• uniquely-ironic said on May 06, 2009....

  Sorry bud, can't support you on this one.  If Miss California had taken a minute to consider who she was representing with her title and role she'd have recognized that her personal views are not shared by nearly 1/2 of the state.  I have no problem with her having a personal opinion, but she took a job representing the people of an entire state.  Then she used her position in that job to further her personal opinion.
   
  Shame on her.

• secretlife said on May 06, 2009....

  she was asked her opinion u-i-  and she gave her opinion.
  california voted on this issue-  and her opinion seems to be the same as at least 1/2 the state.  is it the PC opinion?  absolutely not.  that much is fairly obvious.
   
  i do believe as you do Alien, that if you say something wrong these days, someone(s) will try to ruin you in any manner they can.
   
  Miss American paid for Miss California's  breast implants.
  And Miss America modeled for underwear and didn't tell.
  It's absurd if this is all they could dig up on her.
  I'd dare say if anyone started digging on the top 5 contestants, they'd find worse.
   
   
   
   

• uniquely-ironic said on May 06, 2009....

  SL - I don't have a problem with her answer.  The problem I have is that she went to Washington DC to forward that opinion while wearing the Miss California crown.  Not as a private citizen.  No state representative in their right mind would have tried to pull that off.

• secretlife said on May 06, 2009....

  yeah, i saw the quote where they wanted her to remember her "platform" which was special olympics or something like that-
   
  too bad that miss america didn't censor perez hilton's question.
  they call her an "opportunist" yet they allowed the question that put her in the spotlight.  i say they want it both ways.
   
  you ask for someone's opinion, and you should be prepared for what you get.  there's no "right" answer. 
  and either way she answered that question she'd have made enemies. 
  i call that grossly unfair.
   
  it's a beauty contest-  not a political arena.
   
  i'm not sure how i feel about her going to washington-  i will say that makes her a little bit of the opportunist as well-  but i'm not sure i blame her one bit.
   
   

• uniquely-ironic said on May 06, 2009....

  Her handlers should have done a better job prepping her for any possibly questions.  I am not a fan of Perez Hilton either.  That question could easily have been tap danced around, which is appropriate during a beauty contest.  Sadly beauty contests are not really the place where we expect to hear brilliant opinions.

  To say a beauty contest is not a political arena is a bit naive though. (sorry)  It has been and will likely continue to be as political as any public office campaign.

• pickersplock said on May 06, 2009....

  Hah! Next let's ask Miss Rhode Island how she feels about abortion.
  Or Miss Texas her opinion on gun control.

• ALIENated said on May 06, 2009....

  
  Good one, Picker. 
  
  I personally think there is a right answer (as you know) and Miss California
  gave it.
  
  Perez: "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex 
  marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit, why or why not." 
  
  Miss California: "I think it's great Americans are able to choose one or the 
  other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite
  marriage. And you know what in my country, in my family I think that I 
  believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense
  to anybody there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it 
  should be, between a man and a woman."
  
  If I was her parent, I would be more than proud of her for stating her
  convictions. We are rapidly entering a time when we will all be penalized
  for not agreeing with the party line because we are rapidly going to a
  one party government. I like to call it Big Brother. Big Brother believes 
  that "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength." 
  
  Perez Hilton demonstrates that "Ignorance is bliss."
  
  Try replacing the term "same-sex marriage" with "sex with children" and
  see if it still plays because that is coming next. Think not? Then tell me
  why not. How can you be so forgiving of this sin and not that sin, this
  perversion and not that perversion? How can we say no to polygamists?
  When you throw out the rule book, there are no rules. When some big
  hairy oaf is having sex with your nine year old daughter with everyone's
  blessing, remember my words and my predictions. If one perversion is
  legal, all perversions will soon be legal. Rent the movie Clockwork 
  Orange and take a look at the future if we stay on this course of
  anything goes.
  
  

• uniquely-ironic said on May 06, 2009....

  The flaw in your argument is that same sex marriage (though I think it's homosexuality you're really offended by) is not a "perversion".  To compare consentual sex between adults to adults having sex with children is illogical and not even comparing two like issues.  If I believe your last paragraph than you probably also think inter-racial marriages are a perversion too.  Did we start slipping with inter-faith marriages?  Get a grip.  Homosexuality isn't anything new, it predates the institution of marriage.
   
  Her answer was fine.  It was her trip to DC as Miss California that I'm offended by.  As for Perez Hilton, he's a joke and questions like that are really stupid considering the venue.

• travelr712 said on May 06, 2009....

  as i said in d6's post alien, this issue is about a large group of people who read a translation of a translation of a copy things some guys wrote 2000 plus years ago who said a diety who may or may not exist doesn't like homosexuality is grounds to deny homosexuals their civil rights under american law. in america, marriage is not a religious institution such as communion or baptism, it is a legal status afforded by the state to it's citizens. this is clearly a case of separation of church and state.

• ALIENated said on May 07, 2009....

  
  I have to reject your often repeated statement about the Bible. If that clears
  it up for you, fine, but I do not agree with your assessment of God's word. 
  Sorry. If it is just another book to you, then you are no doubt lost anyway.
  I would also have to disgree that homosexuality is not a perversion, but either
  way, you did not answer my question: If we say yes to same sex marriage,
  how can we say no to sex with children, polygamy, etc.? How do we pick and
  choose which perverted act (whether you agree with that term for it or not)
  we allow? How are judges to know where to stop if they do not take a hint
  from voters? How do we allow one segment of the people to commit murder 
  and execute the rest of the people because they think it is wrong? Plus, it
  always amazes me that those who would not engage in homosexuality seem
  to defend it the most, like a bad parent defends their child that throws a
  temper tantrum at the super market.
  
  

• ALIENated said on May 07, 2009....

  
  If I believe your last paragraph then you probably also think inter-racial 
  marriages are a perversion too. Did we start slipping with inter-faith 
  marriages?
  
  I am not sure where you got that, but no, interracial marriage is not
  perversion. That is just a man and woman with different skin tones.
  
  

• travelr712 said on May 07, 2009....

  it is easy to 'say no' to pedophelia. children are under the age of concent. you are the only person i've seen here that puts those in the same category. one does not in any way relate to the other, except in your mind.

• javadewd said on May 07, 2009....

  Perez Hilton said something? Oh, my bad, I thought I broke wind...
  
  I know that the midwest states would gladly have her run in their pageants and would probably proudly crown her. On the one hand, u-i is right about the land of the fruits, nuts and flakes. Perez Hilton asked the question in order to stir shit, and no matter what she answered, it was going to be flung, but nobody will point back to the likes of the Hilton family as a bunch of fucking elitists. Since when did their opinion count for anything? Two dollars and her opinion might get you a cup of coffee, but somehow it's news-worthy these days... And they wonder why print is dead.
  
  My opinion on ssm isn't that it's a perversion necessarily (all religion aside), but I just don't understand the resulting benefit. Guys like SR seem to (and I can't read his mind) hate marriage -- as though society was forcing this "religious institution" upon couples who live together (i.e. "common law marriage") -- in general, so when I originally asked what the motivation was of homos that wanted to get married, I couldn't figure out why they would adopt religious rhetoric (the term "marriage") to describe their act of social bonding, that's all.
  
  I certainly didn't expect Trav to go all bat-shit crazy over a book he doesn't like. Again, all religion aside, but if some Dervishes came twirling up to me and asked me about same-sex marriage, I wouldn't give them scathing criticism on their dance moves, but I guess that's just how I roll...
  
  From all my gay friends (btw, no, not *all* of my friends are gay, but I can think of at least eight or so off the top of my head), they're just happy they can have civil unions and just plan the ceremonies to their liking. I guess a "gay wedding" is just a celebration of this bonding, just like your run-of-the-mill wedding is the same for heteros. If they can find a progressive enough minister to oversee it, great. I don't think anybody would rat you out around here for such a thing, unless they're just assholes and/or shit disturbers regardless of their political position.
  
  I'm still puzzled about all the legalities over ssm and perplexed as to why liberals give me so much shit for just trying to understand their [albeit passionate] point of view on this. Would any of you like to calmly just explain this so I can just try to get my mind around it, please?
  
  { I'm trying to be nice. I think y'all call it "open mindedness" when you do it. }
  
  

• travelr712 said on May 07, 2009....

  for the last time jd, i like women, not men, so you can stop trying so hard to get my attention.
   
  it is not only 'liberals' who have this point of view, and this point of view does not automatically make one a liberal. it is as much a question of civil rights as segregation was 40 years ago. there are no laws preventing couples of the same sex from marrying, the existing laws would have to be changed (legally defining marriage as between a man and a woman) for the 'conservative' viewpoint to prevail.
   
  in america jd, marriage is not a 'religious institution', it is a legal contract that affords many other legal benefits such as medical coverage. it is also a social convention. to put it simplistically, people like the idea of standing up in front of friends and family and declairing their intention of a life long bonding. what i don't understand is why 'conservatives' have such a problem with ssm if it is not a religious question. do they think that ssm will delute the institution somehow?

• uniquely-ironic said on May 07, 2009....

  Why would a gay couple want marriage?  On a legal level there are a number of reasons.  Ability to inheret their partners estate, the right to visit them in the hospital, being able to get medical benefits and survivors benefits from social security.  They are in a relationship the same as a heterosexual couple, yet they are denied the same legal rights because they don't posses a license issued by the state.
   
  Is that calm and rational enough?  I'd also like to state for the record that I am not a political liberal.

• javadewd said on May 07, 2009....

  Okay, trav, I'll ask this for clarification, so I can better understand :
  
  On legal benefits such as medical coverage -- My wife's covered me prior to marriage when I lived with her a few months prior to the actual ceremony. When I asked about this, I found out that her former roommate could have gotten under her coverage, too, so that is where I am confused about why ssm is necessary for this, but I realize that some health care coverages aren't as extensive... Can't it work under 'household' coverage?
  
  On social conventions -- Not only do I agree, but when asking my [homo] friends about this, they already know how certain family members wouldn't show up at a "civil union celebration" anyway, so I'm confused why a "party" is not a "party," and a "contract" or "convention" isn't the same no matter what the lawyers/state call it?
  
  On party lines -- I personally always use the line "gays have been getting married forever, it's the ssm I take issue with" to show two things :
  
  First, somehow (and don't ask me) I have seen relationships where two gay people marry heteros (more times than not all parties know), then legally separate, and then the homos run off together. Seems like some sort of loop-hole, but I don't ask, because if they found said loop-hole, more power to them! I can't slight a gay couple two shakes for circumventing the legal system no more than I can slight a little girl from saving her pit bull puppy from death at birth by a state's rash decision on dog breeds. [Sorry, I can't find that source, it's damn sad, though!] (Not trying to give Alien ammo for beastiality or anything...)
  
  Second, (and thanks for straightening me out on this) the only things that I have been told by both sides of the aisle is this whole 'attack' on the institution of marriage. I can be tolerant of any couple, homo or hetero, that wants to marry for the sake of bonding and so forth, but the 'attack' on the institution of marriage -- that some progressives seem to be hell-bent on -- translates into an attack of my religious freedom (sorry for the book reference, but I'll keep it brief) and therefore my first amendment right, and that easily puts my panties in a wad. I think that's what Alien takes issue with, too, if I'm not mistaken...
  
  Also, on social norms -- I think I made reference to two homo parents versus two hetero parents and adopted kids (if not, I hope I do a better job of explaining myself here than there)... I was at a customer's house where two lesbians were raising a kid. One woman had adopted the kid outright and then got together with her 'partner' and they moved in together (I don't have all the details, so bear with) so that they could be a family (a very valid loop-hole). It was apparent by my presence and the kid's words and posture that the boy clearly had issues with men in general, which was terrible to see in a child. I also recall one of the "moms" telling me how he was picked on in school for having "two moms," which in my ignorance (I wasn't abreast of the situation at that point) I said, "Most divorced kids have two moms, so what's the difference?" Well, due to the "two moms" being less than discreet at certain school functions, it was more than apparent to this boy's schoolmates what was going on... In relation to that, I think that's where Alien may be hinting about the interratial issue -- sometimes in social circles discression relates to tolerance.
  
  For u-i -- It doesn't take much to leave a "living trust" to anyone, especially if you are estranged from your family (and they can be vultures!). Hell, I know of a woman who is setting up a small trust to care for her dog in the event that she dies -- that way the dog lives out its life under sufficient resources that it won't be "affected" by her death. Also, FMLA can be extended beyond family (again, estranged family, family in another state, etc) and even though it's a little more work, it is quite handy. I personally think it should be illegal for "family" to step into the picture in the case of a major health-related incident to "de-fag-ify" (as they call it) a homo if their partner has sufficient paperwork to legally prove that they are legally (and/or financially) responsible for that person. I guess on the SocSec side, I never really thought about that point.
  
  Good stuff! Thanks.
  
  

• uniquely-ironic said on May 07, 2009....

  Not all medical plans are as generous as your wife's.  Yes, I suppose a person could spend thousands of dollars to have legal documents drawn up so that social, financial and legal issues would equal those of married partners.  But doesn't that kind of penalize the gay couple?  Those benefits are automatically granted to married couples, so if we truly want to be equal under the law we should have hetero couples go through the same hassles for the same benefits.  Right?  We do want to treat each person equally under the law don't we?

• travelr712 said on May 07, 2009....

  uni answered your first question well jd, i don't have anything to add to her description at this point.
   
  to your second point, if there is a legally binding union between two people, no matter the race, sex or social background, what is the difference between calling it a 'civil union' and a 'marriage', other than a form of segregation? for many millenium, it was considered abhorant by many societies (and still is today) to marry outside your race. i could easily make a 'scriptural' case to say 'god hates interracial marriage'. so why are interracial marriages not relagated to a different category of union? the bible very clearly states that if a couple divorces and one remaries, they are both 'guilty of the sin of adultry'. so why are these second marriages performed in and sanctioned by the church? why are they not relegated to another type of union? is a sin not a sin, or is it only not a sin when it reduces the membership population?
   
  as to social norms, i'll use again the example of civil rights, which were not the social norm until the 70's, and having lived through that time period, i can attest to the fact that many used the same 'topple the fabric of society' argument to block these rights to minorities. it changed the nature of our society, yes, but our society goes on nonetheless. corporate greed very nearly distroyed our society recently, but i don't see any 'conservatives' asking for legislation to block people from becoming ceo's. social norms adjust to current conditions and always will. saying that changing one of these norms will 'distroy that fabric' is at best pure speculation, is definately fear mongering, and to me, just another way for some people to find a group to hate.
   
  if ssm was the social norm, and 'conservatives' finally shut up about it, those children who picked on your friend's child wouldn't even know to do so. instead, the 'conservative' rhetoric has just given a new generation of children something to hate, which resulted in your friend's child's situation.

• javadewd said on May 07, 2009....

  unique -- Very true on the medical plans, so why can't there simply be that sort of reform without kicking up all this dust? To me it sounds easier to pass a medical plan reform bill to allow households to get medical coverage than to get ssm legalized...
  
  Probably true on the legal docs, but honestly it sounds like there is a market for these legal documents, and any good gay lawyer could offer this service and then the price could come way down and capitalism among homos would run wild... It sounds like a beautiful thing! Also, people who live together do the same thing (ironically to avoid marriage and common-law), so I can't see why it would be all that expensive and why it would be a penalty of just gays, but it's a valid point, I guess.
  
  Also, with heteros filing for divorce so often, how would that then factor into all this legality and fairness? Would there be a benefit for homos divorcing (less effort for the lawyers, usually no kids involved, etc)? That's why I often state that it seems like we're going them a favor...
  
  Trav -- you're absolutely right. C/Us and marriages are basically the same thing. If I walk up to a hetero and say "Bob and Tom are in a civil union," nine times out of ten, they'll say, "Oh, so they're married, huh?" I guess I could see where some find it to be segregation, but only in the social sense, like the example of interracial marriages. Yes, some societies are much less tolerant of interracial marriages, but through discretion -- not flaunting it -- many of these societies have grown so tolerant of it that it isn't really much of an issue at all, short the occasional snicker, but you'll get that in any society.
  
  The Bible also states that not only is marriage "till death do us part," but also I believe it was Moses (correct me if I'm wrong) who got the go-ahead to introduce divorce into the culture to allow for crippling sins to a marriage like infidelity to be fettered out. It was never a perfect solution, either. Also, with the gentiles being adopted into the family of God, the interracial factor was nulled, so now there is no moratorium on interracial marriage or relations. I wouldn't mind expanding on this point with you as long as we remain civil about it...
  
  I hope I didn't muddy our mutual points by reading back your paragraph there in reverse...
  
  On the social norms, yes I recall how those who made it clear that there was no means for them to "topple the fabric of society" by their actions were the ones who made the most headway. They didn't fuel the hatred of the crazies and at times even silenced their own crazies... I wish that were the case nowadays. And you're right, there are examples of crazies on both sides. It isn't a matter of meeting in the political middle, just simply a matter to coming to an agreement, even if it is to agree to disagree. I can't figure out why that idea is so difficult.
  
  Sadly, kids are cruel and I'm sure that even if we outlawed cooties, there would still be bullies who picked on other kids. I was merely trying to explain that discretion versus flaunting eventually led to tolerance in society of many things and I don't understand why homosexuality can't fit in that way.
  
  So what I'm gathering from you both is this  -- and please feel free to correct this, I'm just repeating it for my own benefit of understanding and not trying to intentionally leave anything out or be flippant about it :
  
  Help me combine a definition of marriage here that isn't so universally broad that the "conservative crazies" don't think you're trying to validate polygamy or bestiality -- We all see marriage (both hetero and homo) as a life-long bonding civil union between two people in a state of matrimony that allows for a convention called a wedding that right now by the power of the state is not granted to homos (unless there is a lot of paperwork to grant them equivalency to circumvent the state)
  
  -- Legally, the work-around for homos to have the same rights as heteros in the matter of medical coverage, adoption of children, co-habitation, Social Security and other conventions that are granted with few restrictions to heteros are too expensive and inconvenient for homos
  
  -- Socially, marriage is not a right for homos, and neither is divorce which often proceeds marriage by heteros
  
  So once that is agreeable, I would like to know as much about the Democratic / liberal / progressive rhetoric concerning ssm. Quite honestly, I could give you the breakdown of the conservative rhetoric and we could see where the differences are and see what can be agreed upon... Something tells me that we've both heard the crazies loud and clear on the opposite sides. I'm also amazed that nobody else has chimed in yet with any "aha's!" for any of us, so I guess nobody is out of bounds on this yet...
  
  

• travelr712 said on May 07, 2009....

  well, there isn't any law that prevents ssm, they are just not granted licenses by the state. there would need be no changing of existing laws to allow ssm, only changing of internal beurocratic policy. the changing of the law would be to define marriage as between opposite sexes, which bush tried unsuccessfully to push through at a federal level. interestingly enough, if someone has a sex change operation, they are legally considered of the opposite gender and can and have been married.
   
  polygamy, bestiality and pedophelia are already illegal, so no change would need to be made there. interesting that jewish law and custom not only permitted, but in some circumstances demanded polygamy, which was practiced by a majority of the 'fathers' such as david and solomon.
   
  you are right, socially, marriage is not a 'right' for homosexuals, which is what this 'battle' is really about.

• javadewd said on May 07, 2009....

  So not to trail too far off on a tangent, ssm could simply happen (in everything but a license from the state) through other means (making it perhaps more likely to be considered for a law change -- hell if you're doing everything else but getting a state license to be married, then what's the problem?) then that's a good thing, right? Also, yes the whole idea of trans-genders is something that would have to be nailed down in the definition of marriage, because then basically it might as well be happening if a homo is then also trans-gendered as well...? I'm just making sure I am hearing you right.
  
  Personally I think polygamy is social suicide in any culture. I can't keep up with one woman at a time, much less four like in some Muslim cultures! And once they're all on the same cycle... Woo! Man, I hope that's why it's illegal!!
  
  But one thing is true, especially in America, if somebody wants something bad enough (like two homos wanting to be 'married' in all practical means), then they will find a way to do it. Like I mentioned before, it may not be a 'wedding' to the state, but I've seen/been to "civil union celebration" that everybody in attendance pretty much said, "we're at a [gay] wedding." And call me crazy, but I'm a hard-line conservative. I just have more love for my gay friend[s] than the state...
  
  

• travelr712 said on May 07, 2009....

  the stance i've taken on this issue in this venue is not one to debate the morality of ssm, it is rather to show that it is not a question of morality, but a question of existing law and oppression. i've had friends in the past who were homosexual, one that was a friend for 2 years before he even knew, but i don't right now that i know of. i'm not an advocate of homosexuality, but i've come to see over the years that people giving love to each other, no matter the gender, is far preferable to the war mongering i hear all too often from the 'conservative' side, usually these days in response to 'safety from terrorism'. i also find it very strange that christians fight so hard against love, something their religion is supposed to be based on, and so fervently support war, segrigation and capitol punishment, something their bible clearly speaks against. moral oppression of a segment of society has always been that society's ultimate undoing.
   
  i agree with you about polygamy, i have a hard enough time dealing with just one woman at a time, let alone, as you've said, 4 on the same cycle!

• javadewd said on May 07, 2009....

  Unless the conservatives come up with a gay bomb, I think we're safe, Trav, and thank God (grain of salt) for monogamy!
  
  I would love to discuss religion in general with anybody, but I'm not going to be a magnet for a flame war. I can hopefully encompass your observations of Christians "against love," "[preferring] war," segregation, capital punishment  and societal oppression with one simple basic fact among Calvinists : Man is depraved. The depths of human depravity (regardless of race, background or beliefs) cannot be adequately measured in degree to its lowest level. I believe Sam Kinison said it best when he said, "Wait! We found another rock layer... Let's dig a little deeper!"
  
  If that seems like a sane enough truth to start with, I'll offer another...
  
  Otherwise I'd like to delve into your observation of existing law and oppression concerning homos :
  
  So far the only existing law that I can't find a work-around for was Unique's observation of the SocSec bennies -- which I verified that if two adults are living together (hetero or homo) and one of them has a child and the parent dies, the other adult would receives the SocSec bennies for the child. Much of this is covered under 'household' status, so it falls under both hetero and homo co-habitation situations -- but maybe I missed other situations that we didn't cover?
  
  Also, I realize there is social oppression regarding homosexuals. I'm simply convinced that discression usually aids in tolerance, but those who flaunt it seem to catch more grief. Yes, there are always bigots and other assholes out there who simply "won't tolerate gays," but I honestly wonder how they really act around people who act "normal" (as opposed to flaming) and suddenly finding out that they are homosexual... I find it difficult to believe that suddenly these people go crazy and violent over the discovery... But again, maybe I'm missing something here?
  
  I don't think conservatives in general hate homosexuals, but flamers can certainly ruin things for the rest of them. I still think it's a matter of understanding, and diffusing the crazier conservative's notion that homos are trying to destroy morality or attack their beliefs. Passing "hate speech" laws that condemn churches for preaching against homosexuality (which is their right, but not always favorable -- I can expand on that one with you) definately don't help their cause...
  
  

• travelr712 said on May 07, 2009....

  jd, if you would like to present a post on religion in general, i'll participate, and i won't start a flame war. i would look forward to the discussion.
   
  flamers can hurt both sides. i saw a picture today of a ssm advocate and opponant standing nose to nose, obviously in a heated debate. there are times for that, but here is not one. i in truth don't think most people hate homosexuals either. i think this is a debate between fundamentalists, the last holdouts if you will. as you said before, they'll find a way, and this problem will be solved and go away. i think it will end with whoever loves eachother, they can get married. i don't see any other fair expression of love myself.

• javadewd said on May 07, 2009....

  A very interesting observation from a Calvinist friend of mine just this afternoon was that abortion rights and gay rights both should be left up to the states, due to the fact that there is no federal grounds to support or defend the rights of either issue or either side of each issue... I thought that was quite profound!

• travelr712 said on May 07, 2009....

  well, i thought that's what i've been saying all along jd, but i guess i didn't say it in that way. bush tried to make a federal edict about this subject and failed. that leaves it up to the states. problem is, with the way legal marriage crosses state boundaries, if you're married in one state, you're married in all states.
   
  the battle is already lost, the opposition just doesn't realize it yet.

• javadewd said on May 07, 2009....

  Bush simply wanted to rigidly define marriage, but again the problem was that it fell apart because it started to encroach on the rights of non-married co-habitating couples as well as homosexual couples. It would have been like running over the institution of marriage with a car, then putting it in reverse and running over it again in reverse...
  
  I think the battle against the crazies on both sides still has yet to come to a head...
  

• travelr712 said on May 07, 2009....

  let me add this
   
  when you fill out your tax forms, you check the 'married' box. nobody questions it. when you apply for a job, you check the 'married' box. nobody questions it. when you do anything with a legal document, you check the 'married' box, nobody questions it.
   
  how much more paperwork will the average person in any job have to do if they need to check whether this is a ssm or opposite gender marriage? will there need to be licenses carried in wallets like those to prove you can drive? will there be a national database established, maintaned and referenced like there is for sexual predators? how far is the opposition really prepared to go to ensure that no one is allowed ssm?

• javadewd said on May 07, 2009....

  One advantage of civil unions is the "head of household" option on their federal taxes. The IRS doesn't seem to question that... But God forbid you check "married filing separately," because they love to question that!
  
  My wife had to go through all kinds of crap with the SSA and all her bank cards when we got married, which begs the question : "Who's name does the 'spouse' take?" Again, another benefit to civil unions -- less paperwork having to sort out all that crap. I think it cost my wife nearly $100 for all the copies of the "Marriage Licenses" and verified postage she had to send to everybody to 'change her name' and all the while protect herself from identity fraud...
  
  As far as a national database of marriage licenses, I'm not sure how they do that for heteros now, but I'm sure it is maintained and referenced, but "like sexual predators?" I think you're starting to exaggerate just a tad.
  
  Also, civil unions are just as much a part of the public record as a heterosexual marriage, which I'll grant you could be easily construed as segregation in the idea that both types of records are "separate but equal" in the eyes of the civil court system. In fact, by having a civil union, it is harder for an outside party to hold a partner living in the household liable for restitution or judgements. Yet another perk!
  
  I'm not swatting at this stuff for the sake of argument. I'm just trying to compare heteros and homos on a legal level... Much of this doesn't help the ssm side, though, which was my original point : Granting homosexuals 'marriage' seems to do more harm legally than good; I'll add : What good is a freedom if it restricts you as an American and thereby restricts your chosen 'lifestyle' and denies more rights than it grants?
  
  

• ALIENated said on May 07, 2009....

  
  I just scanned on Yahoo, to try and find some statistics. I found one article
  that said there are very few same sex marriages once they become legal. 
  Assuming that is true, this is all just a bunch of hype, which is what I 
  suspect. Homosexuality is a perversion of what God intended sex to be,
  and, by definition, homosexual relations are based on sex. Society, for
  whatever reason, has now decided to look the other way to the point that
  most no longer view homosexuality as a perversion. Probably because 
  enough homos became psychiatrists to have it thrown out as a mental illness,
  enough homos have taken over Hollywood to supply us with a daily diet of 
  homo-is-normal programming, and enough homos have run for office and
  become judges to stack the deck legally. So most everyone who went to
  public schools in the last several decades have been indoctrinated to
  also believe that homo-is-normal. People are now on crusades to normalize
  the perversion of homosexuality as if they were fighting to free the slaves
  or liberate women and give them the vote. God did not instruct us to 
  create slavery or to oppress women, but I digress. Same sex marriage is
  just the latest crusade to "free the homos". My guess is that homosexuals
  could care less about marriage. It is just another step in the crusade to
  force Joe Christian to abandon his beliefs and accept homosexuality as 
  normal. As I have said many, many times, that is just not going to happen. 
  Homosexuality will always be a perversion to Christians, Jews, and 
  Muslims, anyone who believes in a higher power. To anyone who believes
  in God's law, homosexuality is just as unnatural as sex with children or
  sex with animals. Nothing, including marriage, is going to change that. No 
  judge can dictate that. No laws can direct that. I think God warns us of
  things like this for reasons far more complicated than we can understand.
  The simple reason is that the family unit is the building block of society.
  Changing that changes society. As we can see, just the suggestion of
  changing the definiton of marriage is tearing this country apart. Bad
  people, like Obama, are getting elected because they support (supposedly)
  things like same sex marriage (he actually does not, as I understand it),
  but it is that important.
  
  

• somethingunUSual said on May 08, 2009....

  You're better looking than I imagined. But I see you come from the same planet as Miss California - PlasticWorld.

• ALIENated said on May 08, 2009....

  
  Well, I usually shape-shift into a young Elvis look when anyone is around, but I am
  naturally pretty good looking (on my planet). And you seem to be proving my 
  point -- zero tolerance. Liberals are always preaching zero tolerance, but they
  rarely exhibit that themselves. With liberals, it is "my way or the highway". Most
  debates with liberals (progressives, whatever) quickly degenerate to personal
  insults. That is what is happening to Miss California now. She has an opinion that
  differs with the politically correct opinion so she is being crucified and lambasted in
  any way the media can think of. It is the dawning of the thought police although I
  suppose we are well past the dawn. There are certain things people cannot say
  on TV or radio without being cut to little pieces. Ask Michael Savage. Free speech
  is quickly disappearing.
  
  

• javadewd said on May 09, 2009....

  "Well,the world needs ditch diggers, too..." Thank you, Ted Knight!
  

• ALIENated said on May 09, 2009....

  
  Not sure what that means. Great movie, though.
  
  

• javadewd said on May 09, 2009....

  I was talking about liberals, bed-wetters and generally intolerant people.
  
  So I've been waiting for you to whip out ye old KJV and start plodding the religious view on 'homosexuality,' ALIENated. I was curious as to which direction you would take on it. Will you show that there was less tolerance under the Jewish law than after Christ's resurrection? Would you stick to the Proverbs or would you give examples like Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19)?

• ALIENated said on May 09, 2009....

  
  Genesis 2
  24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto
  his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 
  
  Matthew 5
  17: Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come
  to destroy, but to fulfil. 
  18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall
  in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 
  
  That all seems pretty clear to me.
  
  

• javadewd said on May 10, 2009....

  How about this little ditty in Matthew 15:21-28.
  
  The Canaanite woman was not only a Gentile (which Christ had not made 'the way' open to at that point, but would later after his ascension), but a descendant of Hagar (Abraham's servant, whom the son of which is the very beginning of the Muslim religion according to Christian history). Notice the request was not denied, because grace and mercy came directly from Christ Himself.
  
  I find it interesting and fascinating (if not profound) that the Hebrew root for "mercy" is "womb."
  
  My point is that no church that I would attend would turn away a gay couple in attendance. I know discretion would be a factor (if they're french kissing in service, I'd hope it would be dealt with -- hetero or homo for that matter), but to be totally intolerable against any sin doesn't sport well for the love, grace and mercy we find in Christ.

• travelr712 said on May 10, 2009....

  i disagree that christ opened 'the way' for gentiles jd. he actually called them dogs, not worthy of 'the scraps from the master's table'. it was paul that pretty much rammed the gentiles down the throats of peter and james. they also did not want the gentile races to be allowed access to their new found religion. this was the teaching and attitude they gained from spending 3 years with the man.

• ALIENated said on May 10, 2009....

  
  I think anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior will spend
  eternity in heaven with Him. If your homo couple are attending your church
  because they have truely accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior, 
  they most likely would no longer be a homosexuals. And I would refrain from 
  deducing too much from a couple of verses without knowing what came 
  before and what came after. It is clear, what Jesus came to earth to do, in 
  spite of how you interpret those verses. I sat through a four night seminar
  a while ago that taught me that I do not know jack shit about all the Bible 
  has to say, the intricate back stories, and what all is meant by each verse, 
  each paragraph, each chapter, and each book. Jesus said one thing and
  meant another on many, many occasions. To him who has ears, let him 
  hear. Even if you do not believe that the Bible was inspired by God, it has 
  been kept rigorously intact and honed like an expensive knife for years and 
  years. Its widsom is far beyond any of us no matter how pompously brilliant
  we think we are. As time goes on anyone with a brain reevaluates all the
  bullshit conversations they had about religion over a six pack with idiots
  who barely know how to put their pants on, let alone interpret the meaning
  of the Bible.
  
  

• travelr712 said on May 10, 2009....

  well, you and i finally agree on something alien, you don't know jack shit about the bible! :-P sorry, that was too easy.
   
  but seriously, i have been to two separate evangelical christian colleges where i studied these subjects in depth. how many have you been to? name one single gentile settlement that christ took his ministry to? name one single miracle he performed on a gentile, other than the one he called a dog? and if you can't deduce too much from a couple of verses, there are only a couple of verses that address homosexuality at all, so you can't deduce too much from them then, can you?
   
  i bet you believe christ turned the water into grape juice and the earth is only 6000 years old too, because some guys in a seminar told you to.

• ALIENated said on May 10, 2009....

  
  While you were at those evangelical Christian colleges, you should have signed
  up for a few courses because it is obvious you know little about what it means
  to be a Christian. You seem to be confused about a lot of things and filled with
  doubt in spite of your so called training and mastery of the Bible. As I recall, 
  the Bible says Jesus turned water into wine and most scholars think Adam was
  created around 6000 years ago. Who knows how old the earth is, and who 
  cares? You, like so many doubters, seem to major on the minors. And you 
  continue to prove my assumption: that liberals have little tolerance for those
  who do not agree with them on every issue. You keep dancing around personal
  attack, which is so common of the kind of narrow mind you accuse me of 
  having, when in fact I have a very broad mind. I just tend to know the 
  difference between right and wrong. I also know that Jesus said the only
  unforgivable sin was rejecting Him. However, He also said that He did not
  come to destroy the law, which means what the law says is bad, is bad, and
  what the law says is good, is good. Homosexuality is bad enough for society
  and same sex marriage is even worse. I do not think homosexuality alone will
  keep someone out of heaven, but I doubt that someone who has truely 
  accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior would choose to remain a homo.
  
  

• javadewd said on May 11, 2009....

  Trav - A man shoved God's plan down the throats of whom? You are sadly mistaken. Besides, the dog references have to do with Cain's blood line as described in Genesis 4. (emphasis on 17-24.) If the books of Kings and Chronicles don't make you dizzy enough to realize that some were born faithful and others not, then you don't really understand God's grace...
  
  Did you know, Mr. Evangelical bible scholar, that the Koran tries to re-write the Abraham/Isaac story from Genesis 22 to say that Satan tried to stop Abraham (or as they call him Ibraham) from killing his son three times and by their account finishes the job, thereby in their eyes invalidating any line thereafter? Had that story ended as they say, then the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15 and his line would have never been established and 3/4 of the bible would have been invalidated. History itself proves that line continued, so therefore the Bible trumps the Koran in truth.
  
  I will, however, take up your challenge, Trav :
  
  
  "name one single gentile settlement that christ took his ministry to? name one single miracle he performed on a gentile, other than the one he called a dog? and if you can't deduce too much from a couple of verses, there are only a couple of verses that address homosexuality at all, so you can't deduce too much from them then, can you?"
  
  
  Preferencing the fact that Christ's primary objective was to offer salvation to the Jews [but His own rejected him] first, then the Gentiles as it is written in Genesis 12.
  
  One single Gentile settlement that Christ took His ministry to :
  
  Matthew 4:12-17 ~ The very town of Galilee qualifies as a 'Gentle settlement' by definition, which means that Matthew 13:1-3 qualifies, along with these...
  
  
  Now if you're confusing Roman-occupied Israel with non-Gentile settlements, you would have had a bit of a point, but... You don't...
  
  
  One single miracle performed on a Gentile, other than the Canaanite woman :
  
  John 4:46-54 ~ The royal official's son (not Jewish...)
  
  Matthew 8:5-13, Luke 7:1-10 ~ The centurion's servant (not Jewish...)
  
  Matthew 8:28-32, Mark 5:1-13, Luke 8 26-33 ~ The Gerasene demonic (another Gentile settlement, too, by the way... Sent Legion into pigs? -- not Jewish!)
  
  More here... I'm not going to waste bits.
  
  In addressing homosexuality :
  
  Genesis 1:26-31 ~ The creation of man and woman, the command to be fruitful and multiply, and God said, "It is good..."
  
  Genesis 2:15-25 ~ The restatement of the creation of woman as a helper (not a slave, but an equal in that she was taken from man -- the very hebrew for "woman" sounds exactly like the hebrew for "man" -- showing the importance of the role of the woman in the bible, never the suppression thereof), emphasis on ALIEN's comment and lest not forget "they felt no shame" because sin was not introduced yet.
  
  Genesis 3:16-20 ~ Eve, the mother of all living (seems it was that way for a while), the curse, child birth and etc
  
  Feel free to perruse all three books in their entirety, I'm simply hitting the highlights to prove that man + woman -> offspring, which was the way it has always been designed to be. Homosexuality [in my humble opinion] is self-defeating in that aspect, the line dies at the 'homosexual' generation like the branch of a tree, nothing too spiritual about that, not so much a curse, but a simple fact of life.
  
  Moving on to the 'abomination' aspect -- not to be confused with the Obama Nation :
  
  Genesis 18:16-33 ~ Abraham pleads that the Lord not destroy Sodom if a mere 10 righteous are found -- Even though the inhabitants tried to gang-rape the angels who arrived to evaluate the city, not all inhabitants were homosexual, but rather generally depraved (remember total depravity?) and uncompromisingly greedy as described by Jewish historians. Angels don't take kindly to gang-rape is my point here...
  
  Here are some good ones ~ Depicting how God didn't take kindly to male temple prostitutes, who were homosexuals and by their defilement of their personal sovereignty were also serving 'other gods' of their day (i.e. "ritual homosexuality")
  
  By Christian definition, sin is sin is sin. I'll let you soak these up (you, too, ALIENated -- it is one thing to say "I know what is right," but to not be able to back it up is to be as blind as the one who argues your declaration) and then I have plenty more...
  

• ALIENated said on May 11, 2009....

  
  This post is about the zero tolerance exhibited by liberals, homos, etc. I do not
  have to go to the Bible for proof of that. Travelr will not be answering you here.
  There is no freedom of "speach" on this blog once the host is called a bigot and 
  a fool. I can get that anywhere. Feel free to engage him on your blog. I have
  zero tolerance for smart asses.
  
  

• javadewd said on May 11, 2009....

  Your post, man...

• RollingC said on May 17, 2009....

  " speach " ?  :^)
  Rc

• ALIENated said on May 18, 2009....

  
  On this post ...
  
  

  http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/214408/Is-America-Still-The-Greatest-Country-In-The-World%3F

  
  travelr712 called me a bigoted fool and said something about free "speach".
  
  

Comment on "Zero Tolerance"

Currently tagged	ALIENation morons idiots debate Social Issues homos morality Miss California plastic Bible perverts (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment