"Researchers find bisexual and exclusively gay dolphins"

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That religious people dislike gays or oppose gay marriage is really irrelevant.

Well that's where I think you are really wrong, because the vast majority of people who comprise our society, are "religious" to some degree. What they like or dislike, they have every right to express, just as you do... and they have a right to lobby for laws and societal structure conducive with their beliefs, just like you do. To make them irrelevant is to defy their individual liberty and deprive them of freedom of speech, which I know you can't possibly advocate.

The gay marriage issue is about benefits bestowed upon married couples by the government.

First of all, "the government" is WE THE PEOPLE! WE run the government! Why should my tax dollars go to support something my religious beliefs prohibit me from supporting or condoning? Don't I have the free political speech right to protest this? Or in your mind,should my voice be silenced in irrelevance?

If "gay marriage" were only about benefits of traditional married couples, it could easily be solved with civil unions, the definition of marriage need not be re-written. This is about a political attack by seculars on religion. Period.

And while you and I are allowed to like or dislike people, agree or disagree with people, and choose who we give our approval to, based on sexual orientation, the government is not free to do anything resembling that.

Again, the government is US! They do what WE tell them to do! WE make the laws which govern our society, government doesn't. Government only administers the laws WE create through the legislature, they have no authority to establish law or determine what is legal or illegal.

Our legislation is created by elected representatives, who write the laws WE tell them to. We all have an equal right to voice our opinions and have our viewpoint heard by our representatives. This also applies to religious people, whether you like that or not... and there are a LOT of them out here.

Now, it would be preferable to have the gov't out of the marriage licencing business altogether.

Agreed. Again, hearkening back to my suggestion of comprehensive "civil union" legislation, and eliminating "Marriage" from any government association. This avoids a "re-definition" of any kind, the government simply doesn't recognize marriages, instead, we have CU contracts between consenting adults of legal age, regardless of sexuality or religious belief. It's a clear solution to this whole entire issue, and I believe it would have wide appeal, but this is not being presented by anyone... instead, we are mired in this ridiculous and never-ending culture war.

But if that isn't going to happen, they should at least base the benefits on fair principles and not on religious dogma.

Again... Religious people do have the right to use "religious dogma" in formulating their viewpoints and opinions, and this "dogma" can (and does) influence the laws and rules we establish as a free society. To try and segregate religious people from everyone else, and claim some moral sanctity, is a bit ironic to me, to say the least, but it is kind of scary that you seem to be advocating something completely contradictory to liberty and freedom here.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I never said anything of the kind.

You said this:

So the only contribution any person makes is reproduction? So your claim is that Louisa May Alcott, Susan B. Anthony, Louis Armstrong, Jane Austen, Francis Bacon, Ludwig Van Beethoven, President James Buchanan, Julia Child, Helen Clark (New Zealand Prime Minister), Copernicus, Leonardo Da Vinci, Rene Descartes, Sir Francis Drake, Amelia Earhart, William Faulkner, Dian Fossey, President Warren Gamaliel Harding, Katherine Hepburn, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Helen Keller, Sir Isaac Newton, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Florence Nightingale all have no real contributing value?? But some tramp without the sense to use birthcontrol has value? Warped sense of value you have there.

I did indeed say that. It was part of a longer statement. But I did not say that I believe she has no value.

So what were you saying to DY, I mean, Granule?

 

[WinterBorn]

Well that's where I think you are really wrong, because the vast majority of people who comprise our society, are "religious" to some degree. What they like or dislike, they have every right to express, just as you do... and they have a right to lobby for laws and societal structure conducive with their beliefs, just like you do. To make them irrelevant is to defy their individual liberty and deprive them of freedom of speech, which I know you can't possibly advocate.



First of all, "the government" is WE THE PEOPLE! WE run the government! Why should my tax dollars go to support something my religious beliefs prohibit me from supporting or condoning? Don't I have the free political speech right to protest this? Or in your mind,should my voice be silenced in irrelevance?

If "gay marriage" were only about benefits of traditional married couples, it could easily be solved with civil unions, the definition of marriage need not be re-written. This is about a political attack by seculars on religion. Period.




Again, the government is US! They do what WE tell them to do! WE make the laws which govern our society, government doesn't. Government only administers the laws WE create through the legislature, they have no authority to establish law or determine what is legal or illegal.

Our legislation is created by elected representatives, who write the laws WE tell them to. We all have an equal right to voice our opinions and have our viewpoint heard by our representatives. This also applies to religious people, whether you like that or not... and there are a LOT of them out here.



Agreed. Again, hearkening back to my suggestion of comprehensive "civil union" legislation, and eliminating "Marriage" from any government association. This avoids a "re-definition" of any kind, the government simply doesn't recognize marriages, instead, we have CU contracts between consenting adults of legal age, regardless of sexuality or religious belief. It's a clear solution to this whole entire issue, and I believe it would have wide appeal, but this is not being presented by anyone... instead, we are mired in this ridiculous and never-ending culture war.



Again... Religious people do have the right to use "religious dogma" in formulating their viewpoints and opinions, and this "dogma" can (and does) influence the laws and rules we establish as a free society. To try and segregate religious people from everyone else, and claim some moral sanctity, is a bit ironic to me, to say the least, but it is kind of scary that you seem to be advocating something completely contradictory to liberty and freedom here.

The majority cannot oppress the minority. That is why we have the US Constitution. That the majority are religious may be a fact. But in most polls I have seen, the majority no longor oppose homosexuality.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The majority cannot oppress the minority. That is why we have the US Constitution. That the majority are religious may be a fact. But in most polls I have seen, the majority no longor oppose homosexuality.

None one is being oppressed. Everyone has the exact same right to "marry" as marriage is defined. If you believe in the US Constitution, you have to believe that religious people (especially) have the freedom to express their religious views and lobby for laws based on those views.

And let's also clarify, people who are opposed to gay marriage, do not necessarily "hate" gay people. You continue to make this inference, whenever you use statements like "no longer oppose homosexuality." This debate isn't about who opposes homosexuality, it's about who opposes gay marriage... two entirely different things. Most religious people don't "hate" homosexuals, or anyone, for that matter. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

From my perspective, it is quite a bigoted view to believe all tenable arguments against gay marriage is rooted in hatred for gay people.

 

[WinterBorn]

None one is being oppressed. Everyone has the exact same right to "marry" as marriage is defined. If you believe in the US Constitution, you have to believe that religious people (especially) have the freedom to express their religious views and lobby for laws based on those views.

With the caveat "...as marriage is defined", you are correct. So we are going to change the govvernment's definition of marriage.

They are free to express themselves. But creating laws based on religious views goes against the Bill of Rights.

And let's also clarify, people who are opposed to gay marriage, do not necessarily "hate" gay people. You continue to make this inference, whenever you use statements like "no longer oppose homosexuality." This debate isn't about who opposes homosexuality, it's about who opposes gay marriage... two entirely different things. Most religious people don't "hate" homosexuals, or anyone, for that matter. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

From my perspective, it is quite a bigoted view to believe all tenable arguments against gay marriage is rooted in hatred for gay people.

One only has to look at the majority of views expressed to see why the claim that it is based in bigotry.

 

[WinterBorn]

You said this:





So what were you saying to DY, I mean, Granule?

I asked Granule a question. I did not make a statement except where I pointed out the warped sense of values.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

With the caveat "...as marriage is defined", you are correct. So we are going to change the govvernment's definition of marriage.

No, you're not going to change anything, the overwhelming majority has rejected every attempt you've made, and that isn't likely going to change. And it's not "government's definition" it's the definition society has had for hundreds of years. Your argument is equivalent to pedophiles demanding the "legal age of consent" be re-defined.

They are free to express themselves. But creating laws based on religious views goes against the Bill of Rights.

Actually, almost every law on the books is a direct result of someone's religious views. The very premise our nation is founded on and freedom/rights established on, is the belief that our Creator endowed us with inalienable rights. If they are "free to express themselves" but not free to apply those beliefs, what purpose are they? Either people HAVE freedom of speech, or they DON'T... you can't say, well... yeah, they can TALK... they just can't have a political voice... that's NOT what the Constitution supports or what our Founding Fathers ever envisioned.

One only has to look at the majority of views expressed to see why the claim that it is based in bigotry.

There are bigots all over the place, on virtually any side of any argument, this one is not based or rooted in bigotry. That's not to say that some people who oppose gay marriage aren't bigoted or that their viewpoint isn't based on their bigotry, but that is not universal by any stretch. The fact of the matter is, most people oppose gay marriage because they don't think we should re-define traditional marriage... it has nothing to do with homosexuals or their personal feelings toward them, or homosexuality, for that matter.

My fundamental disagreement is rooted in Constitutional precedent. If we re-define marriage to conform to the criteria of sexual orientation, the Constitution guarantees that precedent MUST be applied for any sexual orientation, even ones you may not be comfortable with. You see, at the present, marriage is not defined by sexual orientation, it is simply the union of a man and woman. By re-defining it, you will base the criteria on something other than what we've traditional had, and that criteria will stand as a precedent in law. Soon, the polygamists will stake a claim to their "right to marry" based on their sexual lifestyle, then pedophiles... goat fuckers... you name it. And we'll HAVE to allow it, to remain consistent with our Constitution's equal protection clause. In other words, it opens a whole new can of Constitutional worms we don't NEED to open! Comprehensive CU legislation remedies all problems for all sides, doesn't infringe on religious views or sanctity of marriage, and everyone lives happily ever after.

 

[Onceler]

Is it more bigoted to have an intelligent, open and honest conversation on a subject than to develop some kind of 'PC-speak' way of discussing this without offending homosexuals? I am not attempting to offend, but we have to acknowledge homosexuality for what it is, a deviate sexual behavior, not unlike other deviate sexual behaviors. The difference is, homosexuality has been accepted by our culture and society, and no longer considered taboo. Anything "bigoted" in acknowledging that? Or is it MORE bigoted to believe that somehow, homosexual behavior is not a sexual behavior which deviates from the norm?

Fuck off, Dix. Homosexuality is 2 consenting adults. Pedophilia & bestiality? Not so much.

You're a hate-filled bigot. No way around it, I'm afraid.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Fuck off, Dix. Homosexuality is 2 consenting adults. Pedophilia & bestiality? Not so much.

You're a hate-filled bigot. No way around it, I'm afraid.

Well it depends how we are going to define "consenting" and "adults" doesn't it? If we can allow the willy-nilly re-defining of things like "marriage" why could't the same be done with "consent" or "adult?"

And you can call me any name you wish, if that makes you feel better about this. I know I am not a bigot or hate-filled, so it doesn't matter to me what you spew, it's just more of an indicator how much I touched a nerve by interjecting some truth into the debate. Carry on!

 

[WinterBorn]

No, you're not going to change anything, the overwhelming majority has rejected every attempt you've made, and that isn't likely going to change. And it's not "government's definition" it's the definition society has had for hundreds of years. Your argument is equivalent to pedophiles demanding the "legal age of consent" be re-defined.

No, it is most certainly NOT the equivalent to pedophiles demanding a change in the legal age of consent. The legal age of consent laws were specifically written to protect underaged kids from harm. The definition of marriage was not written to protect anyone.

The comparisons to pedophilia is always bogus, Dixie. In pedophilia an adult is harming a child who is unable to consent or make the proper decisions. Homosexuality is two consenting adults.

Actually, almost every law on the books is a direct result of someone's religious views. The very premise our nation is founded on and freedom/rights established on, is the belief that our Creator endowed us with inalienable rights. If they are "free to express themselves" but not free to apply those beliefs, what purpose are they? Either people HAVE freedom of speech, or they DON'T... you can't say, well... yeah, they can TALK... they just can't have a political voice... that's NOT what the Constitution supports or what our Founding Fathers ever envisioned.

There is a profound difference between freedom of speech and freedom to harm other people. I can discuss being a mass murderer, but I cannot act on those words.

yes, the Declaration of Independence did use the word Creator. But that does not give any specific religion the right to force their beliefs on anyone. There are religions who do not see homosexuality as an abomination. Your version of things would dismiss their beliefs.

Also there is clearly stated that there should be no state religion. If you would like to give a nonreligious reason why gays should not marry I would be happy to discuss it. But the "its always been that way" excuse does not pass muster, nor does the "more people are judeo-christian" excuse.

There are bigots all over the place, on virtually any side of any argument, this one is not based or rooted in bigotry. That's not to say that some people who oppose gay marriage aren't bigoted or that their viewpoint isn't based on their bigotry, but that is not universal by any stretch. The fact of the matter is, most people oppose gay marriage because they don't think we should re-define traditional marriage... it has nothing to do with homosexuals or their personal feelings toward them, or homosexuality, for that matter.

My fundamental disagreement is rooted in Constitutional precedent. If we re-define marriage to conform to the criteria of sexual orientation, the Constitution guarantees that precedent MUST be applied for any sexual orientation, even ones you may not be comfortable with. You see, at the present, marriage is not defined by sexual orientation, it is simply the union of a man and woman. By re-defining it, you will base the criteria on something other than what we've traditional had, and that criteria will stand as a precedent in law. Soon, the polygamists will stake a claim to their "right to marry" based on their sexual lifestyle, then pedophiles... goat fuckers... you name it. And we'll HAVE to allow it, to remain consistent with our Constitution's equal protection clause. In other words, it opens a whole new can of Constitutional worms we don't NEED to open! Comprehensive CU legislation remedies all problems for all sides, doesn't infringe on religious views or sanctity of marriage, and everyone lives happily ever after.

That is such bogus nonsense! Did allowing women the vote somehow allow goats to vote?

The key is consenting adults.

 

[WinterBorn]

Well it depends how we are going to define "consenting" and "adults" doesn't it? If we can allow the willy-nilly re-defining of things like "marriage" why could't the same be done with "consent" or "adult?"

And you can call me any name you wish, if that makes you feel better about this. I know I am not a bigot or hate-filled, so it doesn't matter to me what you spew, it's just more of an indicator how much I touched a nerve by interjecting some truth into the debate. Carry on!

Dixie, your claims that this would be a slippery slope to redefining legal age of consent is such BS. The levels of maturity for the average person can be seen and shown.

Also, by redefining the legal age we would be causing harm to someone, and effecting someone besides the pedophile. that is not the case for homosexual marriage.

 

[Onceler]

Well it depends how we are going to define "consenting" and "adults" doesn't it? If we can allow the willy-nilly re-defining of things like "marriage" why could't the same be done with "consent" or "adult?"

And you can call me any name you wish, if that makes you feel better about this. I know I am not a bigot or hate-filled, so it doesn't matter to me what you spew, it's just more of an indicator how much I touched a nerve by interjecting some truth into the debate. Carry on!

There are some pretty clear definitions of both "consenting" and "adult." Well, clear everywhere except Dixieland, that is......

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, it is most certainly NOT the equivalent to pedophiles demanding a change in the legal age of consent. The legal age of consent laws were specifically written to protect underaged kids from harm. The definition of marriage was not written to protect anyone. The comparisons to pedophilia is always bogus, Dixie. In pedophilia an adult is harming a child who is unable to consent or make the proper decisions. Homosexuality is two consenting adults.

Doesn't matter "why" laws were written, does it? Laws concerning marriage were written using a particular definition of marriage, which you wish to change. It doesn't matter "why" the laws were written the way they were, according to you. So, you can't take both sides here, we either establish laws based on our collective societal viewpoints and understandings or we get to change and modify the meanings whenever we want. If we can step in, after laws have been established, and "re-define" what things mean, why couldn't we "re-define" what "adult" and "consent" mean? You're not presenting anything to show why that wouldn't be the case. It is YOUR opinion that a child of 17 years and 364 days would "be harmed" by consent, where someone a day older, wouldn't. It is YOUR opinion this should be the threshold, the criteria as we've established it... but the same applied to marriage, we had an established criteria for that, you decided we needed to "re-define" what the word "marriage" means.

There is a profound difference between freedom of speech and freedom to harm other people. I can discuss being a mass murderer, but I cannot act on those words.

"Harm" is a subjective term, isn't it? Don't we base our understanding on what we perceive as "harm" to another? Again, what happens to the person who is 17 years 364 days old, overnight, to suddenly make them impervious to harm or in need of protection from harm? Isn't that an arbitrary guideline we established? Can't that also be "re-defined" at some point down the road?

And let's get something clear about freedom of speech, we have it regardless of what influences it, especially RELIGION!

yes, the Declaration of Independence did use the word Creator. But that does not give any specific religion the right to force their beliefs on anyone. There are religions who do not see homosexuality as an abomination. Your version of things would dismiss their beliefs.

The DoI does more than simply use the word Creator, it specifies in the very first paragraph, the foundation and fundamental basis for our Constitutional form of government. We are dedicated to the proposition... what does that mean? It means, we base everything else to follow on our belief in this principle... that all men are created equal... not some men, not particular groups of men who want to sleep with other men, not liberal social architects to the exclusion of religious believers... but ALL men are created equal... ENDOWED... not "granted by gov't" but ENDOWED by their Creator... note the capitalization. Our rights come from our Creator, this is the fundamental basis on which our Constitution and all Constitutional law is based and rooted, and to purposefully ignore that, is ignorant of what our founding was about.

Also there is clearly stated that there should be no state religion. If you would like to give a nonreligious reason why gays should not marry I would be happy to discuss it. But the "its always been that way" excuse does not pass muster, nor does the "more people are judeo-christian" excuse.

No one is trying to establish a state religion. You are free to worship anything you like, or nothing at all... completely up to you! I have already given a non-religious reason, my reason has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with Constitutional protections and precedents. I didn't even mention religion, but for the sake of argument, why do you believe a religiously-based view shouldn't be allowed? The Constitution isn't just for people who aren't religious, you know?

That is such bogus nonsense! Did allowing women the vote somehow allow goats to vote?

Nope, but voting wasn't based on sexual preference.

The key is consenting adults.

Again... if we can re-define "marriage" we can also re-define "consenting" as well as "adult" ...you aren't making a valid point here.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There are some pretty clear definitions of both "consenting" and "adult." Well, clear everywhere except Dixieland, that is......

Up until a few years ago, there was a pretty clear definition of "marriage" too.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, your claims that this would be a slippery slope to redefining legal age of consent is such BS. The levels of maturity for the average person can be seen and shown.

Also, by redefining the legal age we would be causing harm to someone, and effecting someone besides the pedophile. that is not the case for homosexual marriage.

You keep talking about this "harm to someone" and I don't understand. My mother was married when she was 16, my grandmother was married when she was 15... it didn't cause them any harm, they both raised happy healthy children and had long happy marriages. In ancient Greece (and maybe Rome), it was thought to be appropriate for an older male to adopt a young boy to mentor, and part of that 'mentoring' included sexual relations. This was justified as being beneficial, not harmful, to young boys. Many states, up until the 1950s, had laws on the books permitting underage marriage, some as young as 13. Who decided it was harmful? Where is the evidence of harm? Wasn't this an arbitrary moral decision we collectively made as a society? Did the Supreme Court need to rule this into law?

 

[NOVA]

No one questions the premise of this whole thread.......gay dolphins? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

So............How tf do these 'gay' dolphins have homosexual sex?......can they pack some fudge?......sniff blowholes ?

Where is the video evidence of this homosexual behavior ?.....and I don't mean living together in the same ocean.....

 

[Granule]

Congrats on taking a small step towards enlightenment.

A place that eludes you to this day.

 

[WinterBorn]

A place that eludes you to this day.

If I am not in my place of enlightenment, it is because I am wandering the wilderness in search of the lost, to lead them home.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

If I am not in my place of enlightenment, it is because I am wandering the wilderness in search of the lost, to lead them home.

Or sitting in a truck somewhere, watching other people work.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Or sitting in a truck somewhere, watching other people work.

let's see...you live at home with your mom, you have no job, you spend all day posting on the internet and yet you feel some moral high ground to bitch about someone else's work?

wow...just wow.