Dudde

Wow, this is an annoying argument that's come up before. Smart fellows, the founding fathers - they knew stuff would come up that they didn't know about, so they had some tricky wording. Here, read this article from Democracy web, or from lexrex for differences between Democracies and Republics. In fact, you could just run a quick Google search and find out that majority rule being oppressive has already been thought about. Just because the consitution doesn't say "only heterosexuals may marry" doesn't mean we should automagically infer that they're to be forbidden. In fact, California actually needed to modify it's constitution to take them away. I'll elaborate further if needed, I also want to say that I highly doubt any of you are worried that the human race is in danger of underpopulating ourselves. Besides being beside the point, having children and bearing families is a ridiculous beside the point argument in regards to marriage - otherwise you'd have a contract to sign with your marriage license that says you'll have kids and bear a family. Thanks no statements above are an attack on anyone...

I would also like to point out that if we really were thinking strictly about the children, which is already a lie, then I'd think it would make sufficient sense to stop convicted child molesters and murders, etc. from getting married. It doesn't necessarily seem the safest place for children. As far as I know, they're free to marry as long as they're not in prison. I know we said the point was irrelevant, but I thought I would throw my two cents anyway /backontopic

I've spent a good chunk of time looking for reasons against gay marriage, I got at least three that I thought forum-appropriate and didn't have crazy claims. (and one that was amusing to at least myself.) This is merely doing as I said earlier and looking for reasons against gay marriage, this is the best I could come up with in a day's time - if you can do better, I certainly encourage you to do so. An Interview with Rick Santorum actually the most interested sounding individual stating that it doesn't matter if we legalize gay marriage, but that the onus is on the supporters, since it's not currently legal and we're wanting to change the process Waters of Mormon I'll post a part of a longer segment, it was really long though, so I didn't want to paste it all. An argument that's never held water with most on this board, but seems a rather popular one I've found No Gay Marriage.com says pretty much the same thing about destroying marriage and families, though I haven't heard this before: and finally, reasons against gay marriage from a gay guy made me laugh, so I thought I'd link anyway EDIT: it should be known that these are not my views, merely the strongest objections I was able to find online. I disagree with all of them and will be happy to explain why

I think we need to find a way to get the quality of teachers up a bit too. My teachers growing up were fabulous, they're the entire reason I love learning and teaching. I have a brother however, who's known for being late and absent from school - completely known to his family and with reason - who they pretty much gave up on. I see the way they treat a lot of their kids in the classroom vastly different from others, it kinda makes me want to challenge them to a duel... but that's illegal or some absurdity. Of course you're going to have examples of this in the school system, but I've seen the same thing in 4 cities in three states. It concerns me for the students, no wonder some kids hate going to school.

I don't necessarily care one way or another what anyone thinks about gay marriage, as long as they keep their opinions from keeping someone else from doing what they want. example: I don't want a lady to buy bananas at the store because I don't like bananas. We should abolish bananas from stores. ??? Anyway, I found a site that I felt was vaguely familiar, seeing as it was pretty much a reiteration of everything in this thread - just shorter. Link to the page for the record, I do like bananas

If your partner has a really good immune system, it seems to actually cut your recovery time in half. Not scientifically, but it's been pretty consistent from personal experience.

While relevent or not, I haven't seen any reasons I, personally, have accepted as even remotely something to consider when holding back rights to gay marriages. Because that's how it's always been, because it's traditional, because someone wants to marry two of his sisters and a couch? Just because someone else is being held back - no matter how ridiculous what they're being held back from - it's no excuse to want to hold someone else back. So to address this part of your statement, I haven't seen any secular or sound arguments against it either. I'd love to have a real reason to actually debate against however, I think I'll search for some reasons against it today.

My mistake. Are you trying to defend other positions however by stating that they're merely copying someone else because they can't make up their own mind? I might be missing the relevence, however, I never said you thought there was a correlation between children's innocence and same sex marriage. I was trying to relate your point to the thread. The only one I can see is that some people may not hold their own opinions and just accept those of society. If that's it, then it's still wrong to deprive a minority of rights for the beliefs of a larger majority (assuming no harm is being done to either party) I meant no attack previously however, though my statement was written in haste and may have been worded better. But we really haven't given any solid reasons for keeping the definition. Religion, personal beliefs, tradition, I don't really see any water against allowing a large group of people a freedom to get the same specific legal rights as their heterosexual counterparts sorry I forgot this part: I encourage anyone wishing to use this as their argument to present the original exclusive writing, and none of that stuff about how they would have banned it if they'd thought about it...

while not really disagreeing, I don't really see anybody accusing children of hate or bigotry. I didn't see any children voting for that stupid California amendment, and I support JillSwift's point - children usually take their parents views, just because they want to fit in and don't usually fully understand the views being presented. I fail to see how a child's innocence is a reason to oppose gay marriages however.

Even so, I think it's easier for the context of the argument to use a simple defined term, it doesn't necessarily mean they're conceding their arguments. I hate to see this thread fall the way of the previous by focusing on specific people instead of providing valid reasons not to allow same sex marriages. Regardless of it's a personal belief or not, it's obviously a personal belief held by many that they should be able to be married, or we wouldn't have this discussion. There are also people who believe they shouldn't be able to. I don't see why one belief impedes another, and by default our country should move forward with the greater freedom, rather than holding them back arbitrarily.

I fail to see how a huge number of minority groups having to fight their way to becoming equal, and maybe in the last century, not multiple, provides a case for why gay marriages should be illegal. I love how marrying someone of the same sex has already been referred to as marrying furniture, many people, and your own family. And please, please tell me why everytime we have a discussion on this, we have a group who wants to tear marriage out of law. There's no reason for that, it's kinda like setting your neighborhood on fire because someone else wants to move in and you don't want them to. Two guys or two gals getting married won't affect (most) any of you in the least, it won't keep you up at night, it won't make you afraid for your or your family's well-being in public (i.e. carrying guns), what point is there in trying to prevent it? if there is any group or few who'd be affected, like for real and no BS "because it affects what I believe," I'd love to hear what they had to say.

I mostly agree with you, but the trouble lies first in defining common sense. Especially in the trouble areas listed. I'm COMPLETELY for this one:

MSNBC

I took his refuting of the points as implied, with a slight twist of sarcasm to lift the scent. Has never been mentioned in the bill. If we stopped paying bajillions of dollars for Pharma companies to spend on fancy cars, that may happen anyway Obama has already said no they won't, you can keep the ones you like. I think I remember reading that they wanted to set a groundline for the basic services that MUST be offered, but I don't remember if that was just for the public op or for all. It was in the first 50 pages of the bill, I'll have to reread it. Yeah...I'm with Bascule, wth? aside from the bias as well, I don't remember 25% of this hype over when Repubs were jamming things through the house that were bordering on ridiculous, and from personal experience, anytime I questioned the government I was sicked by republican conservatives who apparently didn't like my line of thought. So that whole I'm gonna have to stand with

essentially what I'm getting from this is that Americans are very lazy and callous for things that aren't affecting them right now? That's around the gist of what I thought you were trying to say, and if that's the case, I completely agree. I'm actually quite guilty of this myself to be honest.

That would be the most hipocritical thing ever. I kind of agree though, lately it seems as though our president is almost deliberately pushing the conservative side, it's kinda funny, but wearing thing pretty quick

I can understand that, it's a very valid point. To be honest, as much as I poke fun at the extreme conservatives, I kind of personally object to the 'what can you do for the president' thing too, I think perhaps we should encourage patriotism to one's country, as opposed to the guy sitting in office. I actually had to find it several times from sources I trust to be accurate to fully believe that's what it said. This is the conclusion I came to as well, but thought there was a better way of phrasing it, knowing full well this would be blown out of context.

Haha that clip was awesome, thanks for posting it. I always hate watching fox news..

That's hilarious, that's exactly where my thought went when I saw that sentence. I'm happy at least to have some closure on the matter, I was actually concerned about why the nations' teens and children were so blatantly ignorant about everything - apparently they shouldn't learn, AND they need to be kept out of politics... wth was that whole thing about Mr. Obama and Sudam and Kim Jong-Il?

Soooo.... Wow dude, there's not much I can say to make fun of those people, they're doing far better than I could. The only disheartening part is that it seems that it took place in Washington, which is my home state!

I'm kind of in agreement with StringJunky on that one, have you tried something with an edge facing outward? My microwave is already broken or I'd try it personally

found a few links Wiki-answers TheWireUp I actually found this by typing "why does metal spark in a microwave" and came up with some good results, just don't want to paste them all,

I've actually been under the understanding that it would offer basic healthcare, stuff like physician visits or dental/optometry, maintenance stuff that can vastly affect your health. So far stuff like breast implants/abortions/sex changes haven't crossed my mind, those choices the patient makes personally without affecting their health (if a birth will affect the mother's health, it will be determined medically, not a choice by the mother.) Is there substantial reason to believe Obama is trying to make an all encompassing healthcare plan, as opposed to just something basic?

Speaking strictly from 15 years of cooking for 4-25 people on a regular basis, I can say that heavier foods make you tired. I always guessed it was energy being sapped to digest, as opposed to any chemical attributes - if you put a bunch of raw vegetables or fruit into some rice, you probably won't experience the weariness as much as if you had steak and potatos mixed in with rice. kinda makin' myself hungry

In regards to the Global Warning on Trial thing...I was literally embarrassed for my country and didn't want to share the info with anybody around me. Until other people here started agreeing with the article. ... /die I think the entire point, obviously, is that the companies don't want to spend for throwing pollution all over the place because it's too expensive. I admit to falling behind more than I'd like on this issue; has anyone tried dropping the global warming thing and asking them why they think it's okay to throw massive amounts of pollution into the air we're trying to breath? not that it matters, we should organize some giant rallies where we go out and protest the OTHER side for once, I'm kind of tired of seeing all these fruitless protests, let's walk in circles and peacefully set stuff on fire for once