I haven't read the thread, so forgive me for any ignorance.

I don't think being homosexual should be illegal, but marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman.

I will never debate the moral argument with you, so give this a thought.

If two people of any gender may marry and also receive tax benefits due to that marriage, then what is to stop anyone from getting married. Allowing gays to marry under the State will completely destroy the meaning of marriage and the laws that govern the joint-filing of taxes. Our founding fathers understood how essential the family unit is to the survival of a nation, which is why these laws exist. However, allowing gays to officially become married according to the State will create endless room for abuse. Anyone who sees a chance to get a break may very well may marry to get that break(even people that aren't gay in nature), and divorce just as quickly when is most convenient to them.

This troubles me, as I understand that the lack of the traditional family unit is already beginning to enhance the speed of the Durkheim Constant. Being a conservative, I refuse to support any legislation that may speed up that Constant.

However, I feel that even some on the left could understand the financial concerns I present.

I do hope that no one would disagree solely because I have professed part of my reasoning as part of my ideology. Anyways, any thoughts on this? I'm not sure if it's already been brought up or not, so let me know if I am bringing up an already addressed idea.

It's more than a little interesting that the arguments put forward today as rationales against gay marriage, are exactly the same as those that were put forward in the past against inter-racial marriage. Below is a link to an interesting article, and I've pasted a small section of it. There are also plenty of links to references on the web of the USs former miscegenation laws that made inter-racial marriage illegal - the last of these laws was only overturned as recently as 1967.

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

None of that is what I've suggested you give more than a quick thought to. =\

Oh I know that, I was just posting it as others on here have suggested such things. It was just meant as an interesting thought-provoker, and no directed at you .

And how do current laws keep heterosexuals from doing the exact same thing?

Sorry, but the reasoning you use is tragically flawed...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

No it isn't. It expands this to include any gender, thus increasing the threat. What's to say that people don't do that now, only with unspoken words? One of my ideas is that we reform the law governing the filing of taxes under the married status by putting restriction on how many years you must be married in order to do this, whether you be homo- or hetero-sexual.

OK but like...why? What stake do we have in long term marriages? As marriage rates decrease and divorce rates increase the economy continues to grow, more people go to college and we're not seeing a decrease in the number of kids born. Like, can you actually articulate how the lowered marriage rate is doing more to hurt our society than say, global warming, or the war in Iraq or the closing of manufacturing towns due globalization etc. etc? You can not deny that if the state is going to be involved in marriage than they really can't put a moral qualm on what kinds of marriages they are. You'll NEVER see the kind of legislation you're proposing passed for heterosexual marriages and it kind of shows your opinion is really out of step.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

I see it in the growing polarization of our politics and outrageous instances of what some on the left call "diversity." Things that were 20 years ago unreasonable and unheard of are now accepted as the norm. This sudden deterioration of the family unit has led to increased amounts of children without homes. It's very hard to articulate the vicious effects the Durkheim Constant, and would take me a lot of time that I do not have at the moment. Those participating in the secular-progressive movement on the left(judging by your signature, probably including you) additonally trouble me due to their extreme intolerance to anything traditional.

What stake? To have children that learn discipline and a society that likewise learns a degree of discipline and reasonable thought(I know that reasonable is objective, but to what extent?). To have a dramatically less amount of children conceived outside the safety of wedlock. I understand that a married couple does not always have better ability and capability to provide for a child, but this is the minority of cases. A child may get all of the loving and care they need in the early stages of life when born within the bounds of marriage. To have less children lost to gang violence and an endless search for a parental figure among their peers.

As I said, I do not have time to go too deep. You'll have to be satisfied with this for now. Have fun.

Homosexual conduct and incest are similar in their deviance.A brother and sister are only two.Once they engage in homosexual acts, everything changes.That's not true. But because rape is a violent crime, let's leave that one alone as not comparitive.[quote=Steve;888552]Interesting, though, that you seem to equate homosexuality with rape and incest.[quote=Steve;888552]I equate it as being immoral. Incest is immoral as well.I am not dancing. I didn't vote. It's moot and a trap. It's damn do damned don't.

Would you ciminalize two brothers over 21 years old being together and engaging in homosexual practices?

__________________
United We Stand.

Polarization how? If I'm not mistaken it's those on the right who are attempting to enact punitive and regressive laws to limit the rights of homosexual people in the United States. Here's the problem with the right wing position on this. You can't just draw the lines of equality and freedom arbitrarily where you want them. How can you claim that Christian kids can start an extra curriculular club in a private school, but that progressive kids can't have a gay-straight alliance. How can you argue that it's OK for heterosexuals to have happy fulfilling marriages but law abdiing homosexuals can not? Freedom is a two way street my friend.
Your hypocrasy is astounding. You're going to claim a segment of society that is childless for increasing homelessness of children? It's laughable to even type the sentence out. If you feel that the state needs to enact laws that prevent children from being homeless, why not better fund homeless shelters for juveniles? Why not increase subsidies for public housing? Why not make it easier for people to get a home loan. You know things actually linked to HOUSING! But no, you want to scapegoat homosexual invidividuals, many of whome would like nothing more than to be able to adopt an abandoned child and PROVIDE it a home. Sorry, I don't believe for a SECOND that you care about kids.

I agree with everything here, you know what's so frustrating is the way you assume secularists don't care about kids. I challenge you go to children shelter homes, go to childrens rights advocate organisations, go and see the people who work day in and day out with at risk youth. You know who those people are for the most part. LIBERALS!

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

It's not not punitive or regressive. Homosexual has no value to award a marriage license and one-woman one-man couples do.Because a Christian group is not a sex-club. Encouraging sexual practices that deemed immoral by society shouldn't be brought into our schools.Because they don't have the same value. Whereas M=Male, F=Female and the 'average' fertility rate of the US is 2. Solve for C or the average number of children.

F + M = C
F + F = C
M + M = C

F + M = 2
F + F = 0
M + M = 0

or F+M>(2F) + (2M)

or 2>0[/quote]Homosexual conduct has no value.No, it's that Secularists are vague about what their moral values are because they don't have any reason to deny a marriage license to anyone or group.

Promoting homosexual behavior in our schools is immoral and you think it's OK.

__________________
United We Stand.

This is not the case. There are many, many examples where groups who adhered to a certain Christian doctrine (such as the Children of God sect) routinely engage in orgy sex acts, sex with minors, etc. What about Christian groups that believe in bigamy? Indeed, you may want to inform the priesthood of the Catholic Church that it isn't a sex club.

What is being brought into schools? The teaching of tolerance and respect for others regardless of differences? Isn't this the core of Christian teaching?

To you. To me, it has a lot of valuable. It's like me saying that you engaging in oral sex with your wife has no value. What you do in private with a consenting adult is none of my damn business, and what I do in private is none of yours.

Where is this "promotion" Do you think that the "gay mafia" have recruitment tents set up in the play ground offering discount vouchers to McDonalds to every child who signs up to join "the team?" Or are you referring instead to the notion whereby schools are trying to educate their students to be more understanding, tolerant and respectful citizens by recognising differences, and being tolerant towards others. Instead, are you advocating schools teach policies of hate and exclusion or anything outside that of which YOU deem as being moral? Why do you grandstand and think that your morals are somehow superior to mine?

Nonsense. Where did you hear that? There is no such thing. Sex acts out of wedlock are immoral in Christianity.Mormons are not Christians.Homosexual conduct shouldn't be introduce in the school. Christianity is not about orgies. Your claims are terrible and uniformed.Homosexual conduct has no value to our school or to the Government. There is no measurable benefit that homosexual acts for American society. We aren't talking about what you do in your own home but what goes on in a school and your distorted, inaccurate and obtuse view of Christianity.No one is teaching hatred. To you nothing is immoral. To you anyone who doesn't want to teach homosexual conduct in the classroom is a hater which is preposterous, ridiculous and completely inaccurate. This has zero to do with hate but what is best for the youth. Christianity and morality does not compare to homosexual conduct and immorality.

__________________
United We Stand.

I don't even know how to respond to that post. That post is the single most ignorant thing I've ever seen on the internet. Anywhere. Ever.

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

I do wish you would learn to accept fact rather than simply dismissing things out of hand because you don't happen to like or agree with them. It is NOT nonsense. Children of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia