Please read this again:

“Before anybody starts claiming that I am comaparing the Civil Rights movement with gay rights, the comaparison I made is the best example of a minority challenging an established institution that I can find at the moment”

Can they marry now? I don’t see how legalizing gay marriage changes anything.

This example was in reply to your use of the word consenting. As if that should be the deciding factor only. I was trying to illustrate how that also doesn’t matter. Incest, as sick as that may be, can be consenting.

Well I don’t know how to respond to this one since I also believe women should be allowed to serve equally to men (including combat situations).

Only if you advocate the military being fair ground for the use of social experimentation. I disagree. I would rather combat readiness and discipline trump the other. Some things work to the detriment of this.

I thought he said he wouldn’t want his daughters ‘punished‘ with a baby under certain circumstances.

Obama says many things.

Good point.

DanStark on December 20, 2008 at 12:47 PM

What gave blacks the right to challenge the established institution of segregation?

Before anybody starts claiming that I am comaparing the Civil Rights movement with gay rights, the comaparison I made is the best example of a minority challenging an established institution that I can find at the moment.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 10:13 AM

False analogy.

My question was about changing a definition of an institution (marriage) that is nothing similar to Jim Crow. Another level this comparison is absurd on is your analogy seems to forget that there is currently no right one group (whether heterosexual or homosexual) has that the other doesn’t.

I have the same number of single women to choose from to marry as much as a single gay male. It is the same amount.

Let me know just how Adam and Eve procreated if they were both batting for the other team.

You and Siker are taking Scripture so far out of context its not funny.

Would you be ok with consenting adult brother and sister? How’s that for a slippery slope?

Can they marry now? I don’t see how legalizing gay marriage changes anything.

It would be a major disruption to the rest of one’s platoon, company, and even battalion level if someone was openly gay. It is unnecessary to add controversy and added stress of this nature to combat situations. It is similar to the reasoning behind women not being allowed on submarines for an extended period of time (may have changed recently-don’t know though).

Well I don’t know how to respond to this one since I also believe women should be allowed to serve equally to men (including combat situations).

Yet let’s look at allowing homosexuals (transgender, etc.) into the military. Israel does it, does it not? The Israeli military I’m sure has one of the most stressful jobs in the world. I don’t see people stating they are weak because they allow homosexuals to serve.

I thought he said he wouldn’t want his daughters ‘punished‘ with a baby under certain circumstances.

Ha, he said both. He said he is personally against it (alluding to religious reasons) and that he doesn’t want his daughter punished. Obama says many things.

Adios, Farewell, Auf wiedersehen.
For real, this time.

Seriously the species is homo sapien — for both straights and gays!

LifeTrek on December 20, 2008 at 5:55 AM

The sentiment’s right, but it’s homo sapiens (in the singular, plural homines sapientes).

Let’s see, where did all humans ever get the idea of marriage… um, from their forefathers, who were the sons of Adam, uh, who learned it from God at the Garden of Eden.

OK, I get it.

Adios, Farewell, Auf wiedersehen.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 11:25 AM

Let’s see, where did all humans ever get the idea of marriage… um, from their forefathers, who were the sons of Adam, uh, who learned it from God at the Garden of Eden.

Oh, my bad. I thought the Law of Moses came after the Garden of Eden.
Thanks for clearing that up.

TMK, where did the concept of marraige in Roman, Greek, Babylonian, Persian, Incan, Aztek, Cherokee, Iroquois, Creek, Apache, Inuit, and other societies come form?

Indeed! Where does government stop when acknowledging behavior groups, and by what justification does it sets limits?

Since we have a representative republic, that would be for us to figure out.

A place to start would be to repeal the First Amendment, then setting limits would be easy.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Oh, my bad. I thought the Law of Moses came after the Garden of Eden.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Indeed! Where does government stop when acknowledging behavior groups, and by what justification does it sets limits?

When religion is introduced into the state laws that regulate marraige, when will those laws have to be amended to accept a Muslim’s multiple wives? It must be asserted that current marraige laws are civil (secular) in nature and have nothing to do with religion, and recognize a human concept that has existed since before written history, especially several thousand years before Judaism and Christianity. Christians did not invent marraige.

How about polygamist? Why does government look down on their behavior? Shouldn’t they be afforded all the rights the Homosexual community now enjoys?

I am only commenting about the right to challenge an institution or a law. There is no right for that challenge to be successful. I am not advocating any changes to any state law governing marraige.

One can read anything one wants to into the creation story but cannot read anything about homosexuality out of it.

LifeTrek on December 20, 2008 at 7:02 AM

It wasn’t about defining “all human relationships,” it was about establishing God’s definition of marriage, which Genesis 2 clearly provides. Jesus confirms marriage is a man and woman joined by God in Matthew 19, and lookit dat, He quotes Genesis 2. But as for homosexuality in general:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”

Is that “loud” enough for you? Or are you still going to pitifully try to justify abominations with more unscriptural creeds?

Well Jim Crow laws in the South affected a very tiny group. What gave blacks the right to challenge the established institution of segregation?

How does one even know, when one has met a homosexual? What defines one as a homosexual? It would appear that, what makes a homosexual different from anyone else is his or her behavior. Why should we award special rights to someone based on their behavior?

Why aren’t cigarette smokers afforded this same special protection under the law? Government in many places does just the opposite, it unfairly punishes them with undue and burdensome taxes just because some people look down their behavior. Is this fair?

How about polygamist? Why does government look down on their behavior? Shouldn’t they be afforded all the rights the Homosexual community now enjoys? By what right does state single them out for special harssment with the same draconian laws the Homosexual community wants set aside.

If there is to be equal protection under the law there should be equal protection under the law for all behavior types! If that is to be the standard. Why should the government be allowed to close the door behind Homosexuals? Are Homosexual and Heterosexual behavior types the only ones that are valid? If so why? If not why not?

Dedalus, that explains why there we have Arena Football, semi-pro basketball, and single A baseball farm teams.

Pelayo on December 20, 2008 at 10:35 AM

Yeah, those guys are all exceptional athletes, but make less than 1% of what LeBron makes. Still, they all have contracts.

And of course there’s a slippery slope. If you allow just any old relationship to be considered marriage then it has no definition and becomes meaningless.

roux on December 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM

One can apply that rationale to any restriction along the slope–remarriage, fertility, class, criminal record, race.

And of course there’s a slippery slope. If you allow just any old relationship to be considered marriage then it has no definition and becomes meaningless.

I want my skill set to be as valuable as LeBron James’. I believe my civil rights are violated by society placing a greater value on LeBron’s skill set than mine. I want society to declare my skill set as being of equal value. Declaring it true is only a lie.

jack_in_the_box on December 20, 2008 at 10:06 AM

There are 30 other NBA teams who want that too. Maybe there is only one guy at that level, though, and he plays for the Cavs. However, if you can find a basketball team that thinks you are that good–maybe, well probably, they aren’t an NBA team. That team can pay you whatever they want and try to draw paying fans and sell TV rights. I’ve played with some pretty good guys recently in rec leagues but we weren’t able to charge the 6 people watching admission.

However modest the basketball talent or unwise the business decision the government would recognize the contract between the non-LeBron and the non-Cavs.