What KIND of a COUNTRY do we live in......

[shartley]

Originally posted by impostal22


that's what i was saying. i'm not saying *I* would interpret "sex" as anything but gender, but i'm saying that it's up to the courts how the law is interpretted.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Except that the 19th ammendment is limited to suffrage. Gay people can already vote, so the 19th ammendment adds nothing to this arguement. That is why the women's right's advocates are always pushing for the ERA: Equal Rights Ammendment!

So your argument is way off base!

you're right. my argument was way off. for some reason after just waking up my brain skipped over the "right to vote" part...if the "right to vote" part wasn't in the amendment, then the argument would have some validity. damn me for posting while half asleep...

[dansim]

Originally posted by shartley

i never stated i had class. Sex isnt what releationships are based off of, its how you feel for another person not what sex your screwing . Homosexuals are not homosexuals because of who they have sex with, its who they are attracted to, sex is just something they may or may not do

[impostal22]

Originally posted by shartley

After all, homosexuality is NOT about who you choose to spend your life with, but about who you want to have SEX with.

OH really? then what's the big deal about letting gays marry? since homosexuality is "about who you want to have SEX with," and "NOT about who you choose to spend your life with."

[shartley]

Originally posted by dansim
but you need the law makers to change that, not judges going agains state laws

[shartley]

Originally posted by impostal22
OH really? then what's the big deal about letting gays marry? since homosexuality is "about who you want to have SEX with," and "NOT about who you choose to spend your life with."

[CasingBill]

Originally posted by Crime Dog
I'm curious...what does "religion" have to do with it? To the best of my knowledge, every society on the face of earth...every civilization from the dawn of man has recognized the unique relationship between a man and a woman. Marriage is the institution upon which families (Father, Mother, children) were/are built. It is the building block...no...more specifically, the CORNERSTONE of civilization. Is marriage often seen in a religious context? Yes. I grant you that. But even secular society has always recognized that the institution of marriage is a UNIQUE constitution between a man, and a woman. You can cast the blame on religion all you want...

Do you not believe that marriage "was" based on a Godly principle?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by shartley

that's asking an awful ot of him sammy.


oh and BTW imp, anytime you feel the need to debate our respective reasons for time off from AO, step up.

[cphilip]

Well ok so this is getting into "Sex" as in Sexual Intercourse rather than Sexual Desire or Sex like acts that simulate Sexual Intercourse. Since Sexual Intercourse exists to ensure Sexual reproduction its bases in existance relys on that premise and outcome potential. Since no two same sex people can achieve Sexual Reproduction but are having what is now being termed very liberaly as "Sex". At its very root that is not Sex. We have redefined Sex now to be any particular body part into any particular orifice. Indeed it probably should not have been. But seems thats the common thought here. However its basicaly a perversion of the term. But once widely accepted becomes so I guess. But you see there was a difference and still probably should be. But alas... if you say it enough it becomes true. Remember that Bill Clinton did not think what he had with Monica was Sexual relations? And there are people who also believe that is the case. Now I not saying it is or isn't... but if you wife won't allow it then its wrong either way ain't it?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by dansim

i dont have an argument with you, i think were are all talking about different factors, of this thing, some people are argueing over religion,morals,laws im not really talking about anything except equal rights, and how some laws are based off of out of date religion, but you need the law makers to change that, not judges going against state laws

That is my point!!!!!!!!

Elected lawmakers should be making the changes, not wacky Carter-Era liberal judges!!!!!!!!!!!

[shartley]

Originally posted by dansim
Sex isnt what releationships are based off of, its how you feel for another person not how much your screwing them. Homosexuals are not homosexuals because of who they have sex with, its who they are attracted to, sex is just something they may or may not do

[impostal22]

Originally posted by shartley

apparently more than one of us misinterpreted your statement. thanks for clarifying.

so, uh, what about married couples that decide to have sex with others? like at an orgy, for instance? are they no longer married? and what about mormons? they don't believe in monogamy...so are their marriages illegitamate on the legal level? hmm? we know they're illegitamate according to your beliefs, but on the legal level, are they?

also, you can be homosexual without having SEX with people of the same sex. homosexuality is a sexual preference, whether you act upon it or not is up to you. so you could have two guys who are sexually attracted to eachother, spend their lives together, NEVER HAVE SEX, and still be homosexual. why? because it's their sexual preference.

i really don't see where you're going with this, though..

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


That is my point!!!!!!!!

Elected lawmakers should be making the changes, not wacky Carter-Era liberal judges!!!!!!!!!!!

Amen brother.


When the judicial branch starts MAKING LAW, instead of INTERPRETING LAW, we are in big trouble.

[shartley]

Originally posted by impostal22


apparently more than one of us misinterpreted your statement. thanks for clarifying.

No problem.

Originally posted by impostal22

so, uh, what about married couples that decide to have sex with others? like at an orgy, for instance? are they no longer married? and what about mormons? they don't believe in monogamy...so are their marriages illegitamate on the legal level? hmm? we know they're illegitamate according to your beliefs, but on the legal level, are they?

Originally posted by impostal22

also, you can be homosexual without having SEX with people of the same sex. homosexuality is a sexual preference, whether you act upon it or not is up to you. so you could have two guys who are sexually attracted to eachother, spend their lives together, NEVER HAVE SEX, and still be homosexual. why? because it's their sexual preference.

Originally posted by impostal22

i really don't see where you're going with this, though..

[impostal22]

Originally posted by shartley

ahhhhhh i see now where you were going...

alright, i don't think anyone is arguing that homosexuals should have the right to marry because it is just another form of sexual (or mental) attraction. the main point is, i believe, that two homosexual parents can still raise a child who eventually becomes a member of society. just like infertile couples who adopt, and raise a child, homosexuals can do the exact same thing. if you're going to argue that homosexual parents have adverse effects on the child being raised, i have a LONG retort to that in either this thread or the other one.

to develop the point more, it is also about legalities. homosexuals, who have the SAME rights as heterosexuals, are denied the federal protection and federal benefits of marriage by being forced into a civil union. say heterosexual couple A decides to not have kids ever, and homosexual couple B decides to raise a kid and bring him or her into society. Couple B is taking a huge financial risk, and they are not receiving the same governmental financial support as couple A, even though A is not taking a financial risk.