They were murdered by a bunch of Christians who wanted their land. Their downfall had nothing to do with their apparent ambivalence towards homosexuality.

well they didn't want the land as much as they wanted to loot (spanish/portugese)...

my dear Dibs, if your sole problem with gays marrying is because of some tax break, then you should absolutely support gay marriage whilst also simply support stripping that tax benefit from the bundle of rights attached to marriage. right? and if you still wish to incentivize reproduction, attach that tax break to the raising of children, or even to the raising of children in married households if that's what you wish, but there's no need to oppose gay marriage because of a tax break.

ok, i feel a little confused and baffled. is that a good reason to oppose gay marriage? let's recognize here that marriage in our society stands as the ultimate form of commitment and love in a relationship, and that gay people love and have feelings for their companions juts as others do, and tell me whether that feeling of confusion i felt matters in the least bit when compared to the enormous insult to the dignity of these people, and the insult to their partnership, when we tell them they can't share in the declaration of love and union that is marriage. can you imagine how hurtful that must feel, and how much that hurt must exceed whatever it is that you're talking about? and not only does the hurt exceed it, but the injustice is incredible in denying something beautiful and consummating to two lovers based solely on their inherent sexual orientation

# off blid. i don't support gay marriage because they ain't going to engage in the behaviour required to found a family. they say they don't like that kinda sex.

so to you, the tax break has nothing to do with it. marriage fundamentally must be only a foundation for starting a family? and if you want to adopt or use alternative means of reproducing, it doesn't count? and if you want to be a straight childless couple, you're okay? that's a real twisty turny set of principles youve got. what do i tell my grandmother who remarried after her first husband died? oh wait - she's good. but the lesbian couple i know who both carried children are a no-go. see, i'm starting to tihnk this you just have a problem with gay people...

get marriage out of the government's business and i'll be ok. till then i feel that society is rewarding people for birthing babies, not for engaging in sexual fantasies.

that's ok, i have no problem with you suffering from the delusion that i have a problem with gay people. i think you're paranoid and are worried that all the hetrosexual people are out to get you.

gay marriage is a sexual fantasy?

no, gay sex is a fantasy.

Not true. Stop trying to re-write history.

The Treaty of Tripoli, sent to the floor of the US Senate on June 07 1797, where the english version was read aloud in its entirety and ratified unanimously. President John Adams signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the nation.

Article 11 of the treaty states:
--
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
--

This Treaty of Tripoli was written during George Washington's second term as President. Ratified and then signed into law by President James Adams.
The vote was recorded only because at least a fifth of the Senators present voted to require a recorded vote. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required. It was only the third time that a vote was recorded when the vote was unanimous.

The vote they cast was ordinary, routine, normal. It was, in other words, quite well accepted, only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were ratified.

The US Constitution is godless. It calls on no higher power than "We the People". What the Treaty of Tripoli did was to powerfully reaffirm what the Constitution and First Amendment intended.

The treaty was reprinted in its entirety in (at least) New York and Philadelphia. There was no public outcry regarding Art. 11.
There is no record of any public backlash.

There were no negative repercussions for any of those that voted to ratify this treaty. Senator Theodore Sedgewick of Massachusetts went on to become the Speaker of the House.
Sen. Isaac Tichenor became Governor of Vermont, and then returned to the Senate for many years.
Georgia's Senator, Josiah Tattnall did not return to the Senate, but he did serve thereafter as one of the youngest Governors in Georgia's history.
There was no political backlash.

I'm getting weary of people that know history about as well as they know the content of their religious texts. Seems that willful ignorance will always be embraced by the bigots.

I see some religious moderates on this thread posting very thoughtful comments but i think it falls on deaf ears.

IMO it is unfortunate that moderate religious people of good character, with empathy for other points of view and a commitment to social justice, will continue to provide cover for the nutcases who cherrypick what they want from those unreasonable texts to reinforce their own blind hatred.
It's as true now as it always has been. Religion, first and foremost, divides us.

to the extent that all sex is a fantasy, yes. but marriage... is a statement of love, not sexual desires. and i for one don't have a problem with the government endorsing that sol,emn proceeding with its weighty recognition, all the better in fact

god. marriage is about birthing children and maintaining bloodlines. it's got little to do with love. gay sex is a fanatasy because it ain't going to birth no babies.

with a 50% divorce rate, you'd be better off saying that marriage is a statement about lust, not love.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s9dxrkzbsI

First of all, Let's go back for the reason we have marriage.


its all about property.

As Men developed the concept of property, they wanted to ensure that it was their sons, who got the property.

How do you know if a son is yours? Before DNA testing? Well, it has to be a women who has never lay with another, and only lays with you.

Hence women became property. And the Instituion of Marriage began.


But with DNA testing, modern medicine, the equality of women, contraception,we know who the child is now, how to often prevent a childbirth.

Therefore, the reasons for institutional marriage as we know it, is no longer present.

I don't know what it will mean, but there will be an evolution of how we understand marriage. It is no longer about procreation, and making sure the property goes to your child......

Marriage is now about

companionship
partnership,
a symbolic way of saying we want this for a lifetime.

having a child to live on through, can be done without marriage, b/c of DNA we know its our,
we can pass on that property, whether married or not.

Again, marriage is now about other things.

That is why I think it is imperative we move to civil unions for all people who want to contract together through life.

Now if you want to put a religious blessing on it, call it a marriage go through a church/synagogue/mosque....but it shouldn't carry any legal weight.


Any 2 people that want to contract to journey through life together (of legal age that is) should be able too.

B/c the original purpose of "marriage" is no longer relevant, or the main reason, (procreation and ensuring its your son to inherit your property),

the reasons we contract together has and will evolve.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2fbpCUmrTE

I also think its unfair younger people pay less for health insurance and males pay more for car insurance and if you have bad credit you pay more for insurance too. All of thses are unfair. Come on lets all be fair on everything. I want my equal rights. And Lets also have a gay platoon and just to show we support equal rights lets always send them first into the combat zones. When will it be enough? In life there is no equal rights. Get rid of the crutch.

You people need to understand that the BENEFITS that straight people get when they are married and just that- BENEFITS. Stop saying they are RIGHTS. They are NOT rights. A right is something you get from birth. If i am a straight male and i CHOOSE never to marry a woman then i do not get those BENEFITS. See? It is a benefit not a right.

Our gov for many years has understood the foundation of straight married couples producing family's, thus making this nation stronger. To encourage this act they have given BENEFITS to them when they get married. For those stupid people, its kinda the exact opposite of when the gov adds sin taxes on cigarettes to discourage people from the act of smoking. I find it funny you people are for that (and do not scream equal rigths) but are screaming mad and call benefits of marriage RIGHTS (which they are not)...

Feel free to have your civil unions. You get no benefits that married couples get and you can not get married. I can not wait for it to not be allowed nation wide. The more you people cry and scream the more resolved my side gets.

Yes deerhunter, becuase the most vocal are the inbred hicks in red states, who think my way is the right way, no matter how wrong, messed up, and unfair it treats people.

Yep...looks like we got some real closet pole-polishers on this here forum...

Deerhunter.

They have a right to equal benefits.

SHould a women be denied healthcare benefits, just b/c she's a women? While a man gets them?

Should an African American get less vacation time? Than an anglo?
Oh wait, what about the benefit, of riding anywhere on a bus? or using the same water fountains and bathrooms?

Those things are called benefits, but they come form Civil Rights Legislation.


It is the Civil Rights Legislation, which requires equality of benefits. Equality in facilities,

Learn some history:)

http://www.nytimes.com/...html?_r=1&ref=opinion

"The twist was that before each word and image appeared, the word “me” or “other” was flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds — long enough for participants to subliminally process the word but short enough that they could not consciously see it."

ahh, so they create gay people using subliminal suggestions. nifty.

A tangential semantic argument - the last gasp of failed nonsense.

Servant already addressed you though.

Also, no matter how you try to spin it, you are the one crying and screaming. Just try and think about things. You can have your pride and never admit to us that you are wrong, but just really think about how you think and if you are truly trying to apply reason or if you are just clinging onto baseless dogma.

This thread is useless. I love the gays. I DVR the Ellen show everyday...

"IMO it is unfortunate that moderate religious people of good character, with empathy for other points of view and a commitment to social justice, will continue to provide cover for the nutcases who cherrypick what they want from those unreasonable texts to reinforce their own blind hatred.
It's as true now as it always has been. Religion, first and foremost, divides us."

A couple of points here.

1. Unreasonable texts. How can you complain about the bigotry of a select few when you throw your OWN opinion on religious "unreasonable texts".

2. I don't really see anyone here backing up DH, the nutcase. In fact I am embarrassed that he is a) American and b) Straight (debatable). Though I have a feeling that you meant that as a broad statement about the general public. I agree. However, I chose to relate it to this thread so I can take a jab at DH. Which is not very "Christian Like", but heck i'm not perfect.

3. I agree with almost everything else you said.

Zen, stop grabbing my ass. I told you once already i am not gay. I don't care what you, Jack, and Steve do but leave me out of it.