Voters in Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin ban same-sex marriage

[ceriserose 1]

you can make those arguments, but you would need a more ironclad arrangement in order to convince the antigay marriage public to agree to this. therefore any law that is passed to open up marrigae needs to include the clause that churches are not required to accept gay marriages.

How would anything change from today?

I can't get married in the Catholic Church; I don't qualify under their rules. I'm sure there are a dozen other faiths that wouldn't touch a marriage ceremony for me.

What would be different? How do you get the math "because X is permitted' to equal 'X MUST be performed'.

We're talking about the LEGAL aspect of marriage, not the ceremonial.

You can go get married in a church if someone will do the ceremony. That doesn't make you married in the eyes of the law, UNTIL you get a marriage license and record it.

believe me, i understand what you are saying and agree with it. but, the argument is political. you will have convinve the amrican public that opening up marriage to gays will not 'corrupt' their churches/belief system.

Daniel

:energetic:

Anymore than they have themselves.

hahaha smart aleck! we need to be prim and proper around here mrs caps.

Daniel

:energetic:

Daniel dear, I know you've read enough of my posts to know the "prim and proper" is not exactly the best way to describe me...

[Cristy 4]

I can't see a politician proposing it. But that would be the extent of it. It wouldn't bother me. To my mind, it's probably best to keep the two separate anyway.

I agree. A marriage is a legally binding contract. A religious ceremony or any other ceremony is a personal preference.

[Carol&Marc 0]

Marc, I hate everything you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Nobody likes NAMBLA except child molestors. That doesn't make them responsible for a murder.

The ACLU exists to protect civil liberties for everyone. Because all Americans are entitled to them, even the sick ones. But I'm really glad there are keen-eyed watchdogs like you out there trying to protect us from freedom. Phew.

Wow, I dont know how you got that I'm against civil liberties? It says how far do they go! your hate is fairly obvious, I dont hate anyone that I have a disagreement with. My point was about civil liberties! NAMBLA should not even be allowed to exist. A club for pedophiles? just think about it for a minute. Weekly meetings on how to best molest a child! This should never be defended.

marc, what does that have to do with this thread. you really need to connect the dots wee bit more. not all of us can follow your amzing ability to from a to z in one fell swoop.

Daniel

:energetic:

Civil liberties! I also love the way the claws come out when I post something, so so tolerant?

[Alex+R 0]

Marc, you hate the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union, and you hate when it does its job. Yet you claim you support civil liberties. What part of "civil liberties are for everyone" don't you understand? Do you want to live in a country where the leaders get to decide what opinions are ok and which aren't?

The ACLU, I'm sure, does not approve of NAMBLA, but NAMBLA has rights. The ACLU is working to defend our rights.

I didn't say I hated you. I think you are a sad little man on a motorcyle. I hate that the education system has failed you. I hate all your harebrained opinions because I worry they are representative of a large part of the country's.

Edited November 11, 2006 by Alex+R

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

Daniel,

On the church being force to perform ceremonies issue, here's an analogy that I thought of.

I have a license to drive a car. According to the state I'm legally allowed to drive. However, if I wanted to drive through a church, I'd need their permission to do so. Just because I have the license, doesn't mean the oganization/structure has to permit me to exercise said license in their domain.

A group might get a license/permit to have a parade down my street, but if they decided instead to cut across my yard, they'd be illegally trespassing and I'd have them all arrested. It's still up to the individual church, the overall church organization, and the like, to determine if they will conduct the ceremony.

"we have the right to refuse service to anybody"

(geez....that rambled.....I think I need a bit more caffeine)

[ceriserose 1]

Daniel,

On the church being force to perform ceremonies issue, here's an analogy that I thought of.

I have a license to drive a car. According to the state I'm legally allowed to drive. However, if I wanted to drive through a church, I'd need their permission to do so. Just because I have the license, doesn't mean the organization/structure has to permit me to exercise said license in their domain.

A group might get a license/permit to have a parade down my street, but if they decided instead to cut across my yard, they'd be illegally trespassing and I'd have them all arrested. It's still up to the individual church, the overall church organization, and the like, to determine if they will conduct the ceremony.

"we have the right to refuse service to anybody"

(geez....that rambled.....I think I need a bit more caffeine)

And this is why I always need to be on my toes...this is not the first time this statement has been made...

[Carol&Marc 0]

Marc, you hate the American CIVIL LIBERTIES Union, and you hate when it does its job. Yet you claim you support civil liberties. What part of "civil liberties are for everyone" don't you understand? Do you want to live in a country where the leaders get to decide what opinions are ok and which aren't?

The ACLU, I'm sure, does not approve of NAMBLA, but NAMBLA has rights. The ACLU is working to defend our rights.

I didn't say I hated you. I think you are a sad little man on a motorcyle. I hate that the education system has failed you. I hate all your harebrained opinions because I worry they are representative of a large part of the country's.

It seems your anger has got the best of you! you might seriously think about the mud puddle your playin in and take a nice cold shower. You say that you don't hate but your comments tell of something different. Step back and take a look! You have misinterpreted everything that I said. Anything that comes from someone you see as a repub. you can disagree all day long! But you could be CIVIL about it! sorry you got so steamed!

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Daniel,

On the church being force to perform ceremonies issue, here's an analogy that I thought of.

I have a license to drive a car. According to the state I'm legally allowed to drive. However, if I wanted to drive through a church, I'd need their permission to do so. Just because I have the license, doesn't mean the oganization/structure has to permit me to exercise said license in their domain.

A group might get a license/permit to have a parade down my street, but if they decided instead to cut across my yard, they'd be illegally trespassing and I'd have them all arrested. It's still up to the individual church, the overall church organization, and the like, to determine if they will conduct the ceremony.

"we have the right to refuse service to anybody"

(geez....that rambled.....I think I need a bit more caffeine)

hello their mr caps!

you analogy made sense. my concern lies in trying to get a law on the books. and this will not happen unless you convince the voting public that this law will not infringe on the seperation of church and state.

i feel it would feasible only if any such law provide an ironclad clause protecting the church(es). or ithis too much to ask? or do you not think this will help? just brainstorming here.

Daniel

:energetic:

ps total aside, you guys do ok up ther? heard something about some rain. oh! and 5k mags of p0rn! wow man, quite a collection there!

Daniel,

On the church being force to perform ceremonies issue, here's an analogy that I thought of.

I have a license to drive a car. According to the state I'm legally allowed to drive. However, if I wanted to drive through a church, I'd need their permission to do so. Just because I have the license, doesn't mean the organization/structure has to permit me to exercise said license in their domain.

A group might get a license/permit to have a parade down my street, but if they decided instead to cut across my yard, they'd be illegally trespassing and I'd have them all arrested. It's still up to the individual church, the overall church organization, and the like, to determine if they will conduct the ceremony.

"we have the right to refuse service to anybody"

(geez....that rambled.....I think I need a bit more caffeine)

And this is why I always need to be on my toes...this is not the first time this statement has been made...

hahaha my first thought was man, what you need is a bulldozer not a license!

Daniel

:energetic:

[ILIKEALLCAPS 0]

Daniel,

On the church being force to perform ceremonies issue, here's an analogy that I thought of.

I have a license to drive a car. According to the state I'm legally allowed to drive. However, if I wanted to drive through a church, I'd need their permission to do so. Just because I have the license, doesn't mean the oganization/structure has to permit me to exercise said license in their domain.

A group might get a license/permit to have a parade down my street, but if they decided instead to cut across my yard, they'd be illegally trespassing and I'd have them all arrested. It's still up to the individual church, the overall church organization, and the like, to determine if they will conduct the ceremony.

"we have the right to refuse service to anybody"

(geez....that rambled.....I think I need a bit more caffeine)

hello their mr caps!

you analogy made sense. my concern lies in trying to get a law on the books. and this will not happen unless you convince the voting public that this law will not infringe on the seperation of church and state.

i feel it would feasible only if any such law provide an ironclad clause protecting the church(es). or ithis too much to ask? or do you not think this will help? just brainstorming here.

Daniel

:energetic:

ps total aside, you guys do ok up ther? heard something about some rain. oh! and 5k mags of p0rn! wow man, quite a collection there!

Daniel,

On the church being force to perform ceremonies issue, here's an analogy that I thought of.

I have a license to drive a car. According to the state I'm legally allowed to drive. However, if I wanted to drive through a church, I'd need their permission to do so. Just because I have the license, doesn't mean the organization/structure has to permit me to exercise said license in their domain.

A group might get a license/permit to have a parade down my street, but if they decided instead to cut across my yard, they'd be illegally trespassing and I'd have them all arrested. It's still up to the individual church, the overall church organization, and the like, to determine if they will conduct the ceremony.

"we have the right to refuse service to anybody"

(geez....that rambled.....I think I need a bit more caffeine)

And this is why I always need to be on my toes...this is not the first time this statement has been made...

hahaha my first thought was man, what you need is a bulldozer not a license!

Daniel

:energetic:

I think the only problem with anything ironclad is that it provides too many loopholes. Honestly I think an overall blanket regulation that states that marriages shall be permitted to any (2) consenting adults, regardless of gender, as regulated by other statutes regarding marriage would be much more sensible, as it would continue the discretion of the officiant. Right now your priest doesn't have to marry anyone he doesn't want to, who doesn't fulfill the requirements of your church, or who is for whatever other reasons ineligible. That wouldn't (and shouldn't) be touched. But as soon as you try to regulate that you'll run into the "separation of church and state" issues, and people will do their best to circumvent it just because it exists. It's not a situation of a pharmacist refusing to dispense medications that treat conditions they disapprove of, it's still a very discretionary issue.

(response to the aside: We're pretty dang soggy, and the municipal sewer system is having issues, but we're fine. And I'm a member of the digital age....that'd be 5k dvds under the bed....fits much better!)

[ceriserose 1]

(response to the aside: We're pretty dang soggy, and the municipal sewer system is having issues, but we're fine. And I'm a member of the digital age....that'd be 5k dvds under the bed....fits much better!)

And in breaking news, we've now called the plumber. And we're holding it. OY.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

thanks alex. i'd like to have marc spell it out in hopes maybe he can see the gaps in his 'logic'.

umm or am i way too optimistic?

Daniel

:energetic:

the election results have made you giddy....

Civil rights? how far they go? ponder this!

ACLU defends child-molester group

Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder

This is logic? If i oppose the death penalty, I am soft on crime and feel that serial killers have just had bad childhoods. If i demand the government act in accordance to the constitution then I support child abuse under some belief that it is protected by the cosntitution? oh and yes of course let's nto forget If I vote democrat, I support the terrorist over the American flag.

Yep. That pattern of flawed logic seems to repeat itself into every argument.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Civil rights? how far they go? ponder this!

ACLU defends child-molester group

Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: December 13, 2000

1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Julie Foster

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.

The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

Thanks A.C.L.U. Fine job?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=18029

Curley v. NAMBLA

In 2000, a Boston couple, Robert and Barbara Curley, sued NAMBLA. According to the Curley's suit, Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari (who were convicted of murdering the Curleys' son, Jeffrey) "stalked Jeffrey Curley... and tortured, murdered and mutilated [his] body on or about October 1, 1997. Upon information and belief immediately prior to said acts Charles Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website at the Boston Public Library." According to police, Jaynes had eight issues of a NAMBLA publication in his home at the time of his arrest. The lawsuit further alleges that "NAMBLA serves as a conduit for an underground network of pedophiles in the United States who use their NAMBLA association and contacts therein and the Internet to obtain child pornography and promote pedophile activity."[36]

Citing cases in which NAMBLA members have been charged with and convicted of sexual offenses against children, Larry Frisoli, the attorney representing the Curleys, argued that it is a "training ground" for adults who wish to seduce children, in which men exchange strategies on how to find and groom child sex partners.[37] He also claims that NAMBLA has sold at its website what he calls "The Rape and Escape Manual" that details how to avoid being caught and prosecuted.

The American Civil Liberties Union stepped in to defend NAMBLA as a free speech matter and won a dismissal based on the fact that NAMBLA is organized as an unincorporated association, not a corporation. John Reinstein, the director of the ACLU Massachusetts, said that although NAMBLA "may extol conduct which is currently illegal", there was nothing on its website that "advocated or incited the commission of any illegal acts, including murder or rape".[38] The Curleys continued the suit as a wrongful death action against individual NAMBLA members, some of whom were active in the group's leadership.[21]

The target of the wrongful death suits were Roy Radow, Joe Power, David Miller, Peter Herman, Max Hunter, Arnold Schoen and David Thorstad, a co-founder of NAMBLA and well-known writer. The Curleys alleged that Charles Jaynes and Salvatore Sicari, who were convicted of the rape and murder of their ten-year-old son Jeffrey, were NAMBLA members.

As of April 2005 the wrongful death cases were still being considered by a Massachusetts federal court, with the American Civil Liberties Union assisting the defendants on the grounds that the suit violated their First Amendment rights to free speech.[2] The American Civil Liberties Union makes it clear, however, that it does not endorse NAMBLA's objectives. "We've never taken a position that sexual-consent laws are beyond the state's power to legislate," John Reinstein, attorney for the Massachusetts branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in 1997. "I've never been able to fathom their position." (Boston Globe, October 9, 1997).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambla#Relate...gal_proceedings

BTW - what do pedophiles have to do with homosexual marriage?

Edited November 11, 2006 by erekose

[Karen_L 1]

BTW - what do pedophiles have to do with homosexual marriage?

Because all homosexuals are pedophiles, apparently

[Cristy 4]

BTW - what do pedophiles have to do with homosexual marriage?

Because all homosexuals are pedophiles, apparently

Oh no!! I am sure that is not what a few of the members who posted stuff about pedophiles meant. No no, they will surely deny that...it was just about civil rights....sure it happened to be about pedophiles but it was not implying that at all. Silly silly.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BTW - what do pedophiles have to do with homosexual marriage?

Because all homosexuals are pedophiles, apparently

It just goes to show that people don't understand the freedoms they claim to cherish. Defending NAMBLA on a point of free speech does not equate to condoning what they stand for. Apparently the headline and lead-in text in a news story is enough to render an opinion on the entire focus of the article.

BTW - what do pedophiles have to do with homosexual marriage?

Because all homosexuals are pedophiles, apparently

Oh no!! I am sure that is not what a few of the members who posted stuff about pedophiles meant. No no, they will surely deny that...it was just about civil rights....sure it happened to be about pedophiles but it was not implying that at all. Silly silly.

Even if it isn't a direct comparison - it does make you wonder why they are mentioned in the same sentence.

It's the "open the floodgates argument". Considering that a lot of the people who are against gay marriage, like Gary, seem to suggest its ok, providing that the argument is extended to include polygamy, beastiality, pedophilia and incest etc. Considering that they claim the moral high ground against homosexuality, its highly likely that they don't agree with those other groups and behaviours either. So what exactly is their argument?

Edited November 11, 2006 by erekose