E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jean Pieri / Pioneer Press via AP
Anthony Streiff, left, Alex Sand and Nam Dorjee, all of Minneapolis, burst into tears on Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012, after hearing that voters had rejected a proposed amendment to Minnesota's Constitution to ban gay marriage. They had gathered at a Minnesotans United for All Families election night event in St. Paul, Minn.
It was among the worst performances in American political history, and yesterday it came to a screeching halt.
Supporters of same-sex marriage had lost 30 statewide votes on the issue (interrupted only by a vote in Arizona that was later reversed in another ballot) before Tuesday’s victories in Minnesota, Maryland and Maine, turning the tide on LGBT rights on what one expert calls a “red letter day.” Pro-gay marriage forces also hold a lead in a Washington state vote, although that one remains too close to call.
“I would expect that when people are writing 50 years from now, when they’re writing high school civics books, that Nov. 6, 2012, will be listed as a red letter day for the gay rights movement,” said Michael Klarman, a Harvard Law School professor and author of “From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage.”
“I think it will be seen as the date that marriage equality turned an important corner,” he added. “It’s been such an important part of the anti (-gay) marriage narrative that the people will never vote for it. And now they didn’t just vote for it once, they voted for it three times … that’s incredible to run the table.”
The big day for gay rights advocates went beyond the four states holding ballot initiatives: In Wisconsin, Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, defeated her Republican opponent Tommy Thompson, 51 percent to 46 percent, to become the first openly gay member of the U.S. Senate. The replacement for her House seat is also gay.
“I think this is a sea-change moment. I think we see the real mainstreaming of gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgender people and so Tammy Baldwin’s election is really pointing to the future,” Bishop Gene Robinson, who was elected as the Episcopal church’s first openly gay bishop in 2003 to head the Diocese of New Hampshire, told msnbc’s Thomas Roberts.
He also noted that the election results were a sign that slain gay civil rights leader Harvey Milk “was right.”
“He said, you know, ‘When you get to know us you can’t help but love us,’ and as mainstream Americans get to know their gay and lesbian neighbors, it is increasingly the case that they want to see them in all levels of our leadership, and having the first openly gay person in the Senate is a real step forward,” Robinson said.
The National Organization for Marriage, which shepherded the state campaigns opposing same-sex marriage, said its enthusiasm was not tempered by Tuesday's results. Its president, Brian Brown, said they “nearly prevailed in a very difficult environment, significantly outperforming the GOP ticket in every state” and noted they were outspent despite giving $5.5 million to the cause.
“We were fighting the entirety of the political establishment in most of the states, including sitting governors in three of the states who campaigned heavily for gay marriage. Our opponents and some in the media will attempt to portray the election results as a changing point in how Americans view gay marriage, but that is not the case,” Brown said in a statement. “Americans remain strongly in favor of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The election results reflect the political and funding advantages our opponents enjoyed in these very liberal states.”
“Though we are disappointed over these losses, we remain faithful to our mission and committed to the cause of preserving marriage as God designed it,” he added. “Marriage is a true and just cause, and we will never abandon the field of battle just because we experienced a setback. There is much work to do, and we begin that process now.”
Klarman said he expected the votes to energize same-sex marriage supporters to try and repeal existing constitutional amendments or to get legislatures to approve gay marriage. He noted that Wisconsin is a state that was “somewhere in the middle” on gay marriage, though it has a constitutional amendment banning such unions, so electing Baldwin was significant.
“Having an openly gay senator is enormously important; it’s analogous to having the first black president,” he said. “This demonstrates that people are comfortable with sexual orientation on a level that you’ve never seen before and there’s just no evidence that Baldwin lost any votes because of her sexual orientation. … ten years ago, I think that would have been almost inconceivable.”
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Zoo officials: Toddler's death in Pittsburgh shows no zoo is 100 percent safe
- Mobster 'Whitey' Bulger back in jail after hospital stay, awaits trial
- Nor'easter threatens 'flying debris,' up to foot of snow in Sandy's wake
- Post Superstorm Sandy, travelers prepare for a busy Thanksgiving
- 6 splitting headaches waiting for Obama
Follow US news from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Well, I have been sitting here in the library for quite awhile. I think it's time to hoof to the post office and see who loves me or wants my vote or money.
Wants my vote? She is two days too late!
Me thinks the fair damsel needs a bit more than marital advice...and much more than her pastor with his bible can provide. At least we know why she is so active on newsvine when it comes to condemning homosexual marriage. Rather pathetic excuse for all her animosity. I will pray for her.
Pray for her, thats very nice of you!
i'm a very nice person roc....damnit!!
I wasn't insinuating you were not.
All taken in good fun roc. No problem on this end
Ditto!
BTW, I did get some Election Junk Mail in my mailbox today, go figure.
the 2016 election will start soon enough.
I seen this morning that the media is already projecting possible Presidential Candidates already, Give Me a Break! Bad enough mid term elections coming up.
This is such sad time for America. I doubt very seriously that this is what our founding fathers had in mind. But that is my opinion and I am entitled to it until the libs/gays change the laws to force me to agree with them.
I'm praying for you America!
You Never have to agree but sometimes you must abide.
I doubt very seriously that you know what the founding Fathers had in mind.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, such as it is. but no one is forcing you to do anything. Whether you agree or not is immaterial!
yeah, equal rights is a "sad" thing for america. why would we want more freedom?
Why are you insistent on inserting the word "agree" when the word should be "accept" john? That said...does the whole "movement" now seem any more palatable???? Not that i care.....
by thinking in terms of "force me to agree" people like john are turning themselves into the victims and justifying their anger.
its quite ironic since the only true victims are gays who have been denied equal rights...but we can't admit that, now can we?
I and over half the state of Maryland agree. It is a very sad time for Maryland, Maine and America. People have been duped again, by several political groups, to vote for this debauchery. They just packaged and labeled it in a way weak minded people fell for. Sad, very sad that people are fooled so easily.
Oh grow up! You people are really just getting so freaking annoying with this constant drum beat of Bull@!$%#!
No one voted for debauchery.
They voted for EQUALITY.
No matter what your personal beliefs/fantasies/delusions are, about what other people are doing in the privacy of their own homes...that is none of your freaking business....you don't get to withhold equality from them for it. It's wrong. (So is being so freakishly fixated on other people's sex lives....but that's between you and your family professional.)
And that's exactly how I feel about religion. Which is fine. I get to disagree with you, and you get to disagree with me. We live in a free country. The difference between us.....is I don't think I need to take your rights away from you just so that I can feel better than you.
I understand your frustration. The truth is not popular. The truth makes people mad. Homosexuals ALREADY have "equality". They want "special" privileges. They want to corrupt the rest of society with their deviant lifestyle. The liberal left,atheists, agnostics and queers came up with this "equality" slogan to wear down the weak and simple minded people of the nation. Some ministers even sold their soul, and the souls of their congregation, falling prey to the demands of those who desire to live anyway they want, void of proper morals and lifestyles.
Of course people who live this way don't want to hear that it is wrong, un-natural and perverted. Of course they don't want to be told that it is debauchery. But the truth is the truth, no matter who likes it, or who does not.
The country is not "free". We have been overrun by people who want to change the very concept of the premises we were founded on, into a do anything we want, anywhere we want, anytime we want society. This does not free us, it binds us.
The arguments of the homosexual/agnostic/atheist/etc.. groups don't hold water. Smokers cannot smoke where they want. Drug dealers cannot deal where they want. Cousins and close relatives cannot marry. Drivers have a speed limit...I could go on... Why not have equality for ALL in every area??.....because it was never about equality, and never will be. People have been deceived by the "gay agenda"...fueled by the LLL (liberal, lawless, left). Christian rights have been eroding for years...try putting a manger scene in the city park, saying a prayer before graduation..etc... You have no idea where all of this is headed.
P65- How do you classify marriage as special privileges? I find all this religious crap funny as hell. I am proud of the religious ones that aren't blinded with stupidity and understand what is going on. And allowing gay people to marry is suppose to unravel the foundation of this county? LMAO
These types have very little imagination. Hell they only believe in a deity because they were taught at a very early age that it was so. They said the same thing when blacks were allowed to legally marry whites.
Our country survived the "destruction" caused by inter-racial marriage, I have faith it will survive the "destruction" of gay marriage.
I would laugh as well if they people were not so down right pitiful.
To add, Observation: This country survived the 'destruction' of giving women rights, giving blacks rights, giving 18 year olds the right to vote, freeing the slaves, allowing the Chinese, Irish, Puerto Ricans, etc. to legally immigrate here, allowing churchs, etc. of different religions to be built, inter-racial marriage, and divorce.
All those things were said to bring us destruction. Looks like we survived. We'll survive gay marriage. Some states have already.
NJK85...Marriage is NOT a special privilege. It is a right that ALL Americans have, regardless of race, creed or gender. Marrying your cat, dog, clock or a member of the same sex is a special privilege, and not a right, and certainly not a right given by our "creator". Homosexual/leftist atheists/agnostics have done a great Job duping people into believing that their plight is the same as people of color, women, young adults etc.. If I were black I would be furious that they would even attempt to legitimately put this on the same plateau as their fight for civil rights. There is nothing disgusting about a black man desiring to marry a black woman, or their desire to vote or eat at the same counter with whites, or pick the seat in the bus that the want to sit. LGBQT eat, sit, shop,vote, etc...everywhere everyone else does, and enjoy all the same rights.
Laugh all you want, but truth trumps deception everytime. like it or not.
1. Cats, dogs, and inanimate objects can not give consent, so throwing the idea of marrying them into the gay marriage debate is just an invalid strawman argument.
2.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/naacp-gay-marriage_n_1530029.html.
Marrying a cat, dog or clock, if someone wanted to, should be their "right", if that's what they want to do....according to the homosexual ideas of "rights". They are property, thus under the ownership of the owner. The owner has all rights. They should have the right to marry whatever they desire, just because they desire it. This is exactly what the homosexual crowd is conveying, in fighting for their "rights". Are you saying that we should deny them their civil right to marry their clock?? wouldn't that be discrimination??.......
You just can't make your argment work. It doesn't hold water. It is "equal" rights for EVERYONE...let everyone do whatever they want, whenever they want, how they want...it is their "right". You can't have it just your way, on your issue.
If you can't understand what consent means and how it is applied under the law, that is not my fault.
Sorry, But you are wrong. Let us start from the top. An adult male with an adult mind is capable of informed consent. An adult female with an adult mind is also capable of informed consent. This is why it is legal for these two parties to have sex with each other. Both parties are capable of informed consent; so are two adult males or two adult females. It is legal for two adult males or two adult females who agree to each other to have sex with each other. It is not legal to have sex with living beings that cannot give consent or informed consent.
Marriage per the church is a three way contract between the couple and god(which may or may not include parties that are capable of informed consent). Marriage per the government is a contract between two consenting adult humans(minimum age may differ per state) which binds them as a legal financial entity. So, why should a male and female be allowed to enter into a government marriage contract but not a male and a male or a female and a female?
It was also not "legal" for same sex couples to get married, now it is in some states because some people said it is. You totally do not understand the concept of how things get done. You are discriminating against people who desire to marry their clock. Your marriage "per the government" carries no weight when people change the governmental laws (by their vote) to suit their needs, wants, whims or desires. Where will it end?? It won't. As peoples minds get more deviant and perverted, so will our laws. Have fun on the slippery slope.
The only person riding the slippery slope is you pastor.
Pastor, your slipping down the slope faster than a Slip 'n Slide. If you don't know what consent is, I would never allow ANY child or animal to be around you as you do not know what the term 'consent' is.
Let's go over this again. Government marriage contracts require two CONSENTING parties. A clock cannot consent. It is not alive, it cannot make medical or financial decisions for you if you are unable to make them later.
Parties able to enter into a government marriage contract = Adult human with an adult human mind(THIS IS THE ONLY REQUIREMENT BUT IT IS A REQUIREMENT)
How do you think laws are made? Where do you think laws come from? What do you think congress is for? State governments? It appears that you are the one who doesn't understand the concept of how things get done. People make laws...and they change as society matures and grows and overcomes their superstitious bigotries and childish fantasies.
Does saying something so completely asinine as that make you feel clever? The concept of consenting adults isn't a new one. It's really not that difficult to understand. When they made marriage a legal contract, it didn't include donkeys or kitchen appliances. Neither will expanding it to include ALL consenting adults.
No weight? So if your state votes in the death penalty (if it doesn't already have it) and you are convicted of murder....do you think that law will have "no weight"? You'll be just as dead. That's how laws are made, to reflect the current needs of society for protection from harm. There is no harm in same sex marriage, so those laws need to change.
As our society sheds the shackles of superstitions and oppression and matures into the ability to both demand and grant the freedoms we cherish...then attitude like yours...where you feel you have the ability or the right to determine what is "deviant and perverted" between two CONSENTING ADULTS will fade into obscurity. It doesn't harm you, doesn't effect you....it's none of your business....
...so why are you so worried about it? That's just weird.
That lame argument has been debunked a zillion times. Please, at least, try to find something credible. Oh wait...you can't. There isn't a single credible argument against same sex marriage.
Or sexual orientation! Funny how you would want to deny that right to a specific portion of the population.
Are they allowed to marry the consenting adult of their choosing? If not, then they don't have equality.
Your nonsensical and paranoid rant only shows how absurd your argument is and demonstrates your total lack of credibility.
Not everyone subscribes to your idea of "truth," especially when you offer nothing to back it up with anything other than your own bigoted and homophobic bias!
Oh do tell, what "premises" were we founded on?
Neither do yours, not by a long shot! You can't come up with any logical or legal reason to deny gays the right to marry!
And it would still all be Strawmen arguments!
Merely your opinion, and one which you presume too much, but know little about!
What exactly is the "gay agenda," since you seem to know so much about it?
Name ONE right you or anyone else have lost!
Try understanding the Constitution, or SCOTUS precedent, or the separation of church and state first!
It must be so sad for you to be on the losing side of history and the gay marriage debate.
The only thing that's laughable here is the absurdity of your posts!
Are you not familiar with the concept of informed legal consent?
While that's a good thing, equal rights should never be put to popular vote. I wonder how you'll react if the SCOTUS ever legalizes gay marriage.
You people just want to make up the rules as you go. Consent has NOTHING to do with someones RIGHTS. If someone wants to marry their clock, they have the RIGHT to do so, according to your own ideology. This is what you guys are preaching, not me. You can't even agree on what people have a right to do. According to you folks people should have the right to do whatever they want, after all it is their RIGHT.
Gordy..I have submitted proof on numerous occasions, but you choose to continue in your folly. You ask a lot of questions, but offer nothing significant to the forum. Most, if not all, of your questions have already been answered, more than once.
Every society makes up it's own rules as it goes. You're just pissed because we don't want to live by your made up rules instead.
Of course it does. You have a right to NOT marry someone you DON'T consent to marry.
Now...that's just a blatant lie. We've all said, many times...that our ideology is about consenting adults...not clocks. That was your little red herring. It's what people like you do when you can't think of a single reason to not allow same sex marriage...you invent a bunch of things that have nothing to do with same sex marriage, and pretend that we're in favor of them too. It just makes you look desperate and a bit silly.
Now you are just being rude. It's been explained to you many times. You are either too rude to read the responses, or just being willfully ignorant of what they've all said. Consenting adults. To be more specific, non-related consenting adults. That's it. No clocks. No one who supports equality has ever once included clocks. Only people like you...who oppose it, and have to invent wild-ass lies to make your point, have tried to make this about anything other than what it is....marriage equality between consenting adults.
No need to get testy when points are shown that disprove the homosexual agenda. You think homosexuals deserve "marriage equality" yet people who want to marry their clock, dog, cat or mother do not have the same right. This is about rights and discrimination, isn't it? To say someone cannot marry their clock, dog, cat, mother would be discrimination. "Consenting adults" is a little inclusive when it comes to someones "rights" isn't it? Of course it is. Your arguments don't hold water when you only rant about homosexual rights, yet others rights are dismissed. This, of course by your own ideology.
This was never about rights, it is about "special rights". Homosexuals already have the right to marry...someone of the opposite sex. They just want special privleges (marry who or what they want) Oh, I can list MANY reasons why same sex marrige should not be allowed. Actually, your desire to discriminate against someone that deeply loves their cat, dog, mother or clock, and wants to marry them, makes you, well a bigot.
You just can't have it both ways.
You can't marry something that can't give consent. A child, an animal, and an inanimate object cannot consent. If anyone is opening a can of worms, it is you. Because then by your logic, rape will be ok since consent is out of the picture. While you argue about someone wanting to marry a clock, a man just raped your daughter. Your daughter is nothing more than a clock to this man. But that's ok, because you don't know what two consenting adults mean.
Pastor, when your clock can consent to being married, then we will talk about clock-marrying rights.
And can you name one reason for why same sex marriage should not be allowed that doesn't involve the bible or that you think its icky?
No you haven't. all you've given is your own personal opinions, beliefs, and dogmatic rhetoric! Certainly nothing substantial, empirical, or valid!
Then you haven't been paying attention to my posts!
Seems like you want to ignore the law as you go along!
Your ignorance regarding jurisprudence is astounding! Marriage is a right. But it also requires the CONSENT of the parties involved to exercise that right. It's pretty simple really!
Then you either haven't been paying attention or are just being disingenious. Which is it?
You still haven't explained what the "homosexual agenda" is!
Once again, you display your ignorance regarding the law and legal consent, not to mention utilizing a slippery slope fallacy!
Speak for yourself!
The same argument was made against allowing interracial marriage. Blacks and whits had the right to marry...someone of the same race.
They want the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice. Nothing special about that.
Go right ahead! I dare you! Then sit back and watch as we logically blow your "reasons" out of the water!
Your lack of understanding regarding consent and the law makes you, well ignorant!
Actually, consent is the foundation of the whole concept of rights. Rights do not exist in nature; they come into being when yielded by one organism to another. You only have a right to life when I either agree not to kill you or we both submit to a social contract (which can be as simple as an agreement between two organisms or as complex as a religious framework or the creation of a government and/or constitution) that enumerates a right to life and creates consequences for any party that attempts to circumvent that enumerated right. In determining what rights are to be yielded, we generally determine what the organism is willing to endure or abjure in exchange for certain liberties or benefits.
Consent, then, is paramount; indeed, it is second only to "life" in the hierarchy of foundational values or foundational rights.
It depends on what you mean. He can love his clock; he can live with is clock; I suppose, if he can figure the mechanics out, he isn't hurting anyone but himself if he has sex with his clock. But civic marriage is a contractual agreement; a clock cannot enter into contracts, for even if consent weren't at the heart of the definition of "rights," it's certainly indispensable to the notion of a contract. Nor can it inherit property, apply for a different immigration status, testify (or recuse itself from testifying) in court, visit its "spouse" in the hospital (without some sort of handler) and so on.
Can you tell me what the "homosexual agenda" is? It sounds very ominous, but no one has ever once articulated what this agenda entails. Obviously we can't determine if you've made any points that disprove it, if we don't know what it is.
Yes of course. They are people. They are citizens. They pay taxes, hold jobs, have families, fall in love. I can't think of a single reason why they should be treated any differently than any other person who does those things.
No...that's true. But that has nothing to do with the topic. People who want to legalize incest or bestiality or relationships with inanimate objects...would be three entirely different subjects. People often bring up unrelated subjects like this when they cannot adequately address the topic at hand. It's clear you cannot think of a single reason...not one....why same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed, so you bring in all these unrelated issues instead.
It's not about all discrimination ever...or anything wild-ass thing you can think of that we don't have the right to do...no. It's about same sex marriage.
No...it wouldn't. No one can marry a clock or a dog or their mother, so it's not discriminating against one class by giving a right to another and withholding it from them...it applies to everyone equally. Giving the right to marry the non-related consenting adult of their choice to some of the population, and withholding it from others...is discrimination. Your examples are like saying that we have the right to free speech, but not the right to murder each other...so that's discrimination.
It includes consenting adults, yes. Nothing else. Just as the right to bear arms doesn't include speed boats and the right to an attorney doesn't include strippers and the right to peaceful assembly doesn't include refrigerators. The right defines itself...and in doing so, excludes what isn't a part of that right.
Those other things aren't rights. No one has the right to marry an inanimate object, a relative or an animal. Some people do have the right to marry the non-related, consenting adult that they love. Other people are refused that right, for no apparent reason other than to discriminate against them because they belong to a particular minority.
And you have the right to marry someone who repulses you, but that overlooks the entire point of marriage...to publicly and legally commit to the person we love. Having the right to marry someone we can't possibly love, but have no right to marry the person we do...is not really having the right to marry at all. You know that.
Marrying the non-related, consenting adult that you want...isn't a special privilege. It's a right that most of us enjoy. There is no reason to withhold that right from everyone.
You've expressed opinions, but no reasons. We don't withhold rights from minorities unless there is a specific harm to others in society in granting them or benefit to others in society by withholding them. That isn't the case here. There is no harm to anyone in granting marriage equality, and no benefit to anyone in withholding it.
I'm sure you believe that's a lie as much as we do. If we allowed only tall people to marry their cat or left handed people to marry their mother...then it would be discrimination. Singling out one group and withholding from them a right that is granted to everyone else...is discrimination. We don't take the right to marry the non-related consenting adult that you love and assume that it should grant the right to marry anything....completely disregarding the reasons for marriage, anymore than we take the right to an attorney and assume that grants the right to a stripper or mechanic or anything...completely disregarding the purpose of the right.
No...you can't. Nice try.
Alright, enough is enough. Anyone with a high enough IQ to work the internet should have enough intelligence to know the "marry the clock" premiss is bull@!$%#. Let's just call it what it is: trolling.
I see the regulars have come out to defend their discriminatory bias towards someones right to marry their Clock, cat, dog or mother. You speak of the laws surrounding marriage, yet you yourselves seek to change those very laws. The marriage "contract" is to be between one man and one woman. If you seek to change this, and it will change as society careens off the cliff of immorality, Who is to stop those who love their clock, cat, dog or mother and wants to marry them, from changing the very idea of marriage (again), as homosexuals choose to do now? The answer...no one, as they have a right to marry whomever, or whatever they want...according to your own ideology...throw out the law that is discriminatory. Well in same way, the law (or "legal" idea of consent) against marrying your clock, dog, cat or mother should also be thrown out, as it to is discriminatory in nature, again according to your ideology. The words consent can be removed from the idea of marriage by people who desire to do so, after all this is America. So, stopping quoting law, when it means nothing...it can be changed anytime people choose to band together and do so, be the law good or bad.
Go ahead, say it can't or won't happen...that's what was said about homosexual marriages years ago. To think that mankind will not continue to erode into complete and utter immorality, would be to deny history. You people want to cry about civil rights, yet want to deny others their "civil right" ( again by your own ideology). What a paradox. Homosexual marriage is not, and never will be a "civil" right, and to say so smacks every African American in the face. The two "struggles" can in NO way be compared. They are diametrically opposed.
Keep up the good work people, the "right" to marry your clock, cat, dog or mother is around the corner.
I see you STILL do not understand tha concept of consent or actual law and instead continue to repeat your rhetoric like some mantra in an attempt to sound credible. It's not working!
Morality has nothing to do with it, nor can it be legislated. If mariage laws is changed to include homosexual couples, then it's because it's a matter of equality, not morality, just like it was with interracial marriage!
You sure do love those slippery slope fallacies, don't you?
Yeah, good luck with that!
Maybe if you educated yourself about law, then we wouldn't need to keep quoting it, and proving you wrong over and over!
To think that mankind will because of homosexual marriage is delusional and paranoid!
I doubt you even understand what civil rights is!
Merely your opinion!
Speak for yourself, as that seems to be your issue. I have no problem with homosexual marriage. And you still haven't explained why homosexual marriage should not be allowed.
Keep up the nonsensical and illogical rants Pastor. Your credibility grave just keeps getting deeper and deeper, and you keep looking more and more foolish as a result!
Arguing with pastor65 is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It only frustrates you and annoys the pig. No one can teach pastor65 to sing. He is being deliberately obtuse to get a rise out of everyone.
Sounds more like trolling. Not to mention he never answers challenges presented.
Too true Misscreant....Koza was right...pastor is just trolling, not interested in the slightest in understanding the issue or seeing any point of view but the one he walked in with. Boring.
I hear his clock is thinking of leaving him....but then...clocks are such alarmists...you can never be sure.
I see some folks are on the run. This is what happens when your hate and bigotry is exposed towards others who are in the minority. You certainly love to say others are hateful and show bigotry, when you do the same thing. You have been proven for what you are, by your own ideology, and someone called you on it. Keep up the good work people, your true colors have come shining through.
Speak for yourself! You haven't addressed any of the challenges put forth yet!
Nice attempt to turn the argument around and get the spotlight off of you and your rants. Transparently obvious too!
We're not the ones who would deny people their equal rights!
That's hilarious coming from you! Project much?
The creatures you see at Disneyland and Disney World are just people in costumes, they are not real.
Beauty and the Beast was just a Disney animated fantasy film for children. Clocks do not really go around walking and talking or singing and dancing.
Dear troll, it's hard to have a conversation or discussion or even argument when the troll party refuses to converse and instead regurgitates the same statement over and over again without even addressing the arguments against the statement.
Frankly, I don't much care if someone marries his or her clock, cat, dog, or mother. The fact remains that these categories are distinct from the change currently occurring with regards to the marriage contract.
Only in terms of who is allowed to participate in this particular contract--pointedly not in terms of who is allowed to participate in contracts at all.
The first change only addresses who can enter into the contract. The nature of a contract is that it can only be entered into consensually, by parties legally recognized as being capable of consent. One cannot marry a clock, a cat, or a dog for the same reason a clock, a cat, or a dog cannot vote, get a driver's license, or start a business or non-profit organization.
And at the risk of alienating even my fellow liberals, while I am morally opposed to incest, I'm not convinced that we decrease its incidence or serve any empirically demonstrable civic utility by banning consanguineous marriage. There may be something to the argument that birth defects caused by inbreeding represent a public health problem, and I'd be interested in seeing statistics, but I'm not sure that cousins or siblings would be any less likely to inbreed without the benefits associated with marriage than they would be with; I'm also not convinced that we can use a procreation-based argument against consanguineous marriage while pointing out that marriage between the elderly and infertile already proves that we don't necessarily associate marriage exclusively with procreation. That is, if we insist--rightly, in my opinion--that marriage is not about procreation, we're not really playing fair suggesting that procreative mishaps are reason enough to deny consanguineous marriage.
That said, marriage to one's mother has a whole 'nother set of problems, mostly because there's a natural imbalance of power between a parent and child, even a grown, adult child. That said, denying a marriage license in light of this power imbalance could probably be managed under existing laws that have nothing to do with marriage--specifically laws regarding child and domestic abuse and laws regarding sexual harassment (which are already designed to address imbalances of power).
You seem to think you're actually advancing an argument here, but you're really not; that is, no one's answering your posit because there's no real posit. The ideology of those who believe that gay couples should be able to marry is not that anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything that he or she wants, or that all distinctions are arbitrary.
What we're suggesting, rather, is that there is a contract already extant that certain individuals otherwise at liberty to enter into contracts are denied use of, and that, after examination, no empirically demonstrable civic utility is served by allowing access to one group and denying it to another when the basic functional nature of the relationships is, in many or most cases, the same.
The very concept of "rights" relies on consent. Rule of law, indeed, is generally founded on the notion of consent (to a particularly high degree in a democracy).
You can assert that, but you have, so far, failed to illustrate or demonstrate as much.
Keep up the good work people, the "right" to marry your clock, cat, dog or mother is around the corner.
Lyam,
Here is an argument I laid forth in response to the "Incest" proposition earlier in this discussion.
What are your thoughts?
"No one regardless of age, ability, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, or any other class or category you can come up with is allowed to marry another person who is a immediate family member. Therefore it can not be approached via the argument of equality.
Besides, incest is not a state of being (such as sexuality or gender) rather it is an action. Unlike homosexuals being attracted to someone because of gender, people are not inherently attracted to other people simply because of familial relationship. Most incestuous relationships are a result of coercion and manipulation."
I think that your statement offers an interesting point of discussion, Just an Observation-826313 ,and does a pretty good job of distinguishing incest from, say, polygamy. I'm not sure one can argue that relations between brother and sister will always be coercive, and it's worth noting that marriage between first cousins is already legal in more than a third of states, and between second cousins in nearly all of them (I think).
That said, you do a good job of articulating why incest could be said to fall at a different point in the continuum for acts or unions between individuals not related by blood.
Father forgive them, they know not what they do. Lord Jesus have mercy on our souls.
being gay isn't the same thing as crucifying someone. you might need mercy for not understanding the difference.
Actually, some of them know very well what they're doing. But not everyone believes in or follows your god.
No such thing as either!
I'm a little confused...so you'll need to help me out.
How does being gay equate to wanting sex with an animal or child? Where exactly is the logic in that leap? If I had wanted to marry someone rich, does that mean I also want to marry cheesecake? If I had wanted to marry someone really short, I also wanted to engage in "relations" with a grasshopper?
The leap from homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia is one that completely escapes me. I just don't understand it.
I find it completely fascinating that my hubs is Jewish and I claim no religion and we were married by a Baptist preacher. How does no one scream about that?
You have a point, too bad so many absolutely refuse to see it.
It's a sad commentary.
Indeed. There is no logic. It's grasping at straws. I also never understood how some people hate homosexuality, but then go into DETAIL about homosexual sex act. If you are afraid of something or hate something, why go into detail about the very thing that disgusts you. I had one guy who assumed I was gay (and male) go into detail of what 'I do' not only during sex, but apparently during a gay pride festival (which I have never been to). The interesting part was that my post before his only mentioned molestation stats (since he brought of homosexuals = pedophiles), that the majority are not only committed by men who say they are straight, but also know the victim (friend, family member). We went from a logical post to all of a sudden I am a gay man doing sex acts at a gay pride festival.
I hate spiders. I am afraid of spiders. That's it. End. I will not describe one or what they do. I do not want to picture them or talk anymore about them. If you hate something or fear it, why go into detail?
To get from bestiality and pedophilia to homosexuality is not a leap at all. Both are are unnatural,perverted, and immoral, just like homosexuality. It doesn't matter how many people say it isn't or how many laws are changed to the contrary.
Actually "pastor" homosexually is very natural. Nature displays homosexual tendencies in almost every species. (Don't you own dogs?)
What's your definition of perverted and immoral? Is it immoral for two consenting adults to have sex? No. Is it perverted for two consenting adults to have sex? No. I'm willing to bet your sexual history contains within: blowjobs, reverse cowgirl, doggy and loads of other goodies which your religious texts would damn as sins as any position other than missionary is an insult to your god. (Of course, being the one-dimensional, close-minded individual you are, you will deny that and say you NEVER had oral sex or ever had sex for the pleasure of having sex. You ONLY have sex for procreation and ONLY in the missionary position.)
The leap you're making has no logic to support it.
Checkmate: I hate spiders too!!
Only to you or other homophobes!
Legal consent.
Boom! End.
Maybe pastor will understand math better than he understands basic reasoning.
Civil contract((Person + Consent) + (Person + Consent)) = Civil contract(2*People + 2*Consent) = marriage
Civil contract((Person + Consent) - (Person - Consent)) = Civil contract(0 + 0) = nothing
Apparently bible study has been substituted for math class.
135 deleted, pastor65 flaming...someone:
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
Point taken, tyler.
Guilty. Sometimes I just lose my head.
Mandy...I, unlike yourself and friends, have nothing to hide, and no reason to lie. I speak the truth, and a few just can't stand it. I understand that people get a bit irate when someone like myself tells it like it is. No one likes to be told that their lifestyle, actions or choices are wrong. People want to do whatever they want without repercussions, or someone telling them that their choice is wrong or immoral. I have not been called to be popular, or to tell people what they want to hear...I have been called to speak the truth. If the truth offends you, oh well. It should.
I wish to prove nothing to no one, as I do not have to. I do, however feel compeled to point out the blatant bigotry and double standards of some who post here.
No matter what some here may desire to portray, two homosexuals in a "loving" relationship can never produce offspring together...never..period. Secondly, 20 years ago the same thing was being said about homosexuality, yet here we are....so in light of your rants, consent CAN be done away with, as people wax worse and worse, thus the marry your clock analogy CAN, and probably WILL take place in years to come. This from your very own ideology. The very fact that you refute that it can happen is bigoted, prejudicial, and discriminatory (again,by your own ideology).The very things you call others out on, you do yourself, especially towards people of the Christian faith.
It is not I that am "forcing" my beliefs on anyone (this has been the belief of most Americans for Centuries)...quite the opposite. It is the atheistic, agnostic, liberal homosexual crowd that is "shoving" it's agenda on everyone else.
Is offspring a requirement for marriage? Or vice versa? Yes or no Pastor?
What was said exactly? Homosexual marriage first became legal in 2003, nearly 10 years ago. So what problems or issues have arisen from that that is unique or exclusive to homosexual mnarriages as opposed to hetero marriages?
Pure, unsubstantiated conjecture!
And now paranoia!
What "agenda" would that be?
Only in your mind. But your idea of "truth" is subjective and yours alone. Not everyone follows your "truth," nor do you present any FACTS to support your "truth!"
See the previous comment!
What you consider wrong, or immoral, is your own opinion only!
No worries there!
I don't recall having anything to hide. Care to inform me of what that is?
And no. You're right. They cannot have children. But do you then deny marriage to couples who do not plan on having children? What about older couples getting married?
And why would consent EVER be done away with? Legal contracts are how pretty much everything gets done in our society. To say that it would just disappear without any evidence is just kind of ridiculous.
And we all know tradition is never wrong. /sarc
Tell me, with your continued fear of pedophilia, do you think we should have done away with the tradition of child-marriages when we did?
Should we have done away with the tradition of forced marriage when we did?
Should we have done away with the tradition of slavery when we did?
Should we have done away with the tradition of a man paying some silver to marry the woman he raped?
Should we have done away with the tradition of stoning disobedient children?
Tradition dies when its proven worthless, and your tradition is.
Visualize consumating a gay marriage! That is a mirage!
You seem to have an obsession with visualizing homosexual sex.
*takes out pipe and notebook*
Take a seat on the couch and tell me about your mother.
Hardly anybody consummates a marriage anymore. They have all had sex before hand.
I know I did, try it before you buy it imo.