• hottmom said on Sep 01, 2006....

  No argument here, I completely agree. Also love your post
  

• Girlyklvj said on Sep 01, 2006....

  Wow, I love the way you clearly set out each of the reasons i have heard before about "Gay Marriage". Also the way that you concisely answer it.
  
  Although i am not a huge marriage fan either gay or hetro, surly the fact of the matter is that two people share a life and share the legal benefits.
  
  So hear hear.
  
  Well blogged and a very interesting topic.
  

• madstorm said on Sep 01, 2006....

  Gay marriage? ... why not? ... let them also enjoy the pain and misery everybody else's marriage suffers!!
  
  At least they won't argue about who left the toilet seat up... you see? ... there are advantages!!
  

• nytquill17 said on Sep 01, 2006....

  I'm with you! I'm not particularly religious now, but I was raised in a strong religious family and environment. In fact, my family was fairly enlightened about religious issues, well-read and well-educated. So I learned to think out my religion. But when it came to homosexuality, it was like everyone suddenly went stupid. I was always a bit put off by that, and it was one of the first things that made me start to think twice about my family's beliefs.
  
  The argument I always heard against homosexuality (which never made sense to me) is that "Well...God didn't put that there, so it can't be right." Or "Sometimes we just have to do what God says, without understanding why. God says homosexuality is evil and wrong, and we just have to go with that."
  
  But homosexuality is and has been "natural" throughout history, both in animals and in humans. And if you believe that God created everything in nature, everything natural, then you have to accept the fact that God must have created homosexuality - so he DID "put that there". And if he created it, why would he say that it's evil and wrong? One could argue that we humans, through our free will, somehow screwed up God's original intentions (similar to the Great Flood story - originally God felt everything he made was good, but then we got it so screwed up he erased us and started over)...except that animals, which have no free will (according to this argument, anyway) and therefore can't screw anything up or make immoral choices, also exhibit homosexual tendencies. So it can't be "evil and wrong."
  
  Plus the fact that God gave us our brains, our curiosity and desire for explanations - for science and reason, in other words. This is the same God who created physics, chemistry, all the rules that make our world make sense. He wouldn't ask us to suddenly become unintelligent and stupidly follow directions without any reason! (again, I'm not religious anymore, but I'm trying to argue from that standpoint since that's where most of the objections come from).
  
  And the same parts of the Bible that condemn homosexuals to death also tell us not to "suffer a witch to live." But we don't do the witchhunt thing anymore - so why do we pay attention to the part about gays?
  
  My take on it - I don't have any researched proof to back it up, but it makes sense to me - is that most anti-gay cultural traditions stem from these kinds of hardscrabble tribal cultures, like the ancient Hebrews or the ancient Muslims, that were constantly facing threats to their survival. Anyone who didn't contribute to procreation, therefore, was useless or even a threat to their society. Not to mention that whole human tendency to fear and destroy what we don't understand, aren't familiar with, and can't assimilate into something we deem more acceptable.
  
  One of the things I learned growing up is that the Bible can be separated into religious doctrine, which is true for the ages ("Thou shalt not kill," "God so loved the world..."), and sociocultural mores, which apply only to the time and culture in which the text was written - women must sit quietly in assemblies and if they have any questions, ask their husbands when they get home; a man who rapes a virgin must pay her family the bride price and then marry her (!). Homosexuality definitely falls into the second category, not the first - and our culture has certainly evolved beyond the point where we are in any way threatened by gays, so this falls into the list of biblical instruction we can disregard in our time.
  
  I'm all for gay marriage and gay rights! I'm not gay myself, but hey...these people are human just like the rest of us, and if you stop to think about it instead of just knee-jerking, there's really nothing "wrong with them." They, and them getting married, don't pose any threat to us whatsoever! They deserve the same happiness (or misery, as someone else has said), and the same rights and protections, as any of the rest of us.
  
  Good for you for posting this, Silver! Very well-expressed :-)
  

• bridfair said on Sep 01, 2006....

  I completely agree as well. There is no legitimate reason...most are religious-based and I'm pretty sure one of the founding principles of our government is a separation of church and state...though some people may forget that at times:)
  

• FaithfulDisciple said on Sep 01, 2006....

  If you ask me, the marriage title is just a legal status which affords legal rights to the married partners. With or without the benefit of marriage, any partner may choose to live in a union they believed best suits them.
  
  Please note that I said the word choose as this is based on a person's free will. It's not about what is right or wrong, it's about people making choices to a lifestyle and living it according to their choices. The responsibility for such choices is solely for the partners to bear..
  
  The real benefit that a legal marriage can bring into the union is the semblance of legality as in division of properties or administration of wills in case of death or separation of one partner.
  

• happykat said on Sep 01, 2006....

  I agree with you, bud.
  
  However, there is one tiny thing that you forgot. Majority.
  
  Theoretically speaking, the laws are supposed to reflect the views and mores of the majority of our soicety.
  
  *pause*
  
  I had a good point to this.....until I was distracted, so....um...nevermind. I'll come back when i have more time to repsond.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....

  thanks, guys!
  
  nytquill: that was truly impressive--my compliments!
  
  FD: well said, sir.
  
  HK: that's not entirely true. the laws are supposed to reflect the views of existing law (i.e., not contradict the constitution, other previous law or caselaw) in addition to what the majority want. that's a point that someone of our acquaintance conveniently keeps forgetting every time the matter comes up, owing no doubt to his obsession w/ "boiling everything down".
  
  further, your point falsely supposes that a majority of americans oppose gay marriage. this is not true. every poll i've seen has it pretty evenly split. nowhere near a majority or consensus appears to exist.
  
  :>
  
  ed
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

  Great post, ed! As a lesbian with a partner (who I call my wife), the national uproar over gay marriage concerns me. My wife and I do not hurt anyone, have jobs as professionals, live in a nice house, and we have two great kids who do well at school, have friends, and live a "normal" life (God I hate that word).
  
  It boggles my mind when people state that homosexuality is wrong because it is a choice. This of course, is the most absurd statement anyone could make. Being gay is the single hardest obstacle I face in my life, and trust me, I face A LOT of obstacles. Who would choose to make life more difficult, be the object of scorn, or be victim to hate crimes and prejudice? If I had a choice in the matter (though I love my wife very much), I would be straight just to make things easier on myself. Plus, maybe my family would like and accept me again.
  
  Unfortunately, I cannot be straight. I have tried. I had many relationships with men in high school and college, which never satisfied me, and always made me feel bad about myself. Finally, when I decided to explore "the dark side," I found happiness. I actually derived pleasure from sex when I was with a woman.
  
  I worry when there is mention of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that this country is on a path similar to the nazis. The pink triangle as a symbol of homosexuality originally appeared when it was used by the nazis to mark gays (like the star of david was used to mark jews). After the constitutional amendment, we will likely have to register as gays with the government. I will not wear an arm band for this country.
  
  I wish people were more educated about what it means to be gay. I have heard fundamentalist christians state that if our country allowed gays to marry, then people would also start marrying animals. I think there is a diconnect between homosexuality and beastiality, but I am just a loony dyke afterall. Also, I only lived in the south briefly, so I am not sure about the complexities of relationships with farm animals.
  
  I am not out to "convert" anyone; I just want to express my sexuality freely. This country once banned blacks and whites marrying (anti-miscegenation statutes); perhaps someday the gay marriage issue will be similarly remembered.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

  I would also like to add that I find it amusing that M2F or F2M transsexuals can legally marry someone of the "opposite/same" sex if they have had gender-altering surgery. This seems to fly in the face of banning gay marriage.
  
  I guess if you are so gay that you have to change your sexual organs then the union of marriage is acceptable. But if you are only gay enough to want a same-sex relationship without permanently altering your organs, too bad, you are out of luck.
  

• quidnunc said on Sep 01, 2006....

  another blockbuster and thought provoking post. let me get back to you on this one.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....

  IPJ: i was rather hoping to get your insights on the matter. i share your view that some day this furor will be viewed like the anti-miscegenation laws, for which i reserve a particular scorn. and i somehow forgot about the transgendered but that's an excellent point: my thanks!
  
  ed
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

  Well ed, if there was ever a post on which it is appropriate for me to comment, this is it.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....

  [chuckles]
  
  yeah, i suppose so. :>
  
  well, of course there's always this one, too... :D
  
  [ducks]
  
  ed
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

  LMAO. I just read that one. Well, you've got the right idea there... I met a boy in law school who enjoyed it more than sex (and btw, he was a boy not a man), but I always thought he was weird and putting me on.
  
  [does something involving hitting and a fish]
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....

  “but gayness is unnatural!”
  Gayness is largely unnatural. Just because you can find examples of it in nature doesn't mean much. Dolphins want to have sex with human females, emus also. Dogs hump anything that moves, and a lot of stuff that doesn't. Whoopty do. The part about God is an entirely different issue, as natural and written by God are different. But to tackle that one Jesus may have overturned the old laws but God making Adam and Eve would still stand logically speaking. If you go further and take into acount that the purpose of sex in some people's mind is procreation not recreation and you're nailed on two counts.
  
  status: Yatta!
  
  “gay marriage is against my religion!
  that’s nice, but your religious beliefs do not form the basis for law, even if your name happens to be judge roy moore of alabama. :>
  
  Then explain the controversy over abortion, or the laws passed in Alabama this year. Explain how inteligent design and creationism are being taught. Explain why In God we Trust is on our money and in our Pledge.
  
  status: Cowabunga! (Though I hope you win again)
  
  “marriage is about one man and one woman”
  Yes really. We've defined as such in the United States for quite sometime. How it was done in ancient Egypt, Colonial America or even modern day Italy can serve only as an example, not as a reason why we should do it that way.
  
  status: I can dodge bullets.
  
  “marriage is about children!”
  Many people believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt where as the other two groups you mentioned should.
  
  status: Jury's out. (I hope you win though)
  
  ”marriage is sacred!”
  Who said it was ok for Brittany to be married for 36 hours? I can't remember ANYBODY supporting her. I didn't even hear the age old, papparazzi are the devil in this case.
  
  status: Booyaka booyaka 909!
  
  “but if we allow gay marriage, it will lead to polygamy!”
  By accepting one form of formerly forbidden marriage it will natrually open the doors to others. Just like Roe vs. Wade has been used to protect gay sex.
  
  status: Alive and Kicking.
  
  Disemboweld is such a strong word. I agree whole heartedly with your sentiment. My personal solution that hell I wish the Vattican would do is simply respect the separation of Church and State. I would do it like this: We the Church believe that any two persons living together, be they man and wife, father and son, mother and son, man and man, woman and woman or even two friends living together should get idential legal and financial breaks from the government. They are experiencing the same hardships regardless of their relationship. We however still maintain that God only recognizes unions between a man and a woman. Problem solved, they even got to save face.
  

• desertsienna said on Sep 01, 2006....

  As far as Britney goes, that is her own personal concern. The state has no business stepping and creating unnecessary legal boundaries to marriage. It was not so long ago that segregation existed in the United States, which is by legend the 'freeest country in the world.' If it is a free country, let women decide what to do with their own bodies and let gays get married if they want to. Nobody stopped Hugh Hefner from marrying a woman who was thirty-five years younger than him.
  
  I am tired of social conservatism. The church and mosque or synagogue or whatever should be separated from the state. It says so in the Declaration of Independence. As for Christian definitions of marriage, a church can elect to allow for gays to have weddings there or not. They can have a civil ceremony instead if so desired.
  
  We have no business restricting marriage rights arbitrarily. How can a union between two willing, consensual adults of sound mind by wrong? Should we stop people from marrying outside their race, class or faith as well? Should one only be allowed to marry someone one's own age? Should one ban people from marrying someone with a disability, mental illness or any significant health problems? We have no right to do this.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....

  sean, thank you for commenting at such length. that took some time, i imagine. i will reply at length later in the day but i can't just now.
  
  ed
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

  God is love. God is acceptance. Why would God only recognize a union between a man and a woman when unions between same sex couples (though not sanctioned by law or the church) do indeed exist?
  
  Please also see my point about anti-miscegenation statutes. The mixing of races was originally thought to be forbidden, morally wrong, and against God. Hmm... that no longer seems to be true. Is it possible that the government and the church may be getting this one wrong, as well?
  
  Please inform me how Roe v. Wade has had any impact on gay sex. I am dying to know. In fact, Roe v. Wade was precendental on legalizing (or rather decriminalizing) abortion, but has since been overturned by Planned Parenthood v. Casey as far as the state of the law on abortion is concerned.
  
  As a gay parent, it is absurd that you say that gays should not be permitted to be parents. My wife had children (through natural insemination) and they are doing great. We do a better job raising our kids than many hetero couples I know (or know of).
  
  I live in the US, not Vatican City, so looking to the Vatican for any insight on this matter is irrelevant. There is separation of church and state, at least until the Republicans get into office and muck things up. The Pope recently made a statement that we work too hard; everyone should take more vacation. Does this mean that our government will enact a new law or even amend the Constitution to make it so? Very doubtful.
  
  Finally, I'd like to state that sexual preference is unique to each individual. To me, hetero sex is unnatural. I don't like it. Some people have toe fetishes; I hate feet. It doesn't mean that the government or the church should have any input into what I do sexually. As long as I am not hurting anyone, why can't I be given the benefit of intestacy laws with my partner? Actually, by not being legally married, my wife and I pay less taxes because we both file as single and she get to be "head of household."
  
  I don't want to go into a Catholic church to get married, I just want to be treated like an equal human. Who I choose to have sex with is my own business, and I don't force it on anyone. I know that my wife and I are married in the eyes of God; no one can take that belief from me... not even ignorant assholes. Sorry.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....

  As far as the separation of church and state goes, I am sure all of you are aware now (or at least were taught some time) that what that aimed to accomplish was to keep the church from making governmental decisions, as it had in England (ie Henry VII).
  
  Now, the vatican and the major religious groups of the world cannot step in to make these decisions for us... but that does NOT mean that those who are in power cannot be influenced by their individual religious beliefs.
  
  Just because a view is shared both by a politician and a church does not make it a "Separation of Church and State" issue.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

  Bordy: religious doctrine can never be the basis for the enactment of any law. When a politician makes a decision based on his influence from the church, he is violating the Constitution. Elected officials in this country are meant to be objective arbiters of the public view. Okay, I admit that is an idealistic view of politicians... but, they cannot shrug their shoulders and say, "this isn't a church decision because I am a politician... even if I am influenced by the church." That defeats the point of separation of church and state. Politicians should turn off their personal influences and fulfill their role in objectivity.
  
  It seems that politicians in this country cannot come up with a good reason why gay marriage should be prohibited, so they either say something asinine (it will lead to polygamy or beastiality) or they say, "well, it has always been recognized as a union between man and woman, so therefore it should remain that way... (i.e., 'cause I said so)." Frankly, I don't find the arguments compelling.
  
  If someone could really convince me why gay marriage should be prohibited, I'd be open to hearing about it. It just appears, however, that everyone opposed to gay marriage has rationality that is clouded by ignorance and fear.
  
  What is the worst possible outcome if gays can marry? Are heterosexuals afraid that gay weddings will simply be too fabulous and they will be unable to compete? (And not to strike fear in hearts of all you bible thumpers out there, but lots of gay people get married, even if we don't have a piece of paper saying so). Nothing in my life would change if gay marriage was legalized; I'd just have another piece of paper to file in my office. I've already contractually arranged for similar treatment of my wife and myself that is afforded to married hetero couples. Granted, to gain that equality required a bit more leg work on my part, but it was good practice for a budding attorney.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....

  That is categorically untrue IPJ. Our beliefs and our personal doctrines influence every facet of what we do, it is a human trait. They cannot be asked to separate themselves from their beliefs entirely (after all, they ran on certain platforms, based on their beliefs, and that is why they were elected was it not?)
  
  The church has nothing to do with their decisions, rather they themselves are the basis for what they choose to do. Whether or not the church had anything to do with how they were raised, what they believe, etc, is irrelevant. The Separation of Church and State calls for a separation from the ruling bodies of churches and the government. Not that our political leaders cannot be religious.
  

• secretlife said on Sep 01, 2006....

  SW: Just wanted to say this is a great post.
  
  You all are so smart that I don't have much to add and will just enjoy the banter.
  
  SeanReonaud you gave me such a headache last nite over the abortion post! But you are very intelligent and I was quite impressed with your response and your arguments.
  
  Even though I know you agree with SW overall.
  
  InterplanetJanet- wow - great comments; I'm really in awe of your ability to express yourself such that I could literally feel you.
  
  I have gay friends-
  I know if they were given a choice, they'd not choose a life so difficult. Being gay is the hard way.
  
  I hope I live to see the day when gays are given equal rights under the laws of this country.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

  Being religious and promulgating laws based on religious beliefs are different, Bordy. Elected politicians represent all of the citizens, not just the ones that share their religious viewpoint. It is their job to act objectively.
  
  The laws that are passed in this country have to conform to certain requirements, and being free of religious doctrine is one such requirement. JFK was a Catholic, but he didn't try to push his religion on the citizens of this country. Stating that something should be prohibited because it is against God and [whatever] religion is not a valid reason to enact a law.
  
  Like I said above, give me a compelling reason why gays should be prohibited from the union of marriage and I will consider it. What effect on public policy would allowing such action have? After all, public policy reasons are the primary impetus for the enactment of laws; how will married gays hurt society?
  

• Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....

  I think you're missing my point IPJ ;)
  
  I never said I was against gay marriage. I could care less, really. I have gay friends, in fact the majority of the group of kids I grew up with are gay.
  
  I just have a certain pet peeve against the misuse of the idea of the Separation of Church and State.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 01, 2006....

  IPJ: "religious doctrine can never be the basis for the enactment of any law. When a politician makes a decision based on his influence from the church, he is violating the Constitution."
  
  I seem to remember reading somewhere that, 'thalt shalt not kill'.... hmmmm.... oh yes, it's a beleif found in most religions. its a pity that its not actually practiced as such,though...
  
  Never is a strong term, and not particualarly accurate in this case. Religous beliefs do shape politics just as surely as scientific (and sometimes not so scientific) beliefs shape politics.
  
  I don't personally believe in gay marrages. I find the idea of having sexual relations with another man disgusting, and it goes against my personal tastes. Which is why I will never sleep with or marry another guy.
  
  Consiquently its the same reason I don't eat tomatoes, their nasty! I mean how can you people eat such a nasty tasting fruit! blech! But hey, if you want to put one of those things tomatoes that is in your mouth, more power too you, as long as you don't attempt to force your belief tomatoes are good on me, i won't force my belief their nasty on you.
  
  And yes, I have several friends who are gay, and no, I honestly don't have a problem with that, or with the idea of them getting married if they so choose.
  
  IPJ: "If someone could really convince me why gay marriage should be prohibited"..."What is the worst possible outcome if gays can marry? Are heterosexuals afraid that gay weddings will simply be too fabulous and they will be unable to compete?"
  
  LOL!!!
  
  You might be on to something with that!
  

• madstorm said on Sep 01, 2006....

  Wow!! Indiefilm has sure learnt to use the formatting options!!
  
  personally... I've NEVER met anyone who's married AND happy... maybe they're happy for awhile but then... well, it all goes to shit. This debate shouldn't be about gay marriage but about what's the difference between gay sex and heterosexual sex? If a lesbian closes her eyes while having her pussy licked, would she know if it's a man or a woman? WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE?!?!? If a man closes his eyes during sex, how does he know if his cocks in someones ass or in a pussy?!?!? WHAT THE HELL IS THE DIFFERENCE?!?!?!
  
  The REAL question is... why, gay men OR women, do you have a problem with the opposite sex?!?
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

  SL:
  Thanks. This is one topic about which I am very passionate. I live with the weight of being gay every day, and while I think that coming out was the best decision I ever made, it has new implications daily.
  
  Bordy:
  I know you didn't weigh in on gay marriage, but I am trying to keep my comments on point. Plus, I am waiting with baited breath for Sean to reply; I hope it is as eloqent as his first response (BooYahhhhh).
  
  But I'm not misusing the idea, Bordy. Yes, I am taking an idealistic and perhaps naïve approach to the concept (I know religious beliefs do influence policy; it’s the nature of the beast); but, I am not misusing the term. "Because God says so" is never a reason for passing a law; it cannot be, based on Article VI our Constitution (applied to the states through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). If a politician believes in certain policy based on his religious beliefs (and those beliefs are the only foundation for the policy), then he has lost the objectivity necessary to be a neutral policy maker.
  
  I'm not saying that politicians aren't entitled to religious beliefs (that too is protected by the Constitution), it is just that their beliefs cannot be the basis of their decisions made as politicians. If the tables turned and politicians in this country were predominantly Muslim, or Jewish, or Pagan, and the laws started to mirror the doctrine of those religions, I am sure the Christians would have something to say about it.
  
  Let's create a hypothetical and say the country becomes heavily pagan. Most politicians are pagans; it is the most common religion in the country. The politicians have certain beliefs, which are grounded in their religious doctrine. They worship nature, and believe that any harm to the environment violates their religion and is a sin against their god. They decide to enact a law making any form of environment-harming pollution illegal. Thousands of businesses are forced to shut down; people must ride bikes to work. "Whoa!" you say, "you can't pass that law, Mr. Politician, you are commingling your religious beliefs with public policy. That ain't right." You're exactly right; that ain't right. This is why our Founding Fathers created the Establishment Clause in the Constitution: to prevent religiously-driven politicians from forcing dogma on the nation as a whole.
  
  Indie:
  Yes, religious beliefs do shape the law and policy; however, there must always be a public policy reason behind a law enacted. I find no compelling argument (which would satisfy strict scrutiny analysis) that points to the prohibition of gay marriage as anything other than religious dogma. Surely, you can see the public policy argument behind making it illegal to kill another… right? Other than fear of fabulous weddings, I don’t see harm in gay marriage.
  
  I don’t personally believe in abortion, but I also don’t think our government should tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I’d never have an abortion, but it is not the place of the government to tell me I may not. Science, religion, and politics all go hand-in-hand; personally, I think that is what makes our society such a dynamic one. That being said, when policy has foundation in only religion, it cannot be forced upon the entire nation. I am not a Christian, but the proposed ban on gay marriage makes me subscribe to dogma rooted in Christianity. My God thinks that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable.
  
  Madstorm:
  I do not have a problem with the opposite sex. I do not enjoy sex with men, as I imagine you don’t either. The issue of gay marriage is not some much rooted in the fact that gays want to be married, but that gays want to be treated equally. It could be any issue discriminating against gays; it just so happens that this country has fixated on the idea of gay marriage.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

  ...
  

• FaithInMind said on Sep 01, 2006....

  Your comment:
  I like Silverwhisper's argument that Government should not be in the business of dictating which consenting adults can marry. It appeals to me as a conservative and I agree with that.
  
  I take issue with this so-called separation of church and state stuff, though. It's conveniently bandied about when it supports pet issues such as abortion and gay marriage, but thrown out the door when it concerns which health services churches may or may not support regarding their employees.
  
  Churches and religious organizations are regulated by Government in aspects of zoning, taxation, labor, building codes, insurance, cases of eminent domain and so on. Where's the "separation"? The truth is there is none when there's a compelling Government interest! All of the regulations mentioned above may indeed protect religious organizations, but they are nonetheless hardly examples of "separation".
  
  It's patently hypocritical to aruge that the religious beliefs of constituents should not influence politicians, and then turn around and regulate church activity based on the political whims of Federal, State and Local regulators. Socially conservative religious folks are taxpayers too. Their views deserve to be represented every bit as much as everyone else's. As one poster said, politicians are supposed to represent everyone - including socially conservative religious folks.
  
  And to be completely accurate, the actual phrase "separation of church and state" is NOWHERE in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, or any other legal document the Founders created. It's a phrase quoted from a letter one of the Founders wrote to a group of Baptists that was dredged up by the Supreme Court many years ago.
  
  The phrase is actually the legacy of a virulently anti-Catholic Supreme Court Justice who used this phrase to justify denying publicly-funded busing to a group of Catholic school kids. Now this phrase is being used in a long-term, large-scale campaign to disenfranchise religious taxpaying voters.
  
  It's amazing how many folks harp on a concept that isn't even in the Constitution and preach that as legal Gospel.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....

  I apologize for any headaches I may have caused with my responses over abortion. I don't mean to cause physical pain.
  
  Since the primary part of this discussion has twisted towards religion I guess that is what I should be handling. First I'm going to start by throwing the whole separation of church and state which is more of a tradition, than a law. The First Amemdment reads as follows:
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  
  No laws can be made telling you what to worship, or how to worship. Even though it has been construed to mean that there is no religion in school (which I'm thankful for) it doesn't say that. Likewise it doesn't say that you can't make laws based on a religion, assuming that they don't directly conflict with another religion and the free practice of it.
  
  As for what Bordy said what religion you belong to does and should guide your decisions in life. It is who you are. Take abortion, if you believe with all your heart that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder, shouldn't you take the same measures to protect the unborn child as you would any other person in danger of being murdered? If you believe that gay marriage is an affront against God AND you love your neighbor, and love your enemie like you love yourself shouldn't you try to stop them from being damned away from God's love? I know I try to stop those I care about from doing things that I know to be harmful. Remember heaven and hell are as real to some people as concrete and trees are to us.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 01, 2006....

  You are forgetting, FIM, that our country uses the common law to determine and interpret black letter law. That is, through case law our statutes grow and evolve as the times dictate. The Founding Fathers knew that times would change and therefore set up a system of goverment that is dynamic.
  
  So yes, you are right, there is no specific mention in the Establishment Clause of the Constitution (or anywhere for that matter) of "separation of church and state;" however, the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." exists. Looking to the letter Jefferson wrote as a Danbury Baptist for some legislative intent (which is the proper way to interpret the meaning of statutes), he intended that phrase to mean building a wall separating church and state.
  
  The virulent SC justice, hating on the Catholics, actually set good legal precedent. Catholic schools are tax exempt and can teach whatever they want. They can charge money to students who matriculate. Busing is publicly-funded and should not be extended to Catholic schools, unless they want to pay for the service.
  
  I have no problem with religious conservatives being represented in government. But at the same time, there are many interests out there and those of religious conservatives must be integrated in law with those of others. I don't think you'd like the government spending money providing preferential services to pagan "churches," because their doctrine is at odds with Catholicism, and such action would give the appearance of favoritism of that particular religion (the government is supposed to be secular).
  
  

  Churches and religious organizations are regulated by Government in aspects of zoning, taxation, labor, building codes, insurance, cases of eminent domain and so on. Where's the "separation"? The truth is there is none when there's a compelling Government interest! All of the regulations mentioned above may indeed protect religious organizations, but they are nonetheless hardly examples of "separation".

  
  
  If the government didn't treat churches equally by regulating them, then there would be an issue with a lack of separation because they'd be favoring the interests of a religious organization over the law that applies to everyone. Those regulations not only protect religious organizations, but all non-profit organizations; that's what keeps it fair.
  
  [sorry to get so off topic, ed]
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 01, 2006....

  i drafted this on the train and am addressing no other arguments than what was presented in sean's post.
  
  sean: first, i’d like to say that i appreciate your counter arguments and the care you take to express them in a way that facilitates continued discussion. thank you.
  
  and now, to address your comments:
  
  

  gayness is largely unnatural. just because you can find examples of it in nature doesn't mean much. dolphins want to have sex with human females, emus also. dogs hump anything that moves, and a lot of stuff that doesn't. whoopty do. the part about god is an entirely different issue, as natural and written by god are different. but to tackle that one jesus may have overturned the old laws but god making adam and eve would still stand logically speaking. if you go further and take into acount that the purpose of sex in some people's mind is procreation not recreation and you're nailed on two counts.

  
  unnatural as in contrary to nature: sexual activity that does not produce offspring still occurs. therefore, it is not contrary to nature. it really is that simple, sean. as far as christian perspectives re: homosexuality, so god created adam and eve. hetero relationships represents the majority of human romantic/sexual relationships. and again, the levitican prohibitions against “spilling seed” are null and void from a christian perspective, as previously stated (and presumably accepted, as you did not object). the procreation-only view is propounded only by people insufficiently familiar with their theology, IMX. i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: if there’s a god, then the existence of orgasms is proof that he/she/it loves us and wants us to be happy. :>
  
  status: still busted
  
  

  then explain the controversy over abortion, or the laws passed in alabama this year. explain how inteligent design and creationism are being taught. explain why in god we trust is on our money and in our pledge.

  
  there is no clear scriptural reference available to christians re: the impropriety of abortion. you’re familiar w/ abortion discussions and you know this. if you think i’m in error, show me some scriptural evidence to the contrary. i always use this site for this purpose. i’ve never yet found any in any of the discussions i’ve had on the matter in the past however long. as for the stupidity in alabama or the myth of ID: AFAICT, that’s people trying to make religion the basis for law.
  
  but even beyond that: the consumption of alcohol is considered sinful according to certain sects of christianity, such as the southern baptists, among other denominations. yet the sale of alcohol is legal. it may be restricted in some areas due to blue laws. if religion truly were the basis for law, the legality would not exist. similarly, i have a legal right, if i so desire, to desecrate a cross or crucifix, as part of my freedom of expression (see also: mapplethorpe, robert). if i do so i’m sure others will exercise their own freedom of expression to tell me just what they think of such an action, but there you have it. were religion truly the basis for law, that freedom wouldn’t exist and we’d still be under prohibition. the roman catholic church did the entire world a massive favor by eschewing temporal power.
  
  status: still busted
  
  

  yes really. we've defined as such in the united states for quite sometime. how it was done in ancient egypt, colonial america or even modern day italy can serve only as an example, not as a reason why we should do it that way.

  
  the appeal to tradition argument is always a weak one IMX but in this instance spectacularly so. you’re familiar, i trust, w/ mormonism? up until the mid-19th century, polygamy—a rather well-known aspect of that faith—was made illegal in the US expressly because of the mormons. marriage has meant many things through human history. the appeal to tradition arbitrarily selects one point, in spite of the existence of contrary, prior examples and de facto sticks its fingers in its ears screaming “nyeah, nyeah, nyeah! i can’t hear you!”
  
  status: still busted
  
  

  many people believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt where as the other two groups you mentioned should.

  
  and such people are, quite simply, wrong. there is no valid reason to believe that gays should not be parents. given that there is no objective data suggesting that sexual identity is a conscious choice, why restrict the pool of possible adoptive parents, a list which by all reports is nowhere near satisfying the need? if it’s a fear that the children will be gay, that’s simply not supported by the science. if it’s that gays are somehow unfit to be parents, i’d love to see a study by an impartial group (i.e., not focus on the family/family research council) that actually propounds that view.
  
  status: still busted
  
  

  who said it was ok for britney to be married for 36 hours? i can't remember anybody supporting her. i didn't even hear the age old, papparazzi are the devil in this case.

  
  if marriage really were so sacred, then where precisely was the hue and outcry from dr. james dobson, of focus on the family/family research council? where was the outcry from any of the televangelists? where was the outcry from any religious institution at all? no, they all remained as silent as the grave. all of them. if the sanctity of marriage meant so much to them, that would have been the only possible response, not this silence that exposes them as, well, hypocrites.
  
  status: still busted
  
  

  by accepting one form of formerly forbidden marriage it will naturally open the doors to others. just like roe vs. wade has been used to protect gay sex.

  
  you’re arguing slippery slope here sean, a classic logical fallacy, aren’t you? and how in the world does roe v. wade have any impact whatsoever on gay sex? gay sex by definition cannot be impacted by roe v. wade. although i’ll admit, i’m awfully curious to understand the connection.
  
  status: still busted
  
  

  i would do it like this: we the church believe that any two persons living together, be they man and wife, father and son, mother and son, man and man, woman and woman or even two friends living together should get identical legal and financial breaks from the government. they are experiencing the same hardships regardless of their relationship. we however still maintain that god only recognizes unions between a man and a woman. problem solved, they even got to save face.

  
  i appreciate that this is a matter on which you’ve obviously spent no small amount of time considering and i’m sure you’ve done a lot of it on the AH. i also appreciate that you are at least philosophically in agreement w/ the view, if not the arguments i’ve put forward. i always relish an opportunity to sharpen my skills: you have my gratitude.
  
  honestly, i think that you’re asking an awful lot of the RC church. it would be a quantum retreat from their previous positions, esp under benedict. maybe there was some hope for such an idea under john paul 2, who i think became progressively more liberal during his papacy, but his successor is clearly very much his own pontiff, it would seem
  
  thank you, sean. i haven’t had this much fun w/ an online discussion in a long, long time. had this been a face to face conversation, it would have been my pleasure to get us fresh drinks from the bar. :>
  
  ed
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....

  Ooo, I'm lovin this, all to rarely to I find worthy opponents.
  
  Right back atcha:
  Encase your curious about what the Bible says on Gay sex, and on spilling your seed since you brought it up. A lot of arguing with Christians has given me a pretty good knowledge of the Bible.
  
  Just so where on the same page though by your argument, occurs in nature/naturally=natural. The Tigons and Ligers are natural even though they mostly only occur under controlled circumstances, and you could argue that it doesn't happen in nature due to geographical distances. Likewise you would argue that interspecies erotica, at the very least dolphin/human, emu/human and dog/human are all natural as they can occur in nature assuming certain circumstances?
  
  Genisis
  38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.
  Leviticus
  18:22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
  
  You could also say that this doesn't cover lesbians. Which is good, I should bring that to the attention of the church.
  
  You can make the argument however that the teachings of Jesus erase this but since I'm having a hard time finding that passage I'll call it a neutral point for now.
  
  status: Backed by scripture.
  
  
  yes really. we've defined as such in the united states for quite sometime. how it was done in ancient egypt, colonial america or even modern day italy can serve only as an example, not as a reason why we should do it that way.
  
  Maybe most people do when arguing tradition. I only point out recent tradition/conditions. Like I hate when people argue that well we funded Saddam. We funded against the USSR. When the spread of communism ceased to be an issue, and he bit us the rules, and conditions changed. And that was ten years ago. I'm merely saying that I don't care what anybody else is, has or will do. Those can only be used as examples to show working (or nonworking) models. Not reasons why we should do it.
  
  status: Tradition doesn't matter.
  
  
  many people believe that gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt where as the other two groups you mentioned should.
  First not that I'm arguing, but can you produce numbers as to how many children need adoption vs how many are adopted? Second what I said is that many people FEEL. What people feel and what facts and science support aren't always (or even often) related. My point had nothing to do with the quality of care that homosexuals are capable of producing but rather the prejudices that they face.
  
  status: Immortal thanks to ignorance.
  
  
  If silence=consent then you're right. Somethings just aren't important enough to get their panties in a bunch. They jump on gays, they jump on polygamists. Still I see your point, but the church seems to be so against Hollywood and the media that Brittany slutting around is just a drop in the bucket. They probably just filed it away under things they'll bitch about later.
  
  status: On life support.
  
  
  by accepting one form of formerly forbidden marriage it will naturally open the doors to others. just like roe vs. wade has been used to protect gay sex.
  
  I'd have to go look it up directly, as I recall the court case that defended a gay's rights to have sex. As I'm sure you are familar with sodomy (which despite popular opinion doesn't refer expressly to anal, but rather to oral AND anal) was illegal in most states. In some it still is but is rarely prosecuted. If I recall properly they cited Roe vs. Wade as the precedent of privacy in the bed room, and in sexual relations.
  
  I don't think that slippery slope logic is faulty. I think in some ways it is unwarranted but I can easily see polygamy being opened up by gay marriage. I feel that both of them should be allowed. In this case slippery slope works in my favor. Just like I think blacks getting the right to vote lead to women getting the right, again slippery slope can do good things as well.
  
  status: Still won't die.
  
  
  Drinks are on me. Its rare that I get to discuss something at length without name calling and fingerpointing, particularly since I'm rather adamant about my beliefs. Though I hav a hard time destroying parts of your argument becuase I largely agree with you, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 01, 2006....

  mainly cause you are the devil, devil.
  
  ooh, bad joke. At least SR will get it.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 01, 2006....

  Yeah I am. But I'm proud to be the Devil, canine or otherwise.
  
  Also to Silver. They tried to outlaw alcohol, the cost in lives was too high.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....

  sean:
  
  cool. :>
  
  bible: sorry, but leviticus is part of the law and goes away, remember? and i'm somewhat familiar w/ scripture myself. :> the passage you quoted from genesis is a prohibition against masturbation, not against homosexuality. i know the passages, sean. trust me, what you're looking for doesn't exist in the jewish bible. you need the pauline epistles for this part of the conversation. believe me.
  
  appeal to tradition: yes, they do, which is why i think the apppeal to traditition has all the argumentive force of toilet paper. :>
  
  adoption: figures are available for number of prospective adoptees. i don't believe figures are available re: potential adoptive parents but i do know that every single time i see the matter crop up in the news, the social services staff always mention that there aren't enough adoptive parents. and remember, i mentioned this in the first place only in response to your asking for evidence that religion isn't the basis for law. :>
  
  britney: yes, that's precisely it, silence=consent. that's a much more efficient phrasing.
  
  slippery slopes: er...i don't think you're employing an accurate definition of this, b/c it wasn't a slippery slope that caused voting rights for blacks to lead to voting rights for women. a slippery slope assumes incorrectly an inevitability b/n each set of events then extends it to the hypothetical. am i missing something?
  
  bordy: separation of church and state resulted from a supreme court decision and is the basis of well over a century of caselaw. :>
  
  faithinmind: if religious organizations accept government money, that money comes w/ strings att'd, just like any government money. when religious organizations are exempt from taxes, well, that too has a price. what specifically were you talking about?
  
  madstorm: your question requires a premise i cannot accept, that there's something wrong w/ having sex w/ people of the same sex sex.
  
  ed
  

• Bordy said on Sep 02, 2006....

  I did not argue the realty of the "Separation of church and state" concept, I Am saying people incorrectly misuse it all the damn time.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....

  but nobody in this discussion is. :>
  
  ed
  

• Bordy said on Sep 02, 2006....

  I believe they were. Sorry to quote an already argued point IPJ, but
  

  I live in the US, not Vatican City, so looking to the Vatican for any insight on this matter is irrelevant. There is separation of church and state, at least until the Republicans get into office and muck things up. The Pope recently made a statement that we work too hard; everyone should take more vacation. Does this mean that our government will enact a new law or even amend the Constitution to make it so? Very doubtful.

  
  

• Amalia said on Sep 02, 2006....

  I am very little familiar with the subject, and totally unqualified to talk about it.
  
  But I have a wonder: why do gay people use the words 'husband'/'wife' when they refer to their partners? Weren't the words 'husband' and 'wife' made up in order to describe a definite couple relationship man-woman engaged in a marital relation? Now that gay people need to define somehow their specific kind of 'marital' relation, don't they need to make up specific words defining their specific civil status? It's a silly question, and the words they use do not really matter. Just wondering.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 02, 2006....

  A solid point I never thought about... but wouldn't that further increase the divide that seems to be present here? And further label them as different? Think we're going for equality.
  
  Wow, that sounds snotty. I'm sorry, I really didn't mean it to.
  
  IPJ, ed, any thoughts? Or am I entirely off.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 02, 2006....

  I suppose technically slippery slope means that A inevitably leads to B, instead of B is very likely to follow A. Course by that definition slippery slope never applies to humans because there is always an X factor.
  
  Where does Jesus actualy tell people to ignore the old rules. The closest I'm finding is the verses where he's quite clear that if you have money you ain't gettin in.
  
  And I know the Genesis quote was about masturbating, you'd mentioned something about spilling seed so I figured I would go and troll that up as a side issue.
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 02, 2006....

  The term "slippery slope" specifically refers to a particular logical fallacy, in which a set of events are imputed to be contingently related such that the first event inevitable leads to the last, without providing any evidence or support for that contingent relationship. Pragmatically and colloquially, the term "slippery slope" seems to have garnered some bizarre sort of credibility, with people gleefully labelling their arguments as slippery slopes, not realizing what they are saying. People also sometimes try to claim that slippery slope arguments are sometimes valid, which is a pretty pig-stupid position, given that the term definitionally refers to a fallacy (and is, hence, necessarily invalid). "Slippery slope" doesn't refer to a class of aqrguments relying on a contingent chain (like the Hypothetical Syllogism in propositional calculus), but specifically to an unsupported assertion that handwaves at contingency.
  
  Yes, philosophical malapropism is one of my hot-buttons...
  Rest assurred, the pedantic one now returns to quiescent slumber...
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....

  bordy: that's the wrong question. the question is really more one of whether straights have problems w/ members of the same sex.
  
  sean: when christ says that he fulfills the law, he's saying that the rest of the law no longer applies. there's no need for christians to be circumcised, for example: the only reason we do that in the US is the sad legacy of kellogg and his anti-masturbation nonsense.
  
  chimaera: nice to see you again. :>
  
  ed
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 02, 2006....

  Thats around when he dies yes? Once again I'm asking because so much is taken out of context.
  

• scalywag said on Sep 02, 2006....

  Interesting discussion. My vote is that gay marriage is fine.
  
  (Man I'm glad I didn't post earlier and say something stupid.)
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 02, 2006....

  sean: i'm sorry, i'm not sure i'm following your meaning: ?
  
  ed
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 03, 2006....

  scaly: hey, i never let that stop me... :>
  
  ed
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 03, 2006....

  Actually, silver, Jewish women have a vastly lower rate of cervical cancer than gentile women; circumcision may have something to do with that...
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 03, 2006....

  chimaera: i'm sensing a correlation <> causation qualifier in the offing. and it's not like when that trend become the norm in the US (is it true where you are as well?) that was the reason for it. :>
  
  ed
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 03, 2006....

  It's been the rationale behind every non-Jewish circumsicion I've been made privy to... And please, dude... who are you talking to? When have you ever known me to confuse correlation with causation? While I haven't made an in-depth study of the matter, I assure you that the medical professionals that I've discussed the matter with tend to concur. The balance of informed opinion on the matter that I've been exposed to supports the notion.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 03, 2006....

  chimaera: i'm familiar w/ the issue. i'm not at all convinced that such information controls adequately for proper hygienic practice.
  
  ed
  

• Dazlak said on Sep 03, 2006....

  Why are you quoting the bible?
  
  If we use the bible as a guide to live our lives then woman should not speak in public, when a woman is having a period then she should not to to Church, I can have slaves, and we could stone children to death who do not behave.
  
  Jesus taught us many things and we should take his message to the heart.. but to live by the bible.. that is just total bull...
  
  Should gays be allowed to marry? Marriage as FD said is a contract between to persons that in the eyes of the law are a single entity. They are one. If they live in a open relationship, or are gays or do not have sex.. should not matter. They just want a contract that says what is mine is his also.
  
  And should gays be married in a church? I think that is something that the church should discuss and decide for the themselves. A priest should decide if he should marry gays or not.
  

• Anselm said on Sep 03, 2006....

  "but if we allow gay marriage, it will lead to polygamy!"
  This isn't ad hominem. It is a slippery slope argument. And a red herring.
  If there's a good reason against polygamy that applies to same-sex marriage, why hasn't it been applied to same-sex marriage? And if the reason doesn't apply to same-sex marriage, then allowing same-sex marriage would have no effect on it.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 04, 2006....

  With all this, I still have not heard a compelling argument against legalizing gay marriage...
  
  The Bible rhetoric is merely taking the conversation off topic.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....

  Honestly law is largely based on the supposedly faulty "Slippery Slope" mechanic. That is what LEGAL PRECEDENT is. We allow one thing and because of that a court of law says that we'll allow something else. Course I'm all for polygamy.
  
  @Silver, since you weren't giving me a Bible verse to look at for when Jesus said he completes the law I was trying to narrow my search somewhat.
  
  @IPJ, not the Bible folks are really the only people strongly against gay marriage. Hense they are the ones who need to be convinced, they don't work (primarily) on common sense of scientific discovery, or polls or any other measureable amount of data. They have this book though. . .
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....

  There is nothing 'supposed' about it... the term slippery slope specifically denotes a fallacious pattern of reasoning. And legal precedent is by no means necessarily slippery slope in nature; it involves argumentation as to why the reasoning and decision in one case should apply to some novel case. That's not a slippery slope -- that involves principled argumentation to establish the relevance of one case to another, which kind of undermines the definition of a slippery slope.
  

• desertsienna said on Sep 04, 2006....

  Why we are on circumcision is beyond me, but there are several studies which suggest that rates of penile cancer and cervical cancer are lower amongst groups that have been circumsized:
  
  Modern proponents suggest that diseases result from the buildup of smegma, a substance secreted under the foreskin. Also cited is evidence that circumcised populations (especially Jews) display low rates of penile and cervical cancer. Critics reject the validity of these claims, arguing that such disorders are more likely caused by poor hygiene and by contact with multiple sex partners.
  
  Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 04, 2006....

  anselm: it is ad hominem in that people tend to oppose polygamy.
  
  sean: what chimaera said. :>
  
  desertsienna: that issue is easily addressed through proper hygiene.
  
  ed
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....

  Fine whatever. It doesn't really matter if it is a fallacy as long as people believe it. We are talking politics and public opinion trumps science and logic every time.
  
  What is the actual proper term for saying that if one thing occurs, say uh increasing education in our schools, that the literacy rate will increase? Or that if you don't excercise that you will lose muscle mass and gain fat?
  
  Or that when you allow free thought all kinds of "Bible" Rhetoric will hold less sway over people.
  
  Or as is applicable to this case that if you allow one kind of non-traditional marriage to be accepted that it is more likely that people will vote to allow other non traditional forms of marriage?
  
  Hell how exactly is Legal Precedent not opening the door for other similar cases to receive similar ruling? I'm not saying that situation A inevitably leads to B, I'm saying logically it seems likely and I'd be curious what the proper term is so we can stop battling over semantics.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 04, 2006....

  sean, a logical fallacy by definition is not a sound argument.
  
  ed
  

• Anselm said on Sep 04, 2006....

  "anselm: it is ad hominem in that people tend to oppose polygamy."
  
  Ad hominem is attacking a person rather than the position. The polygamy argument is not about the arguers.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 04, 2006....

  hm. i think it is, for the reason previously stated.
  
  no wait: you're right. it's a guilt by association argument. beg your pardon, sir.
  
  ed
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....

  You're thinking of a Hypothetical Syllogism, an argument in the form of:
  
  P implies Q
  Q implies R
  
  Therefore,
  
  P implies R
  
  That is a valid argument. The problem comes when one is unable to establish those contingent implications. Your example of legal precedent as a slippery slope is a misanalogy, because the process by which a precedent is applied to a given case is one of argument and consideration, i.e.: evaluating and possible establishing the implication. In a slippery slope, that relationship is not established in any principled manner.
  
  Now, if you're arguing that allowing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy, that IS a slippery slope unless and until you can establish how that will happen. Handwaving at the phenomenon of legal precedent is insufficient; you'll have to provide some kind of evidence or rigourous argumentation to support that notion. As it stands, it's just a fallacious argument based upon unproven, poor inference. Perhaps you're arguing that the frame of mind implied by gay marriage is also one that will be tolerant of polygamy? I don't agree, but I think that's closer to what I think you're trying to say. Personally, there is nothing really relevantly in common between polygamy and gay marriage other than their current 'marginal' status. The slippery slope arguments that link them seek to exploit the seemingly ubiquitous 'common-sense' notion that polygamy is clearly and unambiguously wrong and contaminate the notion of gay marriage with it. I've seen people trying to do the same using bestiality in place of polygamy as well, and even pederasty. It's poor argumentation, tying in cheap and lurid appeals to emotion and slippery slopes.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....

  Thank you for telling me the proper term so we could move forward. Granted not all people are like me, but I support both gay marriage and polygamy despite being neither (not that I could complain about having 8 wives). I would venture that people who are tolerant of other lifestyles that are not harmful to the us, just like you being gay doesn't hurt me, you having 8 wives (assuming they are there willingly) doesn't hurt me.
  
  One thing might not lead to another, I personally hope that they do. They might not. The only thing that connects the two is that they are non-standard marriage practices. I admit that.
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....

  It occurs to me that you may not be positing a chain of contingent events, but rather the single contingency of the legalization of gay marriage leading directly to the legalization of polygamy... Generally, the slippery slope concept, as applied to this issue in particular, is used to insinuate the erosion of moral values in baby-steps; that one little compromise leads to another and then another and so on, until we are eventually mired in a thoroughly immoral society.
  
  Even so, that single contingency has yet to be established, so the burden of proof for that argument remains unmet.
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 04, 2006....

  Ah, I see now... you're not making an assertion of a causal link, but rather hoping for one... gotcha. For what it's worth, I basically agree with you. While I'm not as sanguine about the issue of polygamy as you are (I think it's a little more complex than just consenting adults), I'm also of the frame of mind that what agreeable, responsible folks do amongst themselves and to themselves and each other, is largely not my business, nor the government's.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 04, 2006....

  I agree that generally the Slippery Slope is used as a negative idea towards immorality. I merely view the "concept" which you informed me the proper term for is hypothetical Syllagism to mean that something is the first step that can logically move to other established beliefs being taken away.
  
  I honestly believe that had Blacks not been granted the right to vote it would have taken longer for women to gain the right than it did. I view this as a positive and I'm certain there are many other complex factors at work I firmly belief this was one of them.
  
  Yes I am hoping that logically once people see that gays being allowed to marry didn't end the world they will realize that maybe polygamist won't end either. That it won't bring about the Armageddon.
  

• Lysander said on Sep 05, 2006....

  I think Eisentadt V Baird had more hand in the decision in Lawrence V Texas than Roe V Wade did.
  
  Eisentadt V Baird really helped break down the walls where certain laws only protected married couples. Eisentadt V Baird said that unmarried couples had the right to possess contraception just like married couples did.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....

  I know we got far far removed from the this question after it was dodged. But the argument was made that since homosexuality can be observed in X different kinds of animals that it is natural. I countered that dolphins, emus and canines often engage in interspecies erotica. Would this make then natural as well?
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 05, 2006....

  But Sean, you are not comparing apples to apples. There are humans who engage in interspecies erotica (I like to call it beastiality), and no, that's not natural (that's why the asian bird flu is getting so out of hand... you shouldn't fuck your chicken). But two humans (regardless of gender) enjoying sexual freedom...well, that's natural to me. Likewise, if two dogs or emus or whatever (regardless of gender) want to get it on... well, it's natural.
  
  You have yet to make a strong argument to me in opposition of gay marriage.
  
  So far, you have cited the Bible (totally irrelevant to me vis-a-vis creating law in the US), stated that allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to polygamy (again, we're not looking at apples and apples), and compared gay sex to beastiality. Frankly, you are insulting my intelligence.
  

• RollingC said on Sep 05, 2006....

  What I have to say is really not too provocative or intelligent for that matter....
  But whatever happened to "Live and let Live"?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....

  No I'm not. If anybody I'm insulting SilverWhisper's intelligence for suggesting that just because something occurs in nature doesn't make it natural per se.
  
  I did cite the Bible because that is where most of the opposition lies and you didn't site where Jesus said to ignore the law. It is accepted but I would like the verse just to make sure it isn't taken out of context like so much else of the Bible.
  
  I didn't say it will inevitably lead to it Chimaera set me straight on terminology. It will increase the likelihood.
  
  Course if you were paying attention. I'M ALL FOR GAY MARRIAGE, POLYGAMY, I'M NOT EVEN CERTAIN HOW IT IS ANY OF MY BUSSINESS IF YOU FUCK YOUR DOG.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....

  Stupid double post happens whenever I try to edit anything. And it doesn't let me edit to boot! Grrrr.
  
  I'm going to assume that your bird flu comment was a joke btw. Since last I heard it hadn't even been documented in human beings or has that changed since I got bored of following the stories?
  
  Also as for what happened to live and let live that rule is only applied when you can't figure a way that it effects you. If it effects you or one you love you should take action to fix it. Like I vote and occasionally even rally for gay marriage, it should be a right. The is a situation that effects us as a nation and we claim to be non judgemental and free. We need to prove it.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 05, 2006....

  No need to shout. You're here to play devil's advocate (that part I did read). So, make me an argument. I am here to play, aren't you?
  
  Sorry if I misread your personality (and I guess your words).
  
  Plus, I didn't cite shit about Jesus because I was raised to believe he's just a carpenter, ya know. Jesus' law is not the law of the US, so it's irrelevant. I'm personally not a bible-thumper.
  
  If our laws become more liberal, they will lead to a lot of changes (and not just concerning marriage issues). It's not fair to pick just the legality of polygamy as a potential societal change that will occur if gay marriage is legalized. Maybe we'll stop wiretapping innocent people and legalize marijuana. See, gay marriage won't lead to all bad news.
  
  I don't fuck my dog, but you are correct, my relationships are none of your business.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....

  I am definitely here to play. Mostly to get practice in for more important issues though. You should run for an office though. No need to cite Jesus, I agree that Bible law isn't our law. That part was merely quoted because for some reason I think somebody said you can't find X in the Bible, so I did. The Bible is definitly on my list of the better you know your enemy the better you're able to strike him down.
  
  I'm pretty much all for the legalization of anything that is only harmful to an individual and of little or no harm to those around them. I won't talk about wiretapping on this thread, that's a whole different issue that I suppose I'll have to blog. I'm of mixed feelings on it to be honest. I think Bush is a retard for how he handled it though.
  
  No need to apologize. I'm not always as clear as I should be. Sometimes it leads me to get frustrated. My fault.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 05, 2006....

  I agree with you, Sean (I did not think I'd say that), "live and let live" is a convenient way to bury your head in the sand and take no action. Taking some action is always better than no action.
  
  Gay marriage should be a right, but not for the reasons that everyone thinks. Gays want to be treated equally. In the quest for an overt recognition of equality, marriage has become an issue because we aren't allowed to do it. I'll call my wife my partner, if the law treats us the same as husband and wife. Semantical terminology is meaningless, it is the intent behind it that impacts me.
  
  And yes, the bird flu comment was a joke, kind of... I still don't think you should fuck chickens (call me old fashioned).
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....

  Exactly, judge and take action.
  
  I don't think you should fuck chickens, dogs or donkeys. I'm not willing to pass laws to stop you. It ain't my bussiness. I agree that the law shoudl treat you the same.
  
  What reason if not the one that I think, is the one why gays should be allowed to marry.
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 05, 2006....

  If it occurs in nature, it's natural... finding interspecies sexuality in nature doesn't make homosexuality unnatural, it merely makes interspecies sexuality natural as well. Besides, it's not as if the proponents of gay marriage do so on the basis of it being natural; rather, opponents of it make specious claims of homosexuality being unnatural and Silver's point was a refutation of that. Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by natural, because you seem to be using it in a manner different than the one I'm accustomed to.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....

  "you’ll find homosexual behavior in well over 1000 different species in nature, esp bonobo chimps, IIRC."
  -Silverwhisper
  
  I was just asking that does the fact that something occurs in nature make it natural. By the standard set by that statement interspecies erotica would be considered natural.
  
  REally I was just backing him into a corner and seeing what he would say. It really had little to nothing to do with the subject. I just wanted somebody to say what you just said, beastiality is natural. Which wierds me out.
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 05, 2006....

  Why does it weird you out? Again, I think you're using the term 'natural' in a way that I don't understand.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....

  Natural=normal. I understand what you are saying Chimera, but no amount of occurs in nature is going to make me think that sex with animals is natural/normal.
  
  Does some of the shit you can get on the net not weird you out? Hell don't those damn fish from the Marianna Trench, or the Duckbilled Platypuss wierd you out despite being 100% natural?
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 05, 2006....

  No, natural most certainly does not equal normal. I'm in no way saying that beastiality is normal or good or any other form of endorsement... I'm merely acknowledging that interspecies sexual behaviour occurs in nature. Lot's of things occur in nature that are not normal or carry a negative moral value, like incest and the consumption of one's own young.
  
  Again, the pro-gay contingent aren't advancing the natural-ness of homosexuality as a positive moral assertion of vindication, but rather responding to the rather ridiculous claim that homosexuality is unnatural. It demonstrably isn't.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....

  I know that the pro-gays aren't advancing the normalness. I was refering to a specific statement made by Silver, nothing more.
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 05, 2006....

  Really? Where did Silver equate natural with normal?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Sep 05, 2006....

  That he didn't I suppose I read that into the fact that he said that the argument about it being unnatural is faulty becaus animals are homosexual as well.
  

• Chimaera said on Sep 05, 2006....

  Cool.
  
  He's right, too.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 06, 2006....

  things have been somewhat crazy, which precluded my participating in this discussion as i would have liked.
  
  and now i see that it's more or less over. :<
  
  :>
  
  ed
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....

  I hate the word "normal;" it is a completely subjective standard and means something different to each individual. The word "natural" I see as a description of something that exists or is created in nature; the antonym is "artificial."
  
  I think I am "normal." I have a wife, two kids, a dog, I live in a house in the suburbs, we have two cars, a canoe, even a goddamned picket fence. However, if you asked a bible-thumper from South Carolina if my life is "normal," he'd likely say, "no." Likewise, if someone asked me the same question about the aforementioned bible-thumper, I'd likely say, "no," as well. To me, it's not normal to hate people because of sexual orientation, religious conviction, or really for any judgmental reason.
  
  Sean, my statement: "Gay marriage should be a right, but not for the reasons that everyone thinks." means that some people (like madstorm, for example) think gays want to get married for the sole purpose of being married. That is not a true assertion. As I explained, the push for the legalization of gay marriage is an attempt by the gay community to get a legal recognition of equality. It's more a symbol for how gays want to be treated than a desire to get hitched. I consider myself married under the eyes of God to my wife; yet, I want a law recognizing that I am permitted to marry my wife because we are equal to all other citizens of this nation.
  
  To me, this harkens back to anti-miscegenation statutes, which were created after slavery was abolished to prevent the freed blacks from enjoying equal treatment under the law. There was a huge propaganda campaign (spearheaded by the Democrats (who by the way were more conservative than the Republicans until the 1960s when political ideologies flip-flopped)) that consisted of distributing pamphlets that appeared to support the mixing of races. The pamphlets described a world of only one race because the mixing of races would be so prevalent and everyone would participate and distinctions between whites and blacks would no longer exist. The pamphlets were created to stir up fear in ignorant citizens.
  
  Do you see a correlation to the anti-gay marriage movement? Obviously, allowing mixed-race marriage has not led to an annihilation of any one race. The arguments against gay marriage that point to legalized polygamy and beastiality are similar propaganda techniques.
  
  [ed, you get up waaaay too early]
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....

  IPJ: I'm going to let my ignorance show a bit here, don't take this as anything but what it is...
  
  Other than the right to have a "legal" marriage & adoption, what other rights do I, a straight man, have that a gay man doesn't?
  
  What 'extra rights' does my wife have that yours doesn't?
  
  Predjudice of the ignorant asside, what rights under the law, other than marriage, are you talking about when you say "he push for the legalization of gay marriage is an attempt by the gay community to get a legal recognition of equality.".
  
  How are you "un-equal" under the law? I'm pretty sure that you have the same rights as I do when it comes to voting, owning land, owning a business, and getting an education... so what is it? What rights?
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 06, 2006....

  there are over 1000 separate legal rights a legal spouse possesses which others do not, including power of attorney, right of inheritance, next of kin status (important for hospitals and illnesses) and a host of other ones. i don't have a link but i'm fairly certain IPJ does. :>
  
  ed
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....

  SW: Power of attorney doesn't have to be a spouse... I could give my dog a power of attorney if I could convince a notary that he was an actual person. well, maybe not that, but a power of attorney could be granted to just about anyone, as long as it's notorized. Hell, you can even grant it to a lawyer if your crazy enough.
  
  What's more, its possible for two friends to buy a house 'with rights of survivorship.' if one of them kicks the bucket, the other gets full ownership of the house. No inheritence tax, No marriage licence needed. Also possible to add a person to a deed prior to your death. I.E. a child or loved one who you want to 'inherite' the property. The rights of survivorship mean exactly that, if you survive the other person on the deed, you get full ownership. which is different than a transfer of ownership, in that you already own it.
  
  Most poeple take it in the rear from inheritance issues, the governments roughly 50% inheritance tax sees to that... So equal status doesn't really help if you don't know how to legally get around it anyway.
  
  the 1000 legal rights for spouses still fall under the right to marry. My point is that it sounded like IPJ was downplaying the right to marry as the main reason for wanting the right to marry.
  
  I'm aware that there are legal benefits to marriage, I'm also aware that kids are a tax write off. (which is not a good reason to have them...). What I'm not aware of, is the other legal inequities that she hinted at.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....

  Rights that you have as a legally married couple (that gay couples do not have):
  
  
  
  
  • survivorship (there is a presumption that real property, bank accounts, personal property passes to your spouse upon your death)
  • intestacy (it is presumed that your spouse takes all when you die without a will)
  • tenancy by the entirety (a property law that joins property to married couples; this is not available to anyone but married couples)
  • divorce
  • inheritance
  • next of kin status
  • employment benefits
  • retirement benefits
  • insurance benefits (I can't have the same auto insurance policy as my wife)
  • tax benefits (filing status as married)
  • stepparent adoption (because the father of my wife's children will not condone it, I am not a legal guardian of my children)
  • ability to sue for the wrongful death of a spouse
  • make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse
  • use sick leave to care for an ill spouse
  • no tax on the value of your spouse's health care benefits (when you file a joint tax return)
  • receive the birth and death records of a spouse
  • file for state disability benefits on behalf of a mentally ill spouse
  
  This list is not exhaustive, and marriage rights/laws are different state to state, but I have some real work to do today.
  
  Moreover, Indie, gays want equality. When there is a law enacted telling me that I cannot do something that hetero people can do, I am being discriminated against. This also applies to the present situation where there is no law, per se, banning gay marriage, but the interpretation of state laws de facto bans such unions.
  
  Yes, single people have equal rights. Hooray. When you decide one day to get married to your love, however, you will not face discrimination and I will. Through such laws (and interpretations of laws), a stigma is placed on gay people. The stigma has far-reaching effects on equal treatment of gays.
  
  My law firm has weekly meetings to discuss work load, legal issues, etc. This week's meeting also included an open session discussion of former NJ Gov. McGreevey (who is gay). Quite a bit of gay bashing went on in this meeting and all I wanted to do was crawl under the table. I was forced to sit there calmly and pretend like I was enjoying the discussion for fear that someone would find out I'm gay. It is so easy to say that we're all equal, but when your boss is Catholic and abhors gays, I'm not going to raise my hand and let him know that I am one of the ones he hates. Legally, he cannot discriminate against me by firing me, but we all live in the real world and realize that firing someone for being gay is not the only form of discrimination. In my career, silence is golden.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....

  Indie, why should I have to make contractual arrangements to achieve each of these rights when married couple get to do it with one contract? That doesn't sound very equal now does it?
  

• Bordy said on Sep 06, 2006....

  As far as power of attorney goes, I still had to get one for my wife to be able to talk to my school's financial aid dept for me (main campus is a LONG way away from where I work, so I couldn't make it). They would not accept the marriage as a proof of power of attorney.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....

  No, power of attorney does not require marriage; it is a right that you can grant to another, with a notary's seal providing it force and effect. If your wife is not cosigned on your loans, it is true, she would need power of attorney to make decisions on your behalf.
  
  Power of attorney is not on my list.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 06, 2006....

  Wasn't directed at you.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....

  IPJ: all of those are valid, but my question was, other than marrital status. I got the impression that there are other rights not associated with marriage that you were refering too.
  
  That is what I'm attempting to clarify. Legally the only reason you want to have the right to marry a same sex partner is to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.
  
  O.K. Good, that in and of itself is a completely valid reason to want that.
  
  Other than the legal rights associated with marriage, the inequities you face are based, not on the law, or the interpretations there of, but on predjudice.
  
  "Legally, he cannot discriminate against me by firing me, but we all live in the real world and realize that firing someone for being gay is not the only form of discrimination. In my career, silence is golden.
  
  You can replace the word gay with just about any religion, or color, or creed. At the end of the day, discrimination is still discrimination, regardless of who it is pointed at. Unfortunetly I don't think that changing the law will change that.
  
  Which doesnot mean that I'm against changing the interpretation of the marriage laws, just that I don't think that it, by itself, will make bigots less ignorant.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....

  Re: Powers of attorney, Like I said, if I could only convince a notary that my dog was a real person... Hell, maybe I could get him on my deed with rights of survivorship while I was at it...
  
  failing that, just about I could grant it to just about anyone if I wanted too, just as I could grant equal ownership to any property I own, regardless of marital or familial status.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 06, 2006....

  indie: irrespective of to whom you're addressing the question, your dog isn't a legal person and hence the example is irrelevant.
  
  ed
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....

  SW: Just don't tell my dog that... He might have his feelings hurt...
  
  ed, you do know that the whole getting my dog a power of attorney thing was simply a vehicle to emphisise the point that who you grant it to doesn't matter so long as they are a real person and the document is signed by a notary.... right?
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 06, 2006....

  i sometimes get a tad literal-minded in the middle of discussions. sorry! :>
  
  ed
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....

  SW: you had me worried for a second....
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....

  Indie, we've got to start somewhere to break down stereotypes and prejudices. Being treated 100% equally under the law will help break down those barriers. Discrimination against blacks has declined since the 60s. Sure, it still exists on some fronts (hell, I lived in Louisiana), but it is certainly better now than it was, and largely because of the Equal Rights Amendments.
  
  Yes, I want the legal right to be married. But I think other homosexuals will agree with me that my desire to be legally married is more for equal treatment under the law than to actually be married. If gays were prohibited from riding on airplanes, I'd want the legal right to do that. Even though it's just one legal hurdle, the fact that any hurdle exists makes me want to jump it. We have a legal restriction that discriminates against us; to some the right to marry may be trivial, but for us it represents a legal acknowledgement of our equality.
  
  Bigots are ignorant by nature; I don't expect any law to relieve them of their ignorance... only education and open-mindedness can do that.
  
  I agree with you that granting gays the right to marry will not change the social stigma against homosexuality; but maybe if the nation can see that our government sees us as equal citizens some of the stigmatizing will stop. I am naive, but hopeful nonetheless.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....

  "en though it's just one legal hurdle, the fact that any hurdle exists makes me want to jump it. We have a legal restriction that discriminates against us; to some the right to marry may be trivial, but for us it represents a legal acknowledgement of our equality."
  
  That is the exact point I wanted clarified.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....

  If only I could successfully clarify the points of the legal argument I'm making in my brief right now... *sigh* I think I waste all my good brain cells on SC sometimes.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 06, 2006....

  IPJ: so many possible snarky comments, so little time... :D
  
  ed
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....

  snark away, ed.
  
  I wish someone could tell me about the entire controversy doctrine. I ain't finding nothing in my research that is on point...it's like so annoying.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....

  Countroversy doctrine???? Can't help you there... I know of some countroversial doctrines... I even know some controversial doctors...
  
  but that sounds a bit more specific... perhaps a bit more data...
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....

  It's like res judicata or claim preclusion. I know the right answer, but I can't find any case law to support my conclusion. I am sure it exists, but I am having trouble crafting my search.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....

  IPJ: careful where you park them big words... somebody might learn something... ;)
  
  I wish I could help you, but unless your talking real estate law, I'm affraid i'm pretty much useless...
  
  I'm also of the opinion that real estate lawyers are payed by the syllable... with bonus points for using latin words with more than 8 letters.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 06, 2006....

  Sorry, big words make me feel special...LOL. My favorite lawyer word is "dispositive," followed closely by "inchoate" (pronounced in-koh-it).
  
  The case does have some property law (not real estate) implications, but it is pretty much a tort. I shouldn't even ask for help because I can't give out any of the details about the case that would allow anyone to help. I guess I'm just being a whiner.
  
  Don't I wish I was paid by the syllable! Then I might actually be able to pay off my studen loans.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 06, 2006....

  My favorite lawyer word is 'Executrix'... it sounds so... ominous... and just a bit naughty... LOL!
  
  "Jane Doe, the duly appointed and qualified execurtrix of the estate of John Doe, deceased"
  

• Bordy said on Sep 06, 2006....

  Still wondering on the JD/MBA concept. You guys are makin me all randy talking like that though.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 07, 2006....

  Bordy, don't become a lawyer unless you want to be unemployed and then underpaid. The market for attorneys SUCKS right now, and finding a decent job to pay back your student loans is nearly impossible.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 07, 2006....

  I want my MBA (focus in accounting) but the wife says I would make a decent lawyer (thats what i get for telling her I enjoyed my business law class). I don't want to do that though. Especially so because the only schools here that offer that degree are Stetson and FSU (cant afford the first, hate the second)
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 07, 2006....

  Yeah, stick with the MBA. You can be a businessman and make scads of money without the debt of law school. Stetson is way too over priced (I always likened it to a country club more than a college).
  
  Plus, business law is only one of many facets of law. When you go to law school, you must study all areas of law (even tax... ugh!) regardless of on what your dual degree program focuses.
  
  I don't want to be a nay-sayer, but I never advise anyone to go to lawschool. I wish someone would have given me that advice. It really seems to have done more harm than good.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 07, 2006....

  IPJ: wouldn't the country club aspect at least give him some potentially highly valuable connections?
  
  ed
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 07, 2006....

  Nah, that school just a bunch of rich kids who buy their way into college; sometimes those connections are helpful, but usually only if you are also a rich kid who bought your way into school. It will give him some highly valued DEBT, however.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 07, 2006....

  Hey, lay off tax law. My background is in taxes! The IRS taught me taxes so I could run the free tax office on my base in San Diego (well, not run run, but I was the assistant NCOIC at least), then I worked for Liberty Tax last year and had my own store. Now I am an accounting clerk, learning the bigger (and better) side of accounting.
  
  But I still love taxes and tax law.
  
  And gay marriage.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 07, 2006....

  Someone's gotta do it, Bordy. That someone ain't me; so I am glad people like you exist out there. PLease go work for the IRS! They need some people with intelligence there; every interaction I have with IRS is painful because I must dumb everything down. It is so frustrating.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 07, 2006....

  Bordy: I knew there was something funny about you.... Does your family know? My parents would dis-own me if I came out and said that I loved taxes...
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 07, 2006....

  Hey, indie, tax people deserve equal treatment too. Don't discriminate. Hahahahahaha.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 07, 2006....

  IPJ: I'm a pretty easy going type of guy, you know, live and let live and all that, but there are certain... lifestyle choices... that I just can't bring myself to support....
  
  Loving tax law is unatrual!! It's just not right! I mean, free love is alright and everything, but screwing an entire nation... that level of promiscuity is unhealthy... and don't get me started on the papercuts invovled in 'loving' tax laws... *shudder*
  

• Bordy said on Sep 07, 2006....

  Hey what I choose to do with tax law behind closed doors is none of yours, or the government's business.
  
  Why should some non-tax-loving people get to love their laws and I cannot love mine?
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 07, 2006....

  But think of the children!
  ...would adding 'save the whales' be over the top?
  

• Bordy said on Sep 07, 2006....

  Alright everybody, hands in the air... don't move and nobody gets hurt... this thread has been hijacked.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 07, 2006....

  ROTFLMFAO...
  
  How apropos just prior to 9/11's 5th.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 07, 2006....

  Ah dammit. I didn't intend that.
  
  Was meaning to reference SW's post about new rules on his threads.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 07, 2006....

  It's ok Bordy, I understand that you were talking gibberjabber... I won't tell SW, so no need to worry bout having your post deleted.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 07, 2006....

  I do, in fact, pity the fool.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 07, 2006....

  LOL!
  
  wow! I wasn't sure anyone would get the reference... :D
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 07, 2006....

  [haves a mohawk into all three of 'em]
  
  [trout-smacks 'em all]
  
  [distributes loads of necklaces to 'em]
  
  ed
  

• RollingC said on Sep 08, 2006....

  Boy...from gay marriage to tax law lovers....
  This discussion is really open-minded...too bad we aren't all like that in real life.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 08, 2006....

  I am. I can't stand taxes, and have absolutly no idea why anyone would even consider working for the IRS. I would honestly dis-own my child if they decided to do such an imoral thing.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 08, 2006....

  Why is working for the IRS immoral? Taxes are necessary, and people making sure that the general populace cheats as little as possible is sadly also necessary.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 08, 2006....

  People who work at the IRS (from my experience) are retarded. I just got off the phone with the IRS, trying to get to the bottom of my (and my wife's) tax issues. The number one reason why I want a legal recognition of our union is to deal with the goddamned IRS.
  
  All of the money that I have been paying from my/my wife's joint bank account has been credited to my account. I have no tax liability. I owed a small amount from 2003, but my refund from 2005 is way higher (so I still get a refund). I have not received that refund, however, because the computer at IRS froze my account because it reported payments on an account with no tax liability.
  
  My wife's payment plan program was defaulted and IRS threatened another lien on our bank account. This is because I was the sender of the payments, so they linked those payments to my account (even though I put my wife's information on the memo of the check). Now the IRS is further delaying my refund because they must properly credit my wife's account with the misapplied payments and adjust penalties and interest. It is completely ludicrous.
  
  Now, they won't talk to me about my wife's account because we are "unrelated" on paper. My wife is going to have to call and deal with her end separately, whereas if we were legally married, I could have handled both accounts in one phone call. Talk about a marriage for convenience. This is so frustrating!
  
  So, it confirms my belief that IRS employees are retarded. I am glad they are into equal opportunity hiring, but maybe they shouldn't give the special people so much responsibility. I am fuming mad.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 08, 2006....

  [I am rather enjoying the mohawk. It takes a long time to spike it up because my hair is so long, but once I get it in place, it looks fab.]
  

• Bordy said on Sep 08, 2006....

  Yeah... sadly, the people you will talk to at the IRS tend to be a bunch of knuckle-dragging mouth breathers. Those are usually unskilled jobs, call center techs trained for certain purposes. If I were to ever work for the IRS, I would more likely be in a better job than that, what with the accounting background and all that.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 08, 2006....

  I haven't found the "experts" who work there to be any better. One of the first problems we had with IRS was that they were investigating us as potential terrorists because our tax info. suggested money laundering. When my wife called to figure out what was going on, she discovered that they moved the decimal point in her salary and she was making A LOT more than she actually makes. Oops.
  
  Sorry, Bordy, they're all idiots. You should go work for a big corporation and make seven figures with your awesome accounting skillz...
  

• Bordy said on Sep 08, 2006....

  Oh, I don't want to work for the IRS. I just love taxes.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 08, 2006....

  Well, there's no accounting for taste. [Yikes, I realized the pun after I typed that...sorry, that was terrible.]
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 08, 2006....

  Bordy: Why is working for the IRS immoral? Taxes are necessary, and people making sure that the general populace cheats as little as possible is sadly also necessary.
  
  Where to start, where to start... My main beef is with income tax, not the idea of taxes, just this particular means of accomplishing it.
  
  why do I disagree with income tax?
  
  How bout the fact that the basic principal of income tax is based on a communist philosophy.
  
  Tax evasion. Much easier to do as an individual on income tax then as an individual when dealing with a national sales tax.
  
  For one thing, individual evasion only requires one criminal, sales tax evasion requires at least two. What's more, money made on the black market & drug money are taxed whenever those people go to the store for toilet paper, or to buy a legal car, etc. That's roughly 1 trillion a year btw, that isn't being taxed by the current system because most drug lords aren't about to pay income tax off drug sales, but they sure as hell spend it on cars, houses, food, etc.
  
  Whats more, there are fewer companies than individuals, that alone reduces the governments overhead needed to police taxes. rather then over 130 million tax filings for individuals to go through, there would be only corporate taxes to consider.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 08, 2006....

  Yeah, the value-added and point of sale type of taxation has been bandied about for years, but the truth of it is it just won't work. Then you run into schemes with avoidance of value-added tax at some point in the production or shipping of a product, everything is higher priced because of the tax, and economically it doesn't make sense.
  

• RollingC said on Sep 08, 2006....

  oh yeah....reduction on overhead is the single best reason to do away with income tax. The problem that the IRS was having is that they were the only goverment agency that was not being policed or controlled to make sure that no abuses were being made. To make themselves look good they'd use their awesome powers of putting liens on property and freezing bank accounts at the drop of a hat. A good friend of mine of many years worked at the IRS in Miami as a Field Officer (or whatever title it was) and he used to comment to me on their attitude.
  They had a you're guilty attitude with everyone and he had plenty of disagreements with superiors as he followed the letter of the law using his conscience as his guide.
  The Union actually wanted him to be a Union Rep. as he was known to buck the system in favor of doing the right thing and wasn't afraid to say so.
  He put up with one year apprenticeship and jerkoff stupid-visors then finally quit to open up his restaurant business (after another year or so) and is happily tending his own business now.
  Now after so many complaints the IRS is supposed to be a lot milder than before and they're supposed to have a regulatory dept. (much like the police have) to cut down on the abuses.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 08, 2006....

  Bordy: then how do you explain the fact that most states haven't collapsed because their sales taxes don't work? I'm not saying I agree with all of the exact methods dicussed in the 'Fair Tax System', however, I have lived in states with and without state income tax. I have noticed more funding complaints and problems with having enough tax dollars to go around in the state I work in (which has income tax) than the state I live in (which has sales tax). (yes, I work accross a state line, and tax wise I take it in the rear from both states, as well as the IRS...)
  
  If it can be made to work well on the state level, then there is no reason it couldn't be made to work on a federal level.
  

• Bordy said on Sep 09, 2006....

  But sales tax is different than the proposed "value-added" system... I don't remember the exact differences, but I will do my damndest to find them so I don't look retarded here.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 09, 2006....

  your right, they are different. If I'm not mistaken, the current sales tax system ads X% to the value of the item (at least in my state), the proposed system takes X% of the value of the item.
  
  Current system, the tax is added to the price and payed by the customer. the proposed system has the seller pay X% of the value of the items sold, which means that the seller marks the price up to cover the cost. The upside is that the company doesn't have payroll taxes, which reduces the overhead significanly, which would allow them to charge less. As well, the employees would be taking home more of the money they make and so, have more money to spend.
  
  For anyone who isn't a business owner in the US (my wife owns her own business and is a book keeper to boot) you might not be aware that your employer pays roughly the same amount of taxes on your income that you do... so take what you payed the IRS last year, double it, and add your wages after taxes. That is how much your employer payed to have you work for them. Not including all of their other overhead such as lease or mortgage costs, supplies, raw material, etc...
  
  about 35% of my wifes business income goes to payroll taxes, because she has to pay both the employee income taxes (which is her), as well as the employer taxes (which is also her).
  

• Bordy said on Sep 09, 2006....

  Yep.... or god forbid anyone's ever used a staffing company. Those guys are vicious on the payroll charges.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 09, 2006....

  Bordy: staffing companies are a different breed of cat... Usually you (as an employer) go through one of them expecting to pay more. For a business its a matter of reducing the liability of new hires, you can get rid of temps without any liability or having to pay unemployment, or severence packages.
  
  What's more, Temps are just about the only people who can be fired for no reason at all. Most companies have an 'at will' policy which says that they can fire you for any reason they want, but the reality is that no matter who you are, you have a race, color, age, and sex. All of those are 'protected' classes when it comes to discrimination, if a regular employee is fired for 'no reason' then they can file a discrimination complaint against the company, even if they were only employed for a few days or weeks.
  
  So Temp companies fill a need, they limit an employers risk if the employee doesn't work out, the employer doesn't pay unemployment and can't be sued for discrimination if the decide that they don't like the person, or don't have enough work for them. The Temp agency is who pays the unemployment costs if the person is let go.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 09, 2006....

  Wow... It just occured to me how thoroughly we've managed to not only hijack this thread, but drive everyone away from it as well...
  

• Bordy said on Sep 09, 2006....

  woo taxes.
  

• anonymous said on Sep 13, 2006....

  gay relations are for enjoyment of two people.they do not harm anyone.But how come marriage between two people of same sex.What about children,and old age.Who will look after those involved in gay marriages in old age.not much is clear though some govt in other countries have made it legal but majority of countries do not support this idea.
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 13, 2006....

  who gives a damn who will take care of them in their old age? that's their problem, not the governments.
  
  what "the majority of governments" do/don't do is not an argument: it's a non-sequitur. the majority of formerly british commonwealth nations drive on the left side of the road rather than the right. yet a number of other countries do it differently: most notably, the US, canada and japan.
  
  ed
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 13, 2006....

  ed, they drive on the left side in Japan. I do agree with your argument, though. All countries are different; if a majority of the nations decreed that gay marriage is legal, I doubt the U.S. would reverse its stance and legalize it. Majority rule does not apply to the nations of this world.
  
  I suppose anon, that people whose children predecease them or people who don't have children are in the same boat as gay married couples. It's not really a strong argument in opposition of gay marriage. There are institutions that are in place to take care of the elderly, whether or not they have children. Why should it matter whether the married couple is of the same or opposite sex? It doesn't.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 13, 2006....

  IPJ: don't forget the parents that are jerks to the kids they do have. Good chance their kids will not be lining up to take care of them when they get old... well, they might actually, but it would be more of a Soprano's type of 'taking care of' rather than a pleasant thing.
  

• InterplanetJanet said on Sep 13, 2006....

  LOL@Indie. I wish I had some Sopranos to "take care" of things for me.
  
  I think anon hid his identity because he knew his argument was too weak to run with the big dawgs up in this piece.
  

• Indiefilm said on Sep 13, 2006....

  IPJ: Also looked like anon needs to learn to work the space bar, especially following punctuation marks. Double space after periods is common I hear.
  

• fishing4icthys said on Sep 23, 2006....

  Following your line of written thought, through systematic deduction of your "disembowel"ment, I've noticed that you have missed a few things....
  
  At present I do not have the time to discuss in length all that you wrote about, but if you would write me I'll be more than happy to lead you through basic biology, anatomy, animal husbandtry, and even though your misinterpretation of the Hebrew and early Christian texts. (Obviously you are not versed in Hebrew or Greek, nor does it appear that you have been taught thoughly in the medical and psychological fields.)
  
  I must take my leave now, but I truly hope that you will write and we may discuss this at length in the near future.
  
  Sincerely,
  Dr. Foster MT, Psy.D, PhD
  

• silverwhisper said on Sep 23, 2006....

  well, this promises to be interesting. i look forward to your opening salvo. :>
  
  ed
  

• robb.is.rad said on Oct 25, 2006....

  the origins of government:
  
  government was created to uphold the laws of the church...
  
  i wonder what happened...
  

• silverwhisper said on Oct 25, 2006....

  prove your assertion.
  
  ed
  

• falsefaith said on Dec 01, 2006....

  Separation between church and state is now no longer a fine line.  The laws are here to supposedly reflect the views of the majority of our society... but it is also here to protect the minority. 
  
  Marriage is the representation of the love and vow between two adults... why does gender or sexual orientation play any role in marriage?  I don't see why people believe that a girl can't love another girl or a guy can't love another guy... it's love. You can't chose who you love just like you can't chose your gender, your race, or age.  Gay marriage doesn't harm anyone... I don't see how a Bill and Bob in San Francisco can affect the  sacredness of a  John and Jane in  Florida.  Let people who are in love get married... they deserve it... it's not easy finding true love (most of us find a lot of heartache before we get it).

• silverwhisper said on Dec 01, 2006....

  well said, false faith.
  
  ed

• SpikeOBoy said on Feb 12, 2007....

  Unnatural???? YES IT IS.

  It is natural that you were born.

  In your unnatural setting, you can't have a biological parenthood. if you adopt in order to have a child, it is unnatrual parenthood.

  IT IS ATHE UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN...

  YOU ARE THE REASON THIS WORLD IS SO BACKWARDS.

  It was Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve

• silverwhisper said on Feb 12, 2007....

  pfft, "unnatural" is a bogeyman word: it exists solely to scare the easily-frightened and means nothing. so are you arguing that newt gingrich had an unnatural parenthood--he was adopted. so were any number of other successful people.
  
  you have anything else?
  
  ed

• redrocks said on Feb 21, 2007....

  Spikeoboy: u were really unpolite. It's ok to have another opinion on whaterver issue, but are u able to mantain it without being offensive????
  
  Silverwhisper: good arguments -- especially the part saying that the bible did not make the laws! What you think about adoption? that's the hardest part for me to decide about...
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Feb 21, 2007....

  hey there, redrocks! i'm not sure i understand what you're asking re: adoption--can you please clarify? are you asking whether i support gays or gay couples should be able to adopt (which i think they absolutely should), or something else?
  
  ed

• redrocks said on Feb 21, 2007....

  that was what I was asking -- you already gave me your answer ;)

• degrassiboi said on Feb 23, 2007....

  ok im gay and im all for gay marrages they should be alowed everywhere

• silverwhisper said on Feb 23, 2007....

  damned straight! :D
  
  ed

• AliCat said on Mar 01, 2007....

  Silver..great post I love the way you said everything..I think it should be legal...

• silverwhisper said on Mar 02, 2007....

  thank you, alicat. :>
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Mar 12, 2007....

  What do we say we believe in?  Is it not equality?? That beautiful word encompasses all people or none at all.  It does not suffice equality for one segment of humanity to be set apart from others.  No matter what the reason and humans can find so many.  We are in this together.  We breathe the same air,  use the same water,  eat from the bounty of earth.  We are One and until we see that we bring suffering to ourselves and others. So many moments we choose to use our energy to pick apart each other instead of using it to accept all people and create a peaceful more loving world.

• silverwhisper said on Mar 12, 2007....

  well said, shining star.
  
  ed

• lfbno7 said on Jun 10, 2007....

  I just did a blog on this subject.  It was pretty intense.  I titled it Homo.  I get angry at people who are ignorant and bigoted.  I have no patience for it.  A gay friend and co-worker of mine died last year from metastasized cancer.  I'm not gay myself but I am very intense on the subject of gay rights.  By "intense" I mean "punch in the mouth intense".  I don't take prisoners.
  
  On MySpace I do a lot of blogs, and I've gotten over 5,000 hits because I'm hooked up to Mensa Blogs and they get attention.  I have a number of conservative friends on MySpace, and they know better than to mess with me on this issue.
  

• lfbno7 said on Jun 10, 2007....

  to spikeoboy
  
  it was neither adam and eve nor adam and steve.  the adam and eve story is a disgrace to god, proving that jehovah is as fictional and flawed as zeus.  you believe in absolute nonsense, in offensive nonsense.  God is better than the idiot Jehovah in the Adam and Steve or Adam and Eve story.
  
  The fictional Jehovah in your Adam and Eve story punishes all mankind because Adam disobeyed him, and punishes all womankind because Eve disobeyed him. Do you seriously consider it fair and just to be punished for what your distant ancestor did?  That is insane.  God is not unjust.  God is good.  Jehovah is nuts.  Jehovah is fiction.  Why do you believe in a moron?
  
  Jehovah woke up one morning and decided to flood the entire world, murdering everyone on Earth except for Noah and his guests on the ark.  And you accept that as something God would do.  Jehovah murdered every newborn baby, innocent as freshly fallen snow.  This Jehovah is a cross between Satan, Hitler, and Charles Manson.  Why do you worship Satan? Why don't you have higher standards than that?  How can you sit still and listen to a fool who tells you that God is the mass murderer of the sick Noah story, the story that also has panda bears using their frequent flyer miles to fly from Beijing to the ark, that has kangaroos hopping across the Atlantic Ocean to get to the ark, that has lions and wildebeests from Africa, polar bears from the north, penguins from Antarctica, all coming to the ark.  Are you four years old?  Have you no sense?  I don't understand how an adult can believe in such transparent nonsense.  But they do.  You do.  You just swallow it whole.  Hitler said that half the people in the world will believe anything you tell them.
  
  The Bible is a hoax.  It is an insult to God.  People who believe in the Bible are delusional, like you.  I know I won't get through to you, that you won't accept the truth, that you'll just think I'm some sort of misguided soul destined for hell, because you are dopy.
  
  Anyone who says, writes, thinks, acts, in a manner that is insulting or damaging to gay people is an ignorant bigot.  The shoe fits, so put it on.  You're as dumb as a tree frog.  And because you are as dumb as a tree frog, I'm not interested in your reply.  Why read the reply of a moron?
  

• silverwhisper said on Jun 10, 2007....

  lbf, as you can see, we share opinions on the subject and i'm glad you've read this. while i won't go so far as to call the bible a lie, i should point out that spike never did come back in the first place. :>
  
  ed

• lfbno7 said on Jun 10, 2007....

  well i call it a lie.  i have no patience for nonsense.  my BS detector starts ringing like a fire alarm when i think about the bible.  and this whole country is bible crazy.  it's so ridiculous and it's hurting people, our idiot superstitions are hurting people.  i don't walk on eggshells when i see something very wrong, and the bible is offensive nonsense.
  
  oh wait, i think i see a kangaroo hopping outside.   it was on its way to the ark and lost its way, and sonofagun if it didn't wind up in new joisy.  there it goes, hopping down first street, holding up a sign that says Noah's Ark or Bust.  Well, better late than never, joey.
  

• silverwhisper said on Jun 10, 2007....

  lbf, people hold these things holy. you may think them wrong, but i would urge you to consider treating their positions with some respect.
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 13, 2007....

  People there is a message in the Bible.  The confusion is caused by combining two stories into one. Consider the Old Testament a Testament to creating power over others and the mind control used to make them believe the story,  like it and pass it on.  The New was meant to be the new but was used to continue the old instead of walking away from it.  Jesus taught the power of Self. Jehovah taught power over others.  Jesus said to not mix the old with the new and this was what he meant because it always happens to new truth,  new ways, new inventions. The beauty of it is that hidden within the mixed messages is the truth that Jesus and many Masters have come to teach.It is not the easiest thing in the world to separate them but once you get the hang of it it is basically simple. Define Love and anything that Jesus said or did that the Bible "says" he said or did that does not match the standard definition does not belong to his teaching.It is a supreme example of what people often call "good and evil"  but once understood lays a clear foundation for understanding Jehovah or Jesus.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 13, 2007....

  you read the bible very differently than i do, shiningstar. in the jewish bible, i read a great deal of suffering and hardship; in the christian bible, i read a great deal of hope.
  
  i'm a little unclear on the last half of your comment, though: could you clarify your meaning a bit?
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 13, 2007....

  I will bet SW that your "hope" lies in the fact that the religious leaders teach that Jesus came to "save" people. Is that what you mean by "hope?". Jehovah represents everything that someone does NOT want to be done to them in the name of "love". His works do not define him or his acts as loving. Jesus lived and taught love. He lives up to the standard definition given by the dictionary of love. Whenever you read something that he said or did that does not live up to the fullest extent of the word love then you know it is not what Jesus said or did. It is the religious mixture of their own truth which supports them. Jehovah , on the other hand, lives up to the word hate as he punished and destroys people and nations.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 13, 2007....

  no, that isn't what i mean at all. and your position seems very entrenched, which makes continued discussion on this matter problematic.
  
  you rail about people injecting meaning into the text, but what you're advocating is no different: you're just injecting something of your own into it, instead of what someone else injects.
  
  i recommend that you look at this blog entry in order to get a better understanding of my views on christian theology.
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 13, 2007....

  I am unaware that I have "railed"  or that I am "entrenched",  my friend.  I am expressing what I have learned and what I know for my own self as I can express for no one else. I have been to your blog and continue to do so.  But,as you well know,  MOST people are looking for someone to save them.  Did not mean to be problematic just friendly expressing so many others who "peek" in might learn from both of us.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 14, 2007....

  shiningstar, you're passionate about what you believe. i understand that, and indeed, i admire that--i believe that faith should be passionate.
  
  however, describing the god described in the jewish bible as living up to the word hate is i think going to be pretty darned offensive to jews, don't you think?
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 14, 2007....

  I have to admit that I do not really care if anyone takes offense to my statement because if anyone else did the deeds that their god did it would be called a hate crime because that is exactly what it is.  Their truth,  as I perceive it ,  is that their god,  Jehovah, slaughtered nations because he was/is good. I know that however one perceives and understands  the word love it does not equate to the word slaughter.  So should I just leave that line of reasoning out in order to tiptoe around those who are so deeply worshipping a god of destruction,  who,  indeed calls himself evil and says that he alone commits evil?  Or do we just ignore their gods own statements and pretend that love equates to violence, war,  inequality and power over any lesser beings that cannot fight back with equal power?

• silverwhisper said on Jun 14, 2007....

  so god to you should be judged according to human morality? see, if there's a god, i don't believe that to be a good position.
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 14, 2007....

  SW I do believe that I can be quoted on saying that God is everything and there is no one judging anyone ,  anywhere except the humans that have not learned the reason why this is. It is just that God,  with the Big G,  is not Jehovah,  nor is it Jesus or any other Master.  God is the Divine Intelligence that powers ALL because it is ALL.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 15, 2007....

  shiningstar, that seems to conflict with your view of the god depicted in the jewish bible.
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 15, 2007....

  How so,  my friend?

• silverwhisper said on Jun 15, 2007....

  o wait: i was reading you too quickly--your contention is that the god of the jewish bible then is a facet or avatar of god, then, for lack of a better word?
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 15, 2007....

  All are facets of God with the Big G. Yet all are not tyrants as Jehovah was/is and all are not Masters like Jesus but all are gods for there is nothing but God.  Jehovah has a story behind him which if you do not know I will share at some other time. He has taught many that he is the big god but he was/is a liar just as Jesus said he was.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 15, 2007....

  if that's a facet of god, then how can god be good if a facet lies?
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 15, 2007....

  What facet lied?  I must admit you are alosing me here my friend.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 15, 2007....

  you're saying the jewish god lied, aren't you?
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 16, 2007....

  Yes,  I am saying that the truth of Jehovah,  was not the truth of the All Knowingness of God or the Divine Intelligence. Jehovah was an imposter.  He taught the people to worship him and taught them that he was the Prime Creator. He cemented this into the orginal Hebrew tribe by tricking them into going into a desert and wandering around for many yrs. He created the Stockholm Syndrome here as he tormented,  abused,  starvedand intimidated them until theybegged to return to their orginal Egyptian captors who treated them far better than Jehovah.  Generations later when none were alive who even remembered another way of life than the desert they were turned loose on the world nd called the "pecular" people.  Pecular because they were trained to listen to the word of Jehovah and his law instead of using their own common sense and reasoning powers. Try reading the new book Jesus or Jehovah.  It brings a little more clarity than I can do in this limited space.  This story is well known and published on many websites.  www.nohoax.com will give you a free book titled "Handbook For The New Paradigm". Two more books go with it.  This gives greater light to this story and brings forth an understanding of what is happening in out world and why.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 18, 2007....

  shiningstar, by calling the jewish god a liar and usurper--and let's not mince words, that's precisely what you're doing--you've crossed the line from reasoned discourse to what i consider unacceptable. this is your only warning.
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 18, 2007....

  SW-It is not the fact that I called Jehovah anything. Jesus called him a liar and the father of all liars. Read the new book Jesus or Jehovah and the chapter and verse is within. And as long as there is free speech in America I can express my beliefs just as you can express yours. What I offer is something new and the old is hard to part with and it makes us mad. But, for me, this is my truth and it is so indeed for many, many others on this planet. Just like Jesus did,we go against the tide of social consciousness and risk the indignation that arises from others who we are endeavoring to share this truth with. I understand it completely because there was a time that I would have been just as insulted and revolted. I took on a school board when my child was in school to stop them from teaching evolution and stay with scripture. Been there, done that my friend but a door opened and I had the courage to walk through it to a greater truth. We can only change the world by changing our beliefs and this is my tiny little effort to do so.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 18, 2007....

  wrong: this is my blog page and since i think you're being offensive i can do anything i like here. if you don't like it, either change your tune or stop commenting. free speech and the right thereto refer to what the government can do you. so please learn what civil liberties are, shiningstar.
  
  i'm always made deeply suspicious of people who respond to questions by saying "go read [book]" it always implies to me that a person is incapable of having absorbed the contents satisfactorily by being rendered unable to explain them.
  
  ed

• shiningstar said on Jun 19, 2007....

  Change my tune or stop commenting and do not reccommend any book for any one to read? Is that the critera for posting on your blog? Only post what you believe in? Even Jesus can not open a mind that is closed to anything new.  Even he could not perform such a miracle. I will leave your posts and leave you to staying in the same mindset that I found you in,  my friend.  Love and Blessing to You.

• silverwhisper said on Jun 19, 2007....

  shiningstar, i count a number of jews as friends and what you're saying is deeply offensive. how you fail to see that, i don't know and at this point, i no longer care.
  
  ed

• young.voice said on Nov 28, 2007....

  i COMPLETELY agree with your comment
  marriage isnt baout a man and a women
  it is about love
  so for all the straight couples who think marriage is about women and men ony
  i think you are for getting LOVE one fo the most importent factors in this world
  

• silverwhisper said on Nov 29, 2007....

  hello, young voice, welcome to my blog and thank you for visiting! :>
  
  ed

• thevoiceof2008 said on Jan 01, 2008....

  Marriage is defined as many different things. Marriage should not only be seen as a union between one man and one woman. Marriage is a union shared by two people that love each other. I think that we should leave religious beliefs and the bible out of this. If we wanted to go by the book then sex before marriage is against God's plan, having a child out of wedlock, is a sin, judging is a sin, and so many other things so enough with the bible BS.... As a lesbian I feel discriminated against. I work, I have to pay taxes, and I obide by the law. However i cannot marry my partner who i have built a stable life with for going on 4 years this year.... I cant even be granted a civil union in the state that I reside in. We can't even apply for a domestic partnership. Its like the early 1900's with the seperation on whites and blacks only now its hetro vs homosexual. Its stupid and should come to an end. www.enterthesanctuary.blogspot.com

• silverwhisper said on Jan 01, 2008....

  hello, voice! and yes, it's exactly that, a civil rights issue.
  
  ed

• jaimemiguel said on Jan 31, 2008....

  OMG. It's been a long time since I've read posts and there are a lot to read here.
   
  I must agree with you that the state is separate from the church. This is very true. Protection by the law is the aim for wanting such; church ceremonies or anything of that sort isn't the point.  We are not and will not be asking religious people to have us blessed. We are blessed.
   
  I am not saying that I'd be married or I want to get married-- that hasn't crossed my mind yet. But if I'd get to that point, I want to have it as an option.

• silverwhisper said on Jan 31, 2008....

  nice to see you again, jaimemiguel! good to see you again!
  
  and thank you, well-stated. :>
  
  ed

• jaimemiguel said on Jan 31, 2008....

  thanks! it's been a very long time... :-)
   
  well, i have to go to bed now. good night!

• silverwhisper said on Jan 31, 2008....

  have a good night, jaime miguel. :>
  
  ed

• humanbeing said on Feb 02, 2008....

  WOW!!

  Does anyone find it incredible that the subject of gay marriage has generated such a storm of posts?

  Isn't that the root of this issue?  Peoples opinions, beliefs, ideas etc are divided and therefore there is controversy, laws, arguments, judgements, whatever, when all along sexual partners want to be left alone to do what they do without public scrutiny or judgement.

  What is the point of taking a stance?  Division is the only result.

• silverwhisper said on Feb 02, 2008....

  humanbeing: when people feel passionately about a subject, they tend to comment on it. this blog entry is in fact a pretty good example of that.
  
  the point in taking a stance is that presumably, one feels that either one way or another is superior. obviously, i feel that gay marriage would be a good thing, as it's a civil rights matter that would cost nothing, as no arguments based upon any alleged societal cost are legitimate.
  
  division, i should point out, is often a temporary thing. :>
  
  ed

• Thinker89 said on Apr 28, 2008....

  silverwhisper you are awesome! thank you for shining the light on how stupid it is to keep gays from marrying... i did a debate on this topic and i talked about all the things u mentioned.. its nice to know someone shares my views!

• silverwhisper said on Apr 29, 2008....

  thinker: welcome to my blog and thanks for visiting! seriously, i can't understand why for social conservatives this issue is the one they wanna dig in their heels over. it's as if they've collectively gone stupid or something. :>
  
  ed

• soaringraven said on May 22, 2008....

  While I must admit that I stopped reading about three quarters through the comments , I do believe that I rather much got the gist of the agruments being tossed about.

  There is one thing that sort of stuck in my craw so to speak and the is the seeming casual interchangabilty of the two terms, natural and normal in some of the arguments.

  Natural speaks only to that which would be occurrung in nature without outside interference.

  Normal has societal implications.  Only society can determine normal in any real sense, and as such normal is in constant flux.  What is normal today may not be so tomorrow, and the reverse is also true.   Also what is normal in an asylum (or any other closed environment for that matter, which is in reality what an asylum is) would be significantly different from that which is considered normal by society as a whole. 

  That  a thing is natural has, and ought have, no effect upon whether or not it ought to be considered by any given society as normal.

  Now to the matter at hand.  That sexual behavior between members of the same gender is naturallly occuring bears little or no relevance to the question.

  The question at hand is simply put, Should our society codify, therefore recognise as 'normal' a practice long considered abnormal? 

  Inasmuch that what is normal in given any society is a reflection of the collective views of said society on any particular matter, and inasmuch that in recent years the collective view in our society has shifted significantly in favor of recognising same gender relationships as valid, therefore normal, and inasmuch as the frequency with which the practice is openly acknowledged and/or endorsed by both those directly involved and those sympathetic to said individuals and/or groups of individuals; it is reasonable to conclude that such relationships have already become mainstream (normal) in the view of a large segment of our society and  as such, it is time our laws reflected this change in our thoughts on the matter.

  To continue to disallow a practice deemed both acceptable and normal by a huge segment of the society is to create an atmosphere within which chaos may easliy take hold.  (for example - prohibition)

  Whether or not this would inevitably lead to an errosion of our national morality (slippery slope) thereby leading to acceptance of other practices currently deemed unacceptable is of little relevance.  And of course as pointed out above  this (slippery slope) is  flawed logic. (or rather the absense of logic)

  I could go on at some length about the whole concept of slippery slope, but this is neither the proper post, nor do I wish to enflame further debate at this moment.

  soaring

   

• silverwhisper said on May 23, 2008....

  when you say that "normal" is in constant flux, i think that really drives the nail in the heart of the societal resistance, SR. thank you, i know that there are a lot of these to mow through. :>
  
  ed

• PieterOpie said on Jan 02, 2009....

  I think it is the business of those who wish to marry each other and no one else.  The idea of someone deciding for me whether I should or should not be allowed to marry whom-so-ever I want is an gross invasion of my privacy and my human rights.  My motto is live and let live and mind your own business. 
  
  People who believe they know best for others are a pain in the neck (polite version) and what gives them the right to judge others and what they do?  Did god give them that right?  Ridiculous!   If there is a god he wants us to be good people and love sincerely.  Period.  How we go about that is our business.  He would not care one way or the other.  If he did, we would not be able to reproduce without first getting married.  Since we seem to make babies more easily than sensible laws it strikes me that god never intended us to marry at all.
  
  Marriage should not be controlled by power crazy freaks in politics or religion. Those people are so seldom right about anything so... you know.... get real.
  
  All people regardless of gender or kind of relationship must have equal rights in all things.  That includes all the benefits that are now reserved for those who are legally married.  I don't care what you call the arrangement between two adults as long as the legal, social and economic rights ARE THE SAME AND EQUAL I don't care. 
  
  If some sentimental gays want to be married in that regular way then let them.  I am gay and it is not for me.  I have been with my partner for over 35 years.  We did not need it nor want it.  It is silly in my opinion to do what is a dead old ritual. But I will speak out for those who want it because they should have equality.  That is all there is to it.  All other considerations such as god or social norms have nothing to do with it.  Nothing!!!!
  
  If you think gays marrying will affect marriage as an institution then you need your head read.  Get a life.  Mind your own business you nosy freak. Stop minding what others are doing and mow your own lawn.  Grrrrr....
  
  THIS I believe.   ...... <----(smilie goes here)
  

• JusticeForAll said on Apr 22, 2009....

  I'm all for equal rights, including gay marriage. I'm in a state (Ohio) that has been strongly against gay marriage, but my mother is a lesbian. She has been with her partner since I was 2 years old. I grew up just fine. Actually, I grew up better with two moms than I did without a dad! Of course, I still love my father and we still have a good relationship. He's even supportive of my mother. I don't see why it should be any different for them than in is for a straight couple. Everyone loves, just not always in the same way. If they are happy, let them wed!
  
  And actually, I've come to realize that most same-sex couples tend to have better and longer-lasting relationships than straight couples do. So really, it's good for two things that people bitch about: Overpopulation (since the only way they can have children is to adopt, or for lesbians, IVF or some other form of implantation) and divorce rates! They tend to stay together longer. So, I say LET THEM WED!

• JusticeForAll said on Apr 22, 2009....

  I'm all for equal rights, including gay marriage. I'm in a state (Ohio) that has been strongly against gay marriage, but my mother is a lesbian. She has been with her partner since I was 2 years old. I grew up just fine. Actually, I grew up better with two moms than I did without a dad! Of course, I still love my father and we still have a good relationship. He's even supportive of my mother. I don't see why it should be any different for them than in is for a straight couple. Everyone loves, just not always in the same way. If they are happy, let them wed!
  
  And actually, I've come to realize that most same-sex couples tend to have better and longer-lasting relationships than straight couples do. So really, it's good for two things that people bitch about: Overpopulation (since the only way they can have children is to adopt, or for lesbians, IVF or some other form of implantation) and divorce rates! They tend to stay together longer. So, I say LET THEM WED!

• JusticeForAll said on Apr 22, 2009....

  sorry for the double post-stupid computer!

• PieterOpie said on Apr 22, 2009....

  Quite right!!  I agree (with "both" of you....) hehehe...

• silverwhisper said on Jun 23, 2009....

  pieter: i completely agree with your comments--but then, i think you already knew that. :>
  
  justiceforall: you make a great point there re: straight relationships vs gay relationships--and thanks for stopping by!
  
  ed

Comment on "on the nature of gay marriage"

Currently tagged	gay marriage love on the nature of relationships gay religion marriage sex Civil Partnership dogma life circumcision Homosexuality Jesus legality Jehovah the Nazi States of America Bible Veronica gays legal rights (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment