Maybe some of you have allready seen this. For the record, I have no opinion on same sex marriage. I'll let the public fight it out, and then pick the winner.

( A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )
"Next."
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've
been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you
can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I
have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a
woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us
just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert,
Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June
and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can
express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.
The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the
constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a
marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to
marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of
marriage!!"

Hey look, a completely unrealistic turn of events to highlight the liberties being taken in regards to marriage!
Good job old chap! *rolls eyes*

Wuestion to arisensun: Do you consider heterosexual couples who doesn't really love each other (or love each other in a totally un-erotic way) to be a mockery of marrige?

I mean, if a man and a woman gets married merely for "financial benefits" or because their parents urge them to do so. What about that?

And what about Mrs Spears and her two days long marrige?

And finally, if a black man marry a white woman for the WRONG reasons (whatever reasons you consider to be wrong), does that indicate that it was wrong to lift the ban on marriges between people of different races?

Ediena, don't engage!
They can't handle logic. It scrambles their microchips, or something!

If thr United States sees errosion of marriage as the cause of the decline in morality and the troubles of society, than by all means make Divorce illegal and adultury (sp?) punnishable by imprisionment.

Hey look, a completely unrealistic turn of events to highlight the liberties being taken in regards to marriage!
Liberties? Breaking the law you mean.

Edeina - Since he obviously stated he didn't give a fuck but you wanted to ask anyway, I'll answer for him.
Do you consider heterosexual couples who doesn't really love each other (or love each other in a totally un-erotic way) to be a mockery of marrige?
No, marriage isn't about being erotic, and the govt doesn't care whether you love each other or not.

I mean, if a man and a woman gets married merely for "financial benefits" or because their parents urge them to do so. What about that?
Govt doesn't care why again, only that they are married.

And what about Mrs Spears and her two days long marrige?
For a few fleeting moments, the slut contributed to civilization. But then regressed back to her normal self.

And finally, if a black man marry a white woman for the WRONG reasons (whatever reasons you consider to be wrong), does that indicate that it was wrong to lift the ban on marriges between people of different races?
Nothing wrong with a man and a woman getting married, as long as it's allowed by law.

Your sidestep around every question and point the question's pose with the use of law, is contradicting the point of the post's here.
The posts are about law - and it's bloody stupid. That's Ediena's point. Replying with "but it's like totally all about the law" borders on idiocy.
But we are talking about you Akipt, so it's nothing short of expected.

The original post outlined situations that don't arise, in order to make a mockery out of the argument for same-sex-marriage. It's about as relevent as my saying "all pencils should be banned incase somebody goes on a rampant murder spree with a sharp onel!"
Fucking pointless, eh?

The question here is ABOUT the law, contributing to the discussion with The Law Rules OK? is about as useful as your existence on these forums.

T.W.A.T.

'If thr United States sees errosion of marriage as the cause of the decline in morality and the troubles of society, than by all means make Divorce illegal and adultury (sp?) punnishable by imprisionment. '

- Oh lordy lordy.
*bangs head against the wall*
It's a crazy world, full of contradiction. "Hey - failed marriage must be the problems of our society! Let's lay the law down on that, and ignore the million other problems like gun culture! Wahoo! Let's go out for some milk!"

Your sidestep around every question and point the question's pose with the use of law, is contradicting the point of the post's here.
I only mentioned the law once, in response to your liberties crap. Breaking the law is not exercising some liberty, that would be anarchy.

The rest of the spew from Edeina is just his way of putting emotions, love, sex, and erotism into the already confused argument for gay marriage.

Marriage (from the government's viewpoint) has nothing to do with any of those and our laws show that. No-fault divorse could not be more obvious to you than that.

So I clearly tried to correct the error of his questions and you call me the idiot. Right.

So, do you want to argue that our government gives a shit whether you love your wife or not, and if you don't, Uncle Sam wants you to divorse?

Go ahead, be the idiot.

Edit: oh damn, I did mention law a second time... only because he was arguing the validity of something the law has already decided.

Kinda ironic I bring up the law in a post that posed the same rhetoric?

Fun little text Arisensun. Shows how people are getting too far in *human rights*.

It's about as relevent as my saying "all pencils should be banned incase somebody goes on a rampant murder spree with a sharp onel!"
Fucking pointless, eh?

then...

Let's lay the law down on that, and ignore the million other problems like gun culture! (Emphasis mine)

'Breaking the law is not exercising some liberty, that would be anarchy.'

- Oh get a grip you prat. How else do you think most laws are changed? I'd hardly brand Rosa Parks an anarchist.
The law isn't always right, Akipt. *gasp* Big shock there Whitecollar man. Law doesn't always exist to serve the interest of the people.

'The rest of the spew from Edeina is just his way of putting emotions, love, sex, and erotism into the already confused argument for gay marriage. '

- Confused? It's hardly a confused argument. It's simple, and I'm sure it's written down in that "constitution" of yours somewhere: People have a right to exercise their freedom of choice. The current law prohibits same-sex-couples from marriage. That is wrong.
The original poster tried to express how wrong it is by bringing up non-relevent, painfully creative situations which have about as much possibility as happening than you growing a brain cell. Confused? Shit, the only argument that's confused here is the one against, usually spewed out and carried by a bunch of fucking homophobic christian twats. HEY ZHEN! /waves

'Fun little text Arisensun. Shows how people are getting too far in *human rights*. '

- *shakes his head* This is Typical_Against_Gay_Marriage_Prat that would love to use the original post as prime material for the argument against gay-marriage.
For gay marriage confused? Yegods.

You'll find Faust, that the line you quoted could be painfully ironic if I were against the banning of all guns.
But sharp eye, old boy.

For a few fleeting moments, the slut contributed to civilization. But then regressed back to her normal self.
So, by illustrating just what a joke you "Marriage is Holy" guys are, she was contributing to society? :p

Of course.
Because it makes so much sense.

Im not AGAINST gay marriage halo. It doesnt touch me so i wouldn't really be involved in it. The only thing that bothers me is that some people on these boards are human rights fanatics. You know we gotta draw a line somewhere for rights and morals.

Impresario Almadar Tegleftyln
Retired

You know we gotta draw a line somewhere for rights and morals.
This is true. However, that line gets moved around like a tennis ball in flight. I think the argument that because gays can marry then people will do it just for the benefits is a non issue because if that really happened then men and women would do it now. If they dont then the argument falls flat, if they do it negates the issue completely cause its already happening.

LOL shouldnt we keep this issue in a single thread. I mean its jumped across 4 threads so far. I dont see any new arguments or anything productive being done with the issue that hasnt been said 5x anyway.

'You know we gotta draw a line somewhere for rights and morals. '

- It rings in my head that if forums were around 50 years ago, someone would be giving that exact line for interracial marriages.

I agree that a society has to protect rights and morals, but nonetheless it also has to respect the rights and freedoms of people's individuality.
You may have to draw the line somewhere, but you also have to know when to move it around.

So, by illustrating just what a joke you "Marriage is Holy" guys are

Marriage is a benefit to society, as you were want to avoid in the other thread. That's why government recognizes it.

Owning a home is a benefit to society as well. Wonder why our government and other institutions give you rewards for that.

Centuries of experience has built up a large body of laws and practices geared to this legally recognized relationship between a man and a woman.

To then transfer all of that to another relationship that was not contemplated when these laws were passed is to make rhetoric more important than reality.

And the more rhetoric you guys spew, like "Marriage is Holy", "You bible thumping bigots hate gays", and "You're denying me of my civil rights" just clouds the real issue. But you do that because its so damned easy to make fun of the conservative Christians in this country.

Marriage is a benefit to society, as you were want to avoid in the other thread. That's why government recognizes it.
No one avoided it. We just realized your only "proof" was a copy/pasted set of sources which were easily refutable or even able to be interpreted either way. You failed to produce any evidence other than your own opinion.

You're the one that avoided the issue, after your copy/paste from keep-god-in-marriage.com failed to impress anyone.

But you do that because its so damned easy to make fun of the conservative Christians in this country.
The only things I've said here are in regards to the people posting here, no one else.

A scene at City Hall in San Francisco
Tim and Tom say "We would like to apply for a marriage license"
The Clerk "Sorry same sex marriage licenses are on hold for the time being"

"Do you consider heterosexual couples who doesn't really love each other (or love each other in a totally un-erotic way) to be a mockery of marrige?"

I think getting married is a mockery of nature in general. I prefer the single life, and having my options open... Baby, you and me aint nothing but mammals...

This whole argument is so fucking stupid. I am so sick of it.
We should be worried about building a nuclear powered space shuttle, not who wants to put who's wee-wee in who's poopshoot. Fuck a guy, a girl, a goat, your brother, your dad, your hand I dont give a fuck, seriously. Ill even come to the wedding, its free food.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

You're the one that avoided the issue, after your copy/paste from keep-god-in-marriage.com failed to impress anyone.

My apologies, I thought you just ignored my follow-up post.

www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001702.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001702.htm)
> Because out-of-wedlock childbearing is associated with adverse pregnancy and infant health outcomes, increasing attention has been focused on out-of-wedlock childbearing as a maternal and child-health policy issue in the United States.

aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/parenthood.htm (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/parenthood.htm)
> Over the last four decades, the declining proportion of married adults in the United States has contributed to a significant worsening of the economic status of families with children.

aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/hardship.htm (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/hardship.htm)
>The decline in marriage is a well-known and well-documented phenomenon, with major consequences for poverty, inequality, and the use of welfare programs. The proportion of children in families headed by never-married mothers—families with the highest poverty rates and lowest incomes—jumped from less than 1 percent in the early 1970s to over 9 percent today. Researchers (e.g., Lerman, 1996; Sawhill, 1999) attribute a substantial share of the rise in poverty among children to the changing structure of families with children. Even after the decline in poverty rates during the 1990s, the poverty rate experienced by single mother families was over 35 percent, while about 6 percent of married couple families with children had incomes below the poverty line. The differential in chronic poverty is also high, with one-parent families facing a two year poverty rate 10 times higher than the rate among two-parent families (22.8 percent vs. 2.8 percent). An accumulation of evidence also suggests that children growing up without two natural parents do worse on a variety of social and economic outcomes.

aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/summary.htm (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage-well-being03/summary.htm)
> His findings continue to indicate that marriage reduces the risk of hardship, even among those with lower incomes or lower education. The results further suggests that one reason for this outcome may be that married parents have more stable unions and have greater access to assistance from friends, family and community. In addition to measures of material hardship, the paper also examines well-being in terms of income-to-needs ratios, or welfare ratios.

Like I said last time, I'd post more but it's all in pdf on more of those keep-god-in-marriage.com sites, such as, the CDC, the Census, and the Health and Human Services.

Oh yeah, I do remember skimming over that before. I had just ignored it because it was so amazingly irrelevant.

So basically, what you're saying is that your own position of trying to prevent certain groups from marriage is harming the county's economy and children? I have no idea why you would post things that substantiate your opposition's argument, but umm... way to go.

'Centuries of experience has built up a large body of laws and practices geared to this legally recognized relationship between a man and a woman.

To then transfer all of that to another relationship that was not contemplated when these laws were passed is to make rhetoric more important than reality. '

- So at the end of all this, you would deny homosexuals the right and freedom to be equal in today's society, because of the fear of rhetorical correction? Because it didn't serve society at the time law and constitution were created?
People are denied their right to live their life how they will, due to fear of Chaos Theory?

THE GAYS ARE MARRYING - LIFE AS WE KNOW IT HAS FALLEN IN TO RUIN!!!!

A society and its governing laws must always move, because time doesn't stand still. Adapt to a changing society - or you're fucked [not "you" as in you directly, Akipt]

I had just ignored it because it was so amazingly irrelevant.
You argued that marriage between a man and a woman had no benefit to society. I proved otherwise. How silly of me to think that would satisfy you.

I have no idea why you would post things that substantiate your opposition's argument, but umm... way to go.

Show me something that supports that gay marriage gives the same benefits to society as hetero marriage, then you can gloat.

You'll find Faust, that the line you quoted could be painfully ironic if I were against the banning of all guns.
But sharp eye, old boy.

Thank-you, old bean!

I think you were for banning guns, last we broached the subject. Yet, "It's about as relevent as my saying "all pencils should be banned incase somebody goes on a rampant murder spree with a sharp onel!"", which you seem to understand as "Fucking pointless, eh?", and I do not fault your logic there. That would be pointless, as you wisely pointed out.

Then, the very next post with your name on it surrenders this gem: "Let's lay the law down on that, and ignore the million other problems like gun culture!" which focuses on your dislike for America's "gun-culture". Yet, just a couple posts ahead of that you were using a very standard argument offered up by America's "gun culture", and that, I found delightfully amusing.

It's a shame I had to break out the cocktail-napkin and crayons to have to draw a map of it all for you. Perhaps as you recover from your brief sabbatical from the boards you'll become a little more aware than you've demonstrated here.

Although, I must admit that I do find some old revived levity to the boards in your return.

Cheerio!

Feuerfaust,
It's not one way or the other.
I mean, sure, you can chose to be for or against hascher control of handguns. But it doesn't make the other side idiotic. And the pencil analogy is still valid.

I am certain that everyone here, including you, agree that it would be silly to forbid regular citizens from owning their own personal pencils. What if someone freaks out with one? :lol

I am certain that everyone here, including you, agree that it would be foolish to allow regular citizens to own their own personal atomic bombs. What if someone freaks out with one? :\

See my point?

Which of these two categories handguns fall into, that's up to you. And it's entirely beside the point. The pencil is the appropriate analogy for gay marrige. Not the handgun or the atombomb.

I'm surely not for banning guns, Faust. There are some institutions that need to be protected in society.
But that doesn't mean I'm not bloody well for the dumbing down of gun culture.
Just take a look at the gun thread on this forum a few ones down.. people are bragging about the killing capacity of their personally owned guns.
Weren't you one of them?

'Although, I must admit that I do find some old revived levity to the boards in your return.'

- I've always felt that special something-something between us Faust. *sexy hug*
Not here for long though, will have to skid-addle again shortly. But there's always time for drive-by Euro-trash Anti-American threads every so often! We all love 'em, hate them or not ;P

See my point?

I don't, actually.

More to the point, I don't see it how it relates to my statement(s) here. I think we're not communicating at 100%, or you've misinterpreted my point.

I am not debating (on this thread) gun-control. I am not debating same-sex marriages (*cough*dead-horse*cough*). I am pointing out that Halo utilized an argument that is very frequently used by the same "gun culture" that he rails against just a few short posts later. That argument being, "I could use *insert random item here* to kill someone, that doesn't mean that you ban them, because that would be silly." I am not even debating the validity of the argument. I am just amusedly pointing out a similar argument being used by someone that disagrees when that very argument is put contrary to his ideas on a different subject.

'I am just amusedly pointing out a similar argument being used by someone that disagrees when that very argument is put contrary to his ideas on a different subject.'

- You're not reading a single word I'm typing, are ye?
Bloody.. monk.

Where this issue is headed... (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/LifeOfBrian/brian-07.html)

You're not reading a single word I'm typing, are ye?

ROFL, whoops. The post times are 1512 for you and 1517 for me. I think I was typing as yours went up, so I missed it. Just bad timing, not me ignoring ya, believe it or not.

I had always thought you were 100% opposed to citizens owning firearms, but it turns out that was an incorrect belief on my part. Very cool. (As an aside to that, no...I wasn't one of the ones bragging about how many people my current collection can kill. Not really my style.)

Bloody.. monk.

Is there any other kind?

The dead kind :P

Dear Willgatus:

Rofl!

And, if anyone cares, the American Anthropological Association (folks who study human civilizations for a living ;) ) posted the following statement this week in response to the Bush administration's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage...

www.aaanet.org/press/ma_s...rriage.htm (http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm)

...anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

Seriously, I was hoping I could learn something from these people. But I'm entirely unimpressed with these UC Berkley liberals.

They used "research" and opinions from such societies as:

...the ancient Egyptians who theoretically allowed sam sex marriage. Who btw, are long gone as a civilization. That's not something to base your civilization's existence on is it? They do.

...the Greeks and Romans who vaguely approved of same sex partners in their theology and mythologies. Oh, they no longer exist either.

...some African tribes who allow same sex unions - and they also basically no longer exist or are in the process of being killed off by the Aids epidemic. Not a very stable foundation either is it?

What I'm looking for is the benefits to society for allowing same sex unions, not just examples of some vague notion that it was tolerated in some civilization at some point in the past.

Perhaps I missed it, but from what I saw they haven't done any research on the effects of same sex unions in Europe TODAY. Or for that matter what homosexuality has done in their own back yard, San Francisco.

>>"Perhaps I missed it, but from what I saw they haven't done any research on the effects of same sex unions in Europe TODAY."

They function quite fine here in Sweden, thank you. One of my friends just started a family business together with her wife. They are both therapists, specializing in helping young victims of abuse.