides of the issue.

The part I wrote about natural law wasn't saying I believe they existed, just that if someone thinks slavery is a natural law, but not homosexuality, then natural laws aren't worth looking at.

You assume that the equal protection clause even applies, frankly. Who decides that? We do. We might tag sexual orientation onto that in terms of state licenses. We might tag favorite colors and the great social divide between people who like chocolate and the minority that doesn't. Who knows?

The fact is if you start applying that universally, then there's no end to it. Given that no one really even knows whence commeth sexual orientation, there's no way to define it. Is it a disability? A trait? A choice? What do you do about people who are gay today, not tomorrow, and back to being gay next week when it suits them legally?

There's no issue to understand. Homosexuality isn't a fact-based state. People believe they are homosexual. Others believe no one really is, they just choose to engage in homosexuality. Others believe there is a genitic predisposition, which makes some people wonder if it can be cured.

You dig a bottomless pit with this stuff, when in reality it is painfully simple. Let the voters decide, and if you have something that will inform them to make the decision, point it out. Saying that homosexual relationships are equal just because you believe it, though, without anything really to prove it, isn't informing people.

maybe it's just something ya just get sucked into...