all of the Yes on 8 banners on this site.

The propaganda on the Yes side, not to mention the money pouring into this from out of state (remember when conservative Republicans stood for the rights of states to make their own decisions???) is disgusting.

No on 8 - it's the only way to go if you are a strict constructionist who believes the Constitution should stay...

Nanook- your post makes me sad. You claim to be accepting of people, yet what you seem to really mean is that you are only accepting of people who believe what you do.

Besides, science hasn't proven what makes a person gay. Maybe there is something physiologically different as some theories suggest. Some theories also suggest murderers have physiological differences. It doesn't make me want to redefine what it means to kill.

I've already addressed the race issue, but you seem to have issues with it. A black MAN can marry a white WOMAN, a black WOMAN can marry an asian MAN. I didn't realize this was so complicated. Gender is what DEFINES marriage to be what it is. Without man and woman, marriage becomes genderless.

Edited November 13, 200817 yr by MrsFlipFlops
.

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. This means that all moral positions, all religious systems, all art forms, all political movements, etc., are truths that are relative to the individual. Under the umbrella of relativism whole groups of perspectives are categorized. In obvious terms, some are:

• cognitive relativism
  (truth) - Cognitive relativism affirms that all truth is relative. This would mean that no system of truth is more valid than another one and that there is no objective standard of truth. It would, naturally, deny that there is a God of absolute truth.
  
  
• moral/ethical relativism
  - all morals are relative to the social group within which they are constructed.
  
  
• situational relativism
  - that ethics (right and wrong) are dependent upon the situation.
  
  

Edited November 13, 200817 yr by Donna113

As for the group of protesters if your rights were being violated you'd be angry too!!!!!!!

Doesn't excuse the incursion into violence. The protesters were way more credible and sympathetic when they were practicing civil disobedience. They're not gonna win hearts and minds by stomping some little old lady's crucifix...

Donna- that's true.

But to add to that, the responsibility of living in a society means that the people have to assign values to behaviors. Else, everyone is free to do as their individual "truth" dictates. I believe relativism should be applied on an individual level, which dictates we determine what is true for ourselves. But on a societal level it would never function. So the question is, how does a society dictate what they believe their "truths" to be? Is it done by vote? By judges? By a ruler? By a previously stated document? I'm not being facetious about this, I'm really curious about everyone's thoughts.

Gender is what DEFINES marriage to be what it is. Without man and woman, marriage becomes genderless.

And many of us have no problem with that. I think what defines marriage is two consenting adults who want to make a life-long, legal commitment to each other; to me gender is as irrelevant as race.

You say this is a "grave" situation but what exactly is so grave about it? How does it hurt you or society to allow people in love to commit to each other legally in a permanent way? I don't think it does hurt society; in fact it make it more stable to have people legally committed to each other rather than living in make-shift situations that could be dissolved tomorrow.

Yum....a lithium cocktail:

2 300 Mg tabs of Lithium (dissolved in a sweet cherry syrup)

1 shot of Vodka

lemonaide to fill

*shake well, pour over ice, let the magic begin*

What's a good name for this delicious beverage, people??

Sweet Deliri-yum. :thumbup:

Gay people are born just like you and me except for the fact that instead of having an attraction to the opposite sex they have it with the same sex.

Again, not to be obtuse, people who are attracted to kids say they're born that way too.

Doesn't excuse the incursion into violence. The protesters were way more credible and sympathetic when they were practicing civil disobedience. They're not gonna win hearts and minds by stomping some little old lady's crucifix...

I agree. I totally understand the anger, I am dealing with that myself right now. Violence is never the answer to any situation, IMO.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/534469

There are idiots on both sides of every issue. The link is to an event in Oshawa, where two lesbians were attacked picking up their daughter from school. Their daughter witnessed the event.

Ms.FF - I am not sure what you want me to understand about this situation. I'm not sure what you think I'm not getting. Also, making vauge references to something in the past doesn't make your views any more legitimate to me. I'm glad whatever it was you made it through. That's what I'm trying to do now. Nor does claiming that you know gay people make your post more sympathetic. I've said my peace to you. It just seems you are trying to make the same points in different ways. I'm sorry if you thought I was being condescending. I wasn't. I was being honest. Almost too honest for the internet, while trying to be civil and not start attacking you for what I percieve as narrow minded beliefs that affect my life

I do not feel persecuted, really. At least no more by you than by the people who went seeking to change the constitution. I don't have a problem with people thinking that what I do is wrong, that's their problem. I do have a problem with someone messing with the constitution to take something away from only a small group of people, any people.

Once again I will say for the seventy seventh time that if the churchs want to keep the word marriage they can have it just make ALL unions that partian to the government civil unions. I'll say it for the seventy eighth time. Make all marriages in the church and make government recognize only civil unions. I think that is a fair compromise, but just like in all compromises their will be people on both sides unsatisfied. I am not all gay people. Just one gay person. I'm also a christian, a southerner, a woman, a student, a tax payer, and many other things. Just like everyone else, I deserve all the things that the government affords for everyone else. So do you. I wouldn't let a personal belief against anyone led me to believe that you didn't deserve the same things as anyone else.

Or maybe you are trying to convince me that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, whatever. I can promise you that that will never ever happen. I'm sorry.

Now you can stop comparing homosexuals (even if it is roundabout) to pedophiles, goat *(&^#%!, or murderers. K, thanks.

Edited November 13, 200817 yr by ReadySteadyGo
addition and subtraction

Y'all really are eeeee-vil. Some of us are on mushies, dangit!!! :thumbup:

you can do it SNT. Beth. Be strong, sister. The liquids are no joke, but you are obviously a strong minded and willed lady. You won't let no damn liquids defeat you.

Again, not to be obtuse, people who are attracted to kids say they're born that way too.

I believe they might be. The difference is by acting on that they are damaging an innocent child. Maybe they really are born that way, it doesn't make what they do any less horrible. That is why the whole thing about "If we let the gays marry, next thing you know Grown ups will wanna marry a baby, and Men will be marrying a goat!" Since when can the goat say "I do" and sign the marriage licence?

By a Man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, or a man marrying a woman, they (both adults) are entering into a contract and not damaging themselves or anyone around them. Maybe the kids when they get a divorce...Which if you are not going to let gay marriages happen because of "protecting the sancity of marriage" then divorce should be pretty damn illegal too. Do I think it should be? Hell no, but neither should prohibiting someone else from it either. They are both adults, both are people. We are not talking about a union between one man, and one hot ass goat. I don't think you will see five year olds holding signs demanding marriage rights standing in the street. I don't think you will see the goat on television begging to be treated like everyone else.

Rights and protections, yes. However, and I swear I am not trying to be obtuse here, nowhere have I read that marriage is a right.

I would figure that any marriage that is performed by a state official must be a right that should be, if permitted to some, then permitted to all.

Providing that they are a couple of adults and capable of giving legal consent, that is.......

you can do it SNT. Beth. Be strong, sister. The liquids are no joke, but you are obviously a strong minded and willed lady. You won't let no damn liquids defeat you.

Thank you, RSG. I pray you are right. If I have half the strength you do, I think I'll do okay.

I would figure that any marriage that is performed by a state official must be a right that should be, if permitted to some, then permitted to all.

It's the "I would figure" part that I am talking about. Unless and until somebody can show somewhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights or other founding document which states marriage is a right, I will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

Something that is a right is a right for ALL, no? Then that means there can be NO restrictions on marriage at all -- kids, siblings, parent/child, adult/child, etc.