I was so happy to see that NY passed gay marriage, now the other states just need to follow suit.

No government, Federal or State level, has the power to redefine words.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.  We all know that.  This is a religious issue if anything and is not really in the realm of government, especially a central government to intervene.

However, it is in the realm of government to decide the specific legalities of civil unions, be it marriage, pillowbiter on pillowbiter or carpet munchers.
In the US the central government has exactly ZERO authority to be involved in such matters at all.  This is specifically a state's rights issue.  If a State wishes to legalize unions between man/man and woman/woman then so be it.  Might as well work out the human/animal unions as well.  

If we can arbitrarily redefine words based on a very tiny minority of people then we should accept that some degenerate sicko who wants to marry his favorite cow because the damn thing is stump trained, then so be it.  

This "equality" thing based on nothing more than an individual's sexual preference and nothing more is kind of a messed up thing.  As I stated, what if someone's sexual preference is to have sexual intercourse with animals?  Should not their "rights" be so acknowledged?  Or with children, after all, banging kids was quite popular back in ancient Greece and what not.  It was acceptable behavior once, just as pillowbiter's and such was once acceptable and apparently is now again acceptable.

So, leave it up to the states and quit bothering central government about the whole thing.  It's a non-issue as far as Congress and the President go because they do not have the authority to act on such things anyway.  In the US at least.  

I couldn't care less what the Aussie's want to do down under.  That's on them and who am I to say what they should do.  

  












<sigh>  I will endeavor to make myself more clear.


Are you serious?  Really?  If you don't know the difference between "Kissing, Dancing and Loving" and Marriage then I am incapable of helping you.


Exactly.  You see in the US the homo's want it called "marriage", they don't want "civil union" even though civil union will entail all the same rights as "marriage".  This goes to a certain psychological roots I would rather not get into for this conversation.  The thing is, you can't tell the Catholic Church that they must accept homo "marriage".  It just won't happen.  Same with many other religions. 

As to the second question, too often in the US you have Senators, Representatives and Presidents talking about homo marriage.  I am saying that they do not have the authority to decide one way or another on this issue AT ALL.  They should keep their mouths shut all together. 

You see the Constitution is very specific on what the Central Government has authority over and no where in the US Constitution does it say the central government has power over deciding civil unions (marriage or otherwise).  The Constitution states that the central government's powers are only those specified in the Constitution and all other powers not specified is under the individual States power. 

Our founder's didn't want each and every state to end up exactly the same.  This is the concept of "Federalism", a concept lost to most of my American Brethren unfortunately.

The Homo's have petitioned individual states without much success and have tried to turn to the Central government instead.  The Central Government does not have the authority, nor would I want them to have the authority to determine such things.  It's already bad enough that our Central government tells us what toilets to use, what light bulbs to use, what we can eat, drive and many other things far too numerous to name.

The issue on how civil unions are to be treated is up to the States.  I don't have an opinion one way or another other than this-

Sexual relations between a male and female serve a (vital) biological function for our species.  Buttsecks between picklewhistlers does not.

As a species we understand that we must keep reproducing and having children, otherwise everything falls apart.  There won't be enough people in the next generation to support the aging generation.  Thus, that biological function needs to be protected and encouraged.  Considering how important children are to a society it is important that guides be set up and maintained.  The "family unit", one of which you have fletch.  Do you not have a family?  A wife, children?  Considering how important your children are to society the efforts of you and your wife must be recognized by the State and insured that you have the proper support and resources to do a good job as the steward of your societies future, your children.

The picklwhister on the other hand, no amount of kinky buttsecks is going to create a child.  It is pure pleasure, of which they wish to be recognized the same as your efforts between you and your wife.  They serve no biological function at all. 

I ignore the morality of buttsecks and same sex relations and am trying to look at only the...factual (not quite the right word) of the situations.  For the purpose of what the homo's want a "civil union" will work just fine.  But that is somehow "racist" or "denying them their rights" which is ridiculous on it's face. 

My point is that the Obama's, the Pelosi's, and such of the US have no say whatsoever in the issue in their official capacity.  As private citizens they have a say in their own home states, but on the Federal level, their job is to protect the borders, protect our currency and deliver the fucking mail.  That's about it.  Leave the homo marriage issue to the individual states.




I'm just mocking the whole issue.  Pig bangers aren't really much of a concern to me.  What a guy or gal wants to do in their own home is on them and none of my business.  If they wanna do that more power to them, I don't need to know about it.  Heck, we got people here who have left millions of $'s to their pets and it's legal!  Talk about a <facepalm>
I would be dropping the ball if I didn't make fun of them, IMO....Nor do I give a crap about "political correctness".



Who is "we"?  Are you homosexual and if so does your wife know?  Scratch that, I don't want to know anyway, doesn't matter.

I suspect you are talking about your own country and if so I have no say what ever in that regard so I would not comment.

In the normal course of language words do change definition, but it is not changed by government fiat.  Ever.  Why now for "marriage"?

(I know the answer to that and if you wish we can further expound on that line of thought, but it would be..."controversial")


The "crux" of my feelings is simple that it is not the role of central government to be involved with this issue as explained above.  As to your question I will answer this way-

"99% of homosexuals were not born that way, they were sucked into it."

You see what I did there?  That mocking streak coming out again.  How the hell do I know if a homo is born that way or not?  I only know how I was born.


On would think that, especially in regards to minors.  However, things like arranged marriages are still quite common in many parts of the world.  Are those people evil?  Wrong?  Denying people "rights" and/or equality?  From our perspective I would think "yes".  But who am I to judge?


<sigh>

Getting a little off topic there aren't ya?  Grasping a bit at straws?  I will try to answer.
War atrocities in other countries?  What would you have me do?  Launch and undeclared war?  Drop some bombs?  Invade?  Send a strongly worded letter?  Heck, maybe we should invade Libya, Syria, China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Ethiopia, the list just goes on and on and on.  We can't save the world, fletch.  We lack the capability to do that.  What is to be done?  Well, history shows us that these these always sort themselves out after a while, one way or another...

Drought and famine?  The US grows enough food to feed the entire world.  There is plenty of food.  The problem is there isn't enough money to buy the food and get it to where it needs to be.  Again, what would you have me do?  I always eat everything on my plate, you know, because of all those starving Ethiopians and such.  So, I figure I'm doing my part....

Other countries, and me caring or not?  I don't have control nor the knowledge to understand the dynamics and problems facing places I know little about.  Using what limited information (or disinformation) I could end up causing more harm than good.  It's not that I don't care, it's more that I understand my own limitations.  There is only but so much I can control, only so much that a nation can control in these regards.

Countries that I am strongly against?  I'm not against any country.  If any nation wishes to threaten my family or people then I will be the first on the line to fight to protect what I am duty bound to protect.  Other than that, live and let live I say.  The only thing that I could say I am "against" is as Jefferson put, "tyrannies of the mind".  This includes hard core religious fanatics whether they call themselves "Christian", "Muslim" or any other faith.  I will be damned before I allow myself or my children to be put under the thumb of such people.  Not while there is breath in my body.

Waiting in the line for a movie and I'm on my phone, so I can't do a very detailed response with quotes but I am very much enjoying this. Keep it up, and later I will chime in with my thoughts

Btw, go Fletch!

This matter should be clarified.  No, a government does not change the definition of something.  But it does quite often create its own definition for its own purposes.  Marriage of any kind that may be accepted in certain practices, communities, religions, etc. may well not fit the government's description, and vice versa.  Mormon polygamists have many spouses considered by all concerned in their community legitimate, but by the government's definition not only illegitimate but illegal.  In virtually any instance where something is not black and white (and often when it is), the verbage of laws specifically defines it.  So in effect, there is the practical definition of a thing and the legal definition, as separate entities.

In reference to the legal definitions of marriage, it has never been legally recognized in any fashion in Western Civilization.  The heathen Chinese allowed some forms of homo marriage.

Rome, it was never legally recognized by the State.  The word "Matrimony" comes from the Latin matrem (mother) and monium (state, union).  In effect matrimonium was between a man and a woman for the express purpose of having children.

All our definitions stem from this.

The very first nation to legally recognize same sex marriage was the Netherlands in 2001.  This idea of homo marriage is a modern concept.  

This is why (IMO) all the talk of changing the definition of marriage is pure BS.  For some 4,000 years marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman and now in a span of 9 years we are supposed to change that?  I don't think so.....

Just remember, if you don't agree with the law then you must be a racist.  Yes, that's right, I said racist.

But Patches, are homosexuals a race?  How can one be racist if they merely oppose same sex marriage?

Elementary my dear Watson.  The homo marriage movement has been equated to the civil rights movement.  It is a racist ideology that opposed civil rights for blacks.  Thus, if one opposes this homosexual "civil rights" movement, they must be racist.


This is why I say the homo marriage movement is nothing akin to the civil rights movement and is offensive to declare it so. 

What does it imply? The argument seems to stem from the fact that only heterosexuals can have children. If it wasn't for the fact you don't have to be married to fall pregnant you might have something there (as well as married heterosexuals that never have children). As it is, I cannot think of a difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual married couple.

Why are you ignoring that same sex marriage has never been recognized by any State (Nation) in the entire span of Western Civilization?

Have you ever wondered that there may be a reason for that?

You can't claim prejudice because homosexual relationships have been carried out openly in those societies but marriage between same sex partners has never been recognized by those self same ancient States.

There is a reason for why human beings have established such rules.  It is lost on many these days.


Do I have to go through all the old archives where the homo community likens the struggle for same sex marriage to the civil rights movement of the '60's?  That is laughable and on it face incomparable.  It is the homo community that makes these assertions.  In the US at least.  I have no idea how the picklewhistlers in Australia portray their struggle.

It is offensive because it makes light of the 60's civil rights movement and marginalizes it.


A marriage between a man and women for the most part is a union between the two and the raising of a family. 

Since male on male unions cannot produce offspring it is different that the former. 


What?  No one denies their right to get married.  Ever.  They just don't want to get married in the scope that is legally recognized.  They want a reversal on 4000+ years of common law.  In Britain I believe, a man and woman can't get married unless they have a blood test first.  If the results of the blood test come back within certain parameters the two people are denied the ability to be married.  Is that not denying the right to marry?


In the study of declining and death of civilizations there are common threads.  For instance, disease, war, corruption being very common among them all.  Another correlation is "moral decline".  Virtually all civilizations in their death throes have abandoned previous wisdom on how their society functions.

It is the trick of defining "moral decline".  Some would say homosexuality is a moral decline, some would not say that.  You obviously think that homosexuality is normal and thus is not a decline in morality.

If homosexuality is a decline in said morality, then it has an effect in the decline of the civilization just as any other moral deficiency contributes to the death of a civilization.

In Rome for instance, they died in part because they got away from the very rules that made them such a great and powerful nation to begin with. 

Probably the easiest case of this type of moral decline can be seen in the Native American tribes of North America.  They were well corrupted by the influence of Europeans.  That abandonment of traditional values was yet another nail in those tribes coffins.  Things like Small Pox and genocide didn't help either.  An example of the moral decline in the Indian is the introduction of "firewater".  Alcohol introduced by Europeans to the Indian tribes.  The substance was decried by the wise men of the tribes.  Those wise men were ignored and many an Indian fell victim to the predation of such a substance and could well be classified as a "moral decline".

Some believe that accepting homosexual behavior is anther example of a society in moral decline.   

This moral decline is why some think the fire and brimstone will fall upon society.  This moral decline is why a certain sports star in New York came out and said that if they allowed same sex marriage it would cause anarchy.

I'm not so sure I believe that.  All I know that is if everyone was homosexual then the human race would be doomed to extinction.


Now, I'm not going to argue morality with you or the theologians.  I will define "moral behavior" as any behavior which ensures the propagation of one's own species.  An extinct species has no moral behavior at all, immoral or otherwise.  They're extinct.

Same sex marriage serves no biological function and thus does not contribute to the continued propagation of human beings.  Thus I cannot classify it as "moral". 

An blatantly immoral society cannot thrive and is doomed to death, usually sooner than later.  Look at the Russian Empire under Communism.  It didn't survive even 100 years and was clearly considered immoral (if not insanity).

Look at the ancient Mayans who practiced human sacrifice as a way to appease the Gods.  With absolutely no understanding of living with their environment they deforested heavy tracks of their own ecosystem and perished as a result.  Many would consider the severe exploitation of the environment as "immoral". 

The list just keeps going on and on. 

Now, you might not agree that Homosexual behavior is not immoral, but just remember this-
The drunken Indian didn't think he was being immoral as he abandoned tradition in search of more alcohol.
The Roman Governors justified their corruption as they ate away at the fabric of their society from within.
The Mayan royalty did not consider the murdering of human sacrifices as immoral, they saw it as required.  Their civilization paid the price and died.

Because it's irrelvant. Not doing something because it's never been done before is the emptiest of reasons.


Please give me one. That's all I really want in a debate, actually, is a good reason why things shouldn't change. I'm sure there were plenty of people saying "Women have never had the vote." "Blacks have never been allowed in here." Those are not good reasons.


Sure I can. You think the age of a prejudice gives it some kind of legitimacy? Most good prejudices have been held for a decent length of time.


Well what are they?


I don't believe it does either of those things.

 

So if same sex partners could adopt and raise children you'd have no problems with them using the term marriage? I think we may have come to an understanding?


Sure but there's a reason for it. It's arbitrarily denying it to a section of the community for the sole reason that they are a part of that section that is unjust.


So in a nutshell, you don't have any.

BS, I'm trying to be diplomatic but I will go ahead and forego the subtlety.

Ancient Greece, the Boy Lover's of the ancient era, were crushed by the Spartans who would have castrated homosexuals.  Did the effeminate and degenerate ways of Athens contribute to it's downfall?  Probably.

The Romans, Nero for one who "married" his homosexual lute player (this union was not recognized in Roman law other than Nero's insane fantasy world) and Rome burned because the effeminate and insane Emperor Nero so decreed.  Rome fell to ashes as Emperor after Emperor fell to degenerate and immoral vices and the Empire suffered as a result.

Sodom, of which there was once an actual city.  If the stories are to be believed it was a place of debauchery and vice that makes Prison Rape look like a girl scout outing.  Their city state ended in a fiery cataclysm.  Archeology excavations of the ruins found pits of murdered human beings and evidence of strange goings on. 

The list goes on as society after society falls into moral decline and then into obscurity and extinction as a society.

The moral degradation of a society contributes significantly to that society's eventual demise.  Do you deny this?


Now, if homosexuality is a degeneration of moral attitudes of a society then it stands that it is detrimental to society. 

The "if" is the problem.  Some would say homosexuality is not immoral (mainly picklewhistlers and carpet munchers who of course would claim this).
Others say homosexuality is immoral.  Where do you stand on this? 

The United States for all intensive purposes is on the decline, this is the general consensus.  Is the United States on the decline? 
Some would say there is a general decline in the moral attitude of the Country, of which I agree.  Not just homosexuality, the decline of responsibility, work, greed, avarice and homosexuality.

Is there a correlation between this moral decline and the decline of the American Empire?  Time will tell.

I also understand that is a consequence of freedom, that is if people are truly free they have the opportunity to choose the immoral path if they so wish. 
I can't convince you if homosexuality is immoral or not.  Only you can answer that question.