OT: State of the Union

[simplycurious]

Lwood said:

My apologies to simplycurious, I can't just let it go.

[glow=red,2,300]BUSTED!![/glow]

I knew you couldn't leave well enough alone!!

You didn't even last 12 hours, let alone a day, how in the world were you going to last an entire week!?

Oh well, you're free to do what you wish here. As for me, I've decided to take a hiatis (of sorts) and do some other things in my life rather then 'monitor' this board. ;D

_{BTW, you might need a twelve-step program to help you with your addiction, let me know if you want me to recommend someone to you!}

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Lwood said:

3. It always amazes me how the left suddenly stands up for states rights when they want to press their minority agenda on America. What is being proposed is in response to the initial action taken by the gay community to redefine marriage.

If it is an issue of the gay community "redefining marriage," then why does the president think it is necessary to spell it out in the constitution?

If marriage is already " defined" as being only man/woman, then it shouldn't be an issue. However, the court rulings have shown that marriage, from the government's perspective, really _isn't_ defined as man/woman, and that same-sex marriages are allowed. Granted, it may not be the commonly thought view, but legally, that is where it stands. It is actually those who want to change the constitution who want to impose the view that marriage is only man/woman, and thereby excludes gay marriages.

Now, who is "redefining"? The ones who say "The current constitution does not allow for prohibiting gay marriages, so gay people must be allowed to get married," or the ones who say "The current constitution does not allow for prohibiting gay marriages, but we think it should so we are going to try to modify it to prohibit gay marriages."?

Think about it - if it is necessary to change the constitution to allow for the prohibition of gay marriage, then, by definition, the current consitution must not allow it to happen. Suddenly, the question of who is redefining what becomes much murkier.

[Lwood]

Pablo said:

If it is an issue of the gay community "redefining marriage," then why does the president think it is necessary to spell it out in the constitution?

If marriage is already " defined" as being only man/woman, then it shouldn't be an issue. However, the court rulings have shown that marriage, from the government's perspective, really _isn't_ defined as man/woman, and that same-sex marriages are allowed. Granted, it may not be the commonly thought view, but legally, that is where it stands. It is actually those who want to change the constitution who want to impose the view that marriage is only man/woman, and thereby excludes gay marriages.

Now, who is "redefining"? The ones who say "The current constitution does not allow for prohibiting gay marriages, so gay people must be allowed to get married," or the ones who say "The current constitution does not allow for prohibiting gay marriages, but we think it should so we are going to try to modify it to prohibit gay marriages."?

Think about it - if it is necessary to change the constitution to allow for the prohibition of gay marriage, then, by definition, the current consitution must not allow it to happen. Suddenly, the question of who is redefining what becomes much murkier.

Explain to me where at any time in the history of man that marriage has meant anything other than a man and a woman? Should a constitution spell out the definition of every word? Isn't it possible that the authors never thought it necessary to define the word marriage because everyone understood what a marriage was?

Once again I have to say that I can not define morality anymore than you can define marriage.

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Lwood said:

Explain to me where at any time in the history of man that marriage has meant anything other than a man and a woman?

You mean aside from when it could also mean a man and many women?

[Deleted]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

10 points for Pablo.

How 'bout them Boilermakers, Pabs?

[The Bofa on the Sofa]

Bête said:

Ding! Ding! Ding!

10 points for Pablo.

How 'bout them Boilermakers, Pabs?

In what way? Volleyball recruiting seems to be going well. There apparently hasn't been any football games lately (no big traffic problems on Saturdays), so I wouldn't know what else you mean.

It looks like there are activities in Mackey Arena every once in a while or so, but I really don't pay enough attention to know what's going on.

[Deleted]

I was referring to the recruits.

[Lwood]

Pablo said:

You mean aside from when it could also mean a man and many women?

It is still a man and a woman, not a man and many men or a woman and many women. Finally someone who keeps arguing with me ends up proving my point. Thank you.

[Wolfgang]

I didn't read any post in this thread but I wanted to get a word in edge-wise. So, could you, would you, with a goat? Could you, would you, in a boat?*

Footnote:
* Nothing perverted. It's just Sam-I-Am and Green Eggs and Ham.

[Skippy]

Lwood said:

It is still a man and a woman, not a man and many men or a woman and many women. Finally someone who keeps arguing with me ends up proving my point. Thank you.

*scratches head* I fail to see how he proved your point. Care to enlighten me?

[Lwood]

Skippy: said:

*scratches head* I fail to see how he proved your point. Care to enlighten me?

Not really. It's a simple concept. Man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman.

This discussion is getting old. In conclusion we have a number of people on VT (and America) who think marriage is not a sacred institution and that it can be redefined. Disagree with agree with, agree with me, I don't care. I will go on record at this time with the following prediction. Gay marriage will not be legalized in the U.S. anytime soon. What is happening in Mass. will eventually fail. If I am proved wrong in the near future feel free to come back and rub it in my face.

[Barefoot In Kailua]

Lwood said:

Explain to me where at any time in the history of man that marriage has meant anything other than a man and a woman? Should a constitution spell out the definition of every word? Isn't it possible that the authors never thought it necessary to define the word marriage because everyone understood what a marriage was?

Good point. I'm sure if the founding fathers of this Nation had the foresight to view the world today, among other clarifications of the Constitution, they would have clearly defined Marriage as a Union between a Man and a Woman.

Members of the same gender cannot procreate. Where does the traditional definition of Family come into play?

[StanfordFan]

Fine, you don't want to let it go, neither will I.

1. Marriage is a legal concept. Marriage, and the attendant legal rights, are defined by statute. Morality, on the other hand, is not. I have no problem with a legislature defining marriage in accordance with constitutional principles. I do have a problem with people like you deciding that the constitution is defined by your particular sense of morality.

2. You need to check your health stats a little more. AIDS is spreading faster among heterosexuals than homosexuals. While there are probably a number of reasons, there happen to be a heckuva lot more heterosexuals, and they tend to be less educated than the gay community about disease transmittal.

3. You take a swipe at "liberals" and "states rights," but you still haven't explained to me how religious conservatives can justify an intrusion as dramatic as a federal constitutional amendment into an area that has historically always been an issue dealt with by states.

4. You can call yourself whatever you want, discriminator or "disagreer." That's like saying, "I disagree with the policy of treating African-Americans and women equally under the law as white men are treated."

The fact of the matter is, you are a discriminator, as proven by each of your posts on this subject. And like I said, I could care less what you do in your personal life. Once you try and enact that discrimination into a federal constitutional amendment to affect everyone else's lives as well, then I'll take issue with you.

You may hate it, but ultimately, the gay community will win out in this argument. Because everytime you spout off about how the fragile concept of marriage will be destroyed by the evil homosexuals, or how homosexuals are taking over schools and indoctrinating the children, or how the gay mafia is taking over your airwaves, open-minded people neutral on the subject will slowly realize how hateful and trivial such arguments are.

Lwood said:

Stanford Fan. I can't just let it go.

1. I can not define or arbitrate morality anymore than you can define or arbitrate marriage.

2. Health stats is my profession. I'm a college health professor. You are wrong.

3. It always amazes me how the left suddenly stands up for states rights when they want to press their minority agenda on America. What is being proposed is in response to the initial action taken by the gay community to redefine marriage.

4. Since when does disagreement equal discrimination? Your line of thinking is dangerous. You are bordering on being the thought police. Regarding legislation, heterosexuals are not the ones trying to change the legislation.

My apologies to simplycurious

[Lwood]

1. The state has not defined marriage. The state has established the attendant legal rights. I agree that gay people must have equal protection under the law. I have a problem with redefining marriage. This is a concept people like you are having trouble grasping and you get irritated by it. The redefining of marriage to mean something other than a man and woman will be met with large opposition.

2. Disease transmission is a debate you will lose. Read below. If you want the entire report click on the link. The high risk behaviors remain the same. There has been a significant increase in the number of new cases of HIV in the poor African American community, especially in the South. You are right that there are multiple reasons.

Recent HIV incidence has been approximately constant in most populations for which time trends have been estimated. These include MSM (men having sex with men) and heterosexual patients not known to be IDUs (intravenous drug users) at the San Francisco municipal sexually transmitted disease clinic (1990-1998 20); US Army personnel on active duty (1988-1996 34); men and women in the US Army Reserves (1986-1991 29,30); and first-time blood donors (1993-1996 33). However, HIV incidence declined during 1988 through 1997 among IDUs in Baltimore, Md

www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/ovid/epidemic-in-transition.htm

3. If you truly believe that this is a states rights issue then why hasn't the gay community introduced legislation into the legislative process? Why not let representative government take its course? I never said I was in favor of amending the constitution. I said I understand why this is being introduced. It is in reaction to the tactic being used by the gay community to achieve its goal. Put this issue to a vote on the floor of each state legislature and I will live with the outcome. Why is the gay community unwilling to do the same?

4. Discriminate has two meanings: To see a difference, to treat differently. Disagree means: to not have the same opinion, idea, etc.; to not agree. The PC thought police think as you do. That is, if someone disagrees with you than they are discriminating against you.

Never in any of my post have I discrimated against gay people. I have disagreed with them. See the definition above.

Put your issue to a vote of the state legislatures. I can live with the outcome. Can you?

StanfordFan said:

Fine, you don't want to let it go, neither will I.

1. Marriage is a legal concept. Marriage, and the attendant legal rights, are defined by statute. Morality, on the other hand, is not. I have no problem with a legislature defining marriage in accordance with constitutional principles. I do have a problem with people like you deciding that the constitution is defined by your particular sense of morality.

2. You need to check your health stats a little more. AIDS is spreading faster among heterosexuals than homosexuals. While there are probably a number of reasons, there happen to be a heckuva lot more heterosexuals, and they tend to be less educated than the gay community about disease transmittal.

3. You take a swipe at "liberals" and "states rights," but you still haven't explained to me how religious conservatives can justify an intrusion as dramatic as a federal constitutional amendment into an area that has historically always been an issue dealt with by states.

4. You can call yourself whatever you want, discriminator or "disagreer." That's like saying, "I disagree with the policy of treating African-Americans and women equally under the law as white men are treated."

The fact of the matter is, you are a discriminator, as proven by each of your posts on this subject. And like I said, I could care less what you do in your personal life. Once you try and enact that discrimination into a federal constitutional amendment to affect everyone else's lives as well, then I'll take issue with you.

You may hate it, but ultimately, the gay community will win out in this argument. Because everytime you spout off about how the fragile concept of marriage will be destroyed by the evil homosexuals, or how homosexuals are taking over schools and indoctrinating the children, or how the gay mafia is taking over your airwaves, open-minded people neutral on the subject will slowly realize how hateful and trivial such arguments are.