Ohio Lawmakers Pass Gay Marriage Ban [aol.com]

Whatever your particular opinion on this matter might be, I'd like to hear it.

Earlier today, AOL News released this article [aol.com], which contains some great logic:

There is no evidence that any couples besides man-woman couples are trying to get married,

which I assume means

We checked, and only straight couples have filed for marriage licenses.

Enjoy, and feel free to rant as much as you like.

I would read that but - silly me - I do not use AOHell. Only their free messenger service.

On the topic at hand, I'm in favor of same-sex marriages. Of course, people who disagree with them tend to utilize some extremely... creative... logic to argue their point.

My particular favorite is 'The Bible says you shouldn't.' I believe the quote translates to 'You shall not lay with a man as you would with a woman.' And as most gay men would tell you, it's very different with a man. (The same is true for women, of course, excepting that the Bible never had very much to say against lesbians, and that little never directly.)

Actually, I also enjoy pointing out that the Bible says you shouldn't eat pork, or combine meat and dairy products in the same meal. Your average anti-same-sex-marriage type is mighty fond of his cheeseburgers.

Blah! It wants me to sign in and I have long believed AOL to be pure, unadulterated sacrilege.

In my opinion, I don't believe it is the place of any government to determine what the "sanctity" of marriage is. One might argue that this provides an opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of being considered a legally married couple (whatever they may be), however, I do not believe that two men or two women are any more likely to do so than a man and a woman. I actually find it hard to accept that anyone can devise an argument against same-sex marriage that does not deserve a swift kick in the crotch. That is, however, only my opinion, it is offered informatively and I do not wish it forced on others any more than I would want theirs forced on me. If I were looking to propagate my beliefs I would do so with a sharp tongue and an iron fist. That is all.

I personally have nothing against civil unions involving two men, two women, or one of each gender. The religious-based institution of marriage is one such civil union, and currently the only one recognized by most state and the Federal governments. However, I do not believe it is the governments' jurisdiction to mandate what constitutes a marriage, regardless of the genders of those people involved. It is up to the religious organizations (as part of this country's implied, though not explicit, separation of church and state) to determine what qualifies as a "marriage," and is none of the governments' business at all.

As far as homosexual marriages, I disagree with this. Not strongly, mind you, I do disagree with the idea.

In Response to sakuruth (#13137):

I also enjoy pointing out that the Bible says you shouldn't eat pork, or combine meat and dairy products in the same meal.

Apparently, that's a defensive mechanism.

In Response to Clan_Hanna (#13140):

However, I do not believe it is the governments' jurisdiction to mandate what constitutes a marriage, regardless of the genders of those people involved. It is up to the religious organizations (as part of this country's implied, though not explicit, separation of church and state) to determine what qualifies as a "marriage," and is none of the governments' business at all.

That would make sense if marriages were purely religious, and had no bearing in secular law. However, they do.

I'd be very uncomfortable of anything that had government sanction that received its definition from any church.

In fact, I'd say the separation of church and state makes a secular definition of marriage imperative.

Oh, and don't tell me that I can't get married if I don't believe in your higher power of choice. That gets you a swift kick in your gonads.

There is only one reason that people oppose gay marriage: It makes them uncomfortable, maybe because secretly they want to fuck some guy in the ass. Or to get it up the ass. In any case, pretty much any argument against same-sex marriage doesn't stack up once you consider all of the varied reasons that people get married.

Consider:
Not every marriage is about making children, so it can't be because you need a man and a woman to procreate. Let's hope not every marriage is about making children! Try to picture 70 year old pregnant women.

Not every marriage is a religious one, so religious justifications for heterosexual marriage don't apply. So, even if it's against the rules in the Bible, big deal. The Bible, while it's still important to people, should not govern political law. And besides, politicians lie all the time, and that's one of the Big 10.

Hey, here's a good reason to get married:
Two people love each other, and want to pledge their undying love for one another.

Gee, too bad two men or women can't feel the depth of love for one another that a man feels towards a woman. And it's a good thing that all marriages between a man and a woman here in the US are mandated to be preceded by long, extensive explorations of the couple's love towards one another and their mutual compatibility. What? You mean they're not? You mean any man and woman can go ahead and marry each other without that kind of preparation. Gee, you'd think that a lot of marriages would end in divorce or something.

In Response to Deathalicious (#13157):

Wasn't there an empire that tried to rule by using religion as law?

Hey, whatever happened to them? =)

In Response to Deathalicious (#13157):

Britney Spears.

In Response to Phobos (#13169):

Wasn't there an empire that tried to rule by using religion as law?

Hey, whatever happened to them? =)


We're hoping it doesn't get re-elected in November.

In Response to zamphir (#13174):

Comedy.. [booksfortheright.com]

I see, just because you're bored, lets start a hotbutton discussion on a sensative point, leading to large responses to explain stances that frankly I have no interest in.

My 5 cents: I think there should be limits to same-sex marriage. It should be limited to homosexual persons.

In Response to snipergirl (#13170):

Yeah, I guess I could have used just that as a response to Clan_Hanna, but I wanted to tell him how I really felt.

We already touched on this a little in this discussion [goats.com].

Essentially, this is a civil rights issue. Without government recognized unions between people of the same sex, a section of our population does not enjoy the same rights the rest of our population.

In Response to deerboy (#13181):

My 5 cents: I think there should be limits to same-sex marriage. It should be limited to homosexual persons.

Then you'd be at odds with the Governator, who thinks that gay marriage should be between a man and a woman [216.239.39.104].

In Response to Oedipa_Maas (#13185):

We already touched on this a little in this discussion.

First off, anyone who can link to one of Tele's rants and refer to it as "a little" gets points.

Essentially, this is a civil rights issue. Without government recognized unions between people of the same sex, a section of our population does not enjoy the same rights the rest of our population.

I preface this response by saying that I totally agree with you, but I thought this was worthy of mentioning:

This raises the question of Maine, where, in 1998, conservatives suggested that homosexuals were seeking "special rights" to protection under law-- see, conservatives think that homosexuality is a choice, and as such, people who choose to be gay are, in fact, seeking rights that they would not have as heterosexuals. This resulted in conservatives supporting what they called "equal rights", which meant "none for you, little bastard."

It's an interesting argument, until you remember that blab-dab religion is covered by Maine's human rights act. People choose to change faiths quite often, it turns out, thereby making religion a choice.

Of course, in Maine, the proposal to add "sexual orientation" to the Human Rights Act was put through twice (February 1998, November 2000), and failed both times (although by incredibly narrow margins), although the polls showed it to be favored by the majority both times. I guess my people aren't very good at showing up for the polls. We were probably too busy not getting married in Ohio.

ha ha ha...

i think the conservatives think that if they don't let gays get married, they won't live together and have sex...

ha ha ha.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#13196):

i think the conservatives think

Oooo.

Optimism!

It's, umm, fundamental that the religious conservative fundamentalists don't think. They've surrendered themselves completely and totally to whomever it is they pretend has the authority to act as a conduit between them and their god. (cowards!)

In Response to zamphir (#13174):

Zing! I wish I had refered to that and the money shot.

In Response to zamphir (#13197):

no, it would be comforting to believe that those we don't agree with are simply not thinking. While it may allow you to sleep at night, it doesn't alter the fact that they do think and are convinced that they are unalteringly right. THAT is what makes me afraid, very very afraid.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#13211):

it would be comforting to believe that those we don't agree with are simply not thinking

Bah!

Liberal knee-jerk jingoism is obviously correct! That other kind of knee-jerk jingoism is obviously wrong!

Duh!

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#13211):

I'm sorry to say it, but, not talking about anyone here neccecarily, but not thinking is hardly the sole property of the right wing. Too many people just accept the position that is presented to them by their friends or mentors.

My personal beliefs on this issue is that marriage should be something defined by a governing body, as it does have important ramifications. Untill I was legally married, my wife was not covered by my health care plan, amongst other things.

I also think that SOME form of civil union should be allowed for couples in same-sex relationships. Call it what you will. If they are not comfortable with calling it marriage, call it something else. I suggest stallionage. How many people call everything by the legal name? If you call it marriage in the law, fine by me. Those who don't like it can call it something else then.

I do understand the position of people who are uncomfortable with calling it marriage. I think they have reasons for their beliefs. I don't think they are bad for believing this.

Really, I don't think this is an issue of what defines a marriage. I think this is a question of four things: Is homosexuality a choice or a decision? Is it something that is inherently wrong? Should the government discourage or ban it? Should the government show acceptance of it?

I'll leave that for another discussion.

Is it wrong? No. Why? Because I believe it isn't.

In Response to Raphael (#13272):

For future reference:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

My most amusing discussion was with a former friend of mine... I told her I was God, and she could do nothing but get angry and say "No you're not." At which I would reply: "Where's your faith?" "Have I not provided you with as much proof? I can write a book about it, if you'd like, maybe even two, or three, in a few different languages." I wasn't trying to be malicious, but I was curious about how she could counter such a statement, after all, she backed up all her arguments with "Because I have faith in our Lord, Jesus Christ."

We don't talk any more.

In Response to Phobos (#13293):

My most amusing discussion was with a former friend of mine...

Was that amusing because you are mean spirited or just that you were able to work at degrading that which probably gave some stability to another person's daily life? Either way makes you an ass, just to different degrees.

Personally, if someone wants to believe in Christ/Buddha/Mohammed/Nothing/Everything/etc., I don't care, until the point that they try pressuring me into that belief. Those who are so adamant that there is no God are more annoying than those who are all for the deity. Atheists tend to be more pushy than even the most devout Jehovah's Witnesses because it seems that since they have based their non-belief in logic that they are simply infallible and cannot be wrong.

If someone argues with you, then by all means, smack them down with your incredible mind-bullets, but don't prey upon the simple and content. That equates to philosophical bullying, and then you're basically just a poor scientologist.

In Response to Raphael (#13272):

My personal beliefs on this issue is that marriage should be something defined by a governing body, as it does have important ramifications. Untill I was legally married, my wife was not covered by my health care plan, amongst other things.

Who your health care plan covers should be between you and your insurance provider. Why should the government define what relationships your insurance provider will respect? In fact, I don't know of any law that would compell them to cover your spouse; everyone does it that way, but I think that's more because insurance that doesn't cover one's family isn't very useful.

There are, however, direct consequences of government-respected unions. Most of them have to do with taxes or inheritance.

The overlap between the religious union of marriage and the government-recognized one is common but not universal. For the government to respect man-woman unions without respecting same-sex unions is a civil rights issue, as someone said elsewhere. For a religion to do so is a matter among those who practice said religion.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#13301):

Ahh, perhaps I should have explained how the conversation began.

You see, around Freshmen year of High school, I had many friends who shared common beliefs as myself. Religion was not a topic we discussed, we simply had other things to talk about.

Around the middle of Sophomore year, a particular church in my small, hick town decided to begin recruiting for their youth group at the high school. At this point, I lost a good 80-90% of friends. It was not because I disagreed with their religion, or I felt I needed to [i]oppress[/i] them, but rather, after hearing day in and day out how you need to accept Jesus into your life or you'll never truly be happy, or that you will burn in Hell because you're different, you tend to get tired of being around certain people.

I should also mention that said church promoted the idea that other races and cultures were sinful. Being Half-Chinese, oh, and raised Catholic, I was none-too-pleased to hear this.

The above conversation started when I was informed that Christianity should be taught in schools because anyone who doesn't believe in it is simply wrong. She also made a point of saying we should take over any country which didn't share the same beliefs as ours and turn them into strip malls and parking lots.

You see, I don't simply search out innocent souls for which to torment.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#13301):

Those who are so adamant that there is no God are more annoying than those who are all for the deity. Atheists tend to be more pushy than even the most devout Jehovah's Witnesses because it seems that since they have based their non-belief in logic that they are simply infallible and cannot be wrong.

Your assertions here may be correct sometimes, but please be careful not to overgeneralize. Your expression of your beliefs, in this instance, is almost intrinsically hypocritical. I'm not saying that you're wrong, i'm just suggesting that your point doesn't apply to all atheists.