Give gays their rights!

vauge said:

You havn't been paying attention.

Marriage is NOT A RIGHT.

Click to expand...

Once you start making legislation, about benefits, with words such as 'Marriage' it becomes a right and is no longer a privilage. Civil Union won't work, because that language isn't used.

:wcm to Debate Politics Capt. America.

But, marriages are state licensed not federally licenced. Each state mandates specific instructions to allow it. Therefore, because there are circumstances to which someone is not allowed to marry - it is not a right.

Once you start making legislation, about benefits, with words such as 'Marriage' it becomes a right and is no longer a privilage.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by benifits? What rights do the Federal Government give to married couples they don't give to unmarried couples?

Squawker said:

Champ always ignores anything that goes against his rhetoric. lol Now we have "white supremist" added to "bigot". You can do better than that, Champ.

Click to expand...

Nether you nor Vague are a willing to answer this question, how come?

Please tell me what the difference is between denying someone the right to marry based on their race or their sexual preference?

Click to expand...

Not paying attention? No, I'm paying attention and calling you out....I didn't call anyone a white supremist, duh! I was making an ANALOGY....Do you understand? (I typed really slowly so that you would get it).

The homophobia on this board is discouraging to the extreme. I wonder how any of you would feel if your rights were denied to you? Ever think of it that way? Ever try to put yourself in the the other person's shoes, or does your homophobia prevent you?

The basic fact that you are unwilling to grant fellow Americans equal rights clearly has you marked for what you really are. Do I expect you to ever acknowledge your bigotry? Of course not! Instead all of the homophobes will simply reinforce their prejudices by writing posts praising each other's bigotry and at the same time saying anyonewho disagrees with their bigotry is using "rhetoric."

Reputation is what men and women think of us; character is what God and angels know of us.
Thomas Paine

Click to expand...

To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not.
Thomas Paine

Click to expand...

Squawker said:

What do you mean by benifits? What rights do the Federal Government give to married couples they don't give to unmarried couples?

Click to expand...

Allowing same-sex couples to marry will make it easier for them to have the sale legal rights and protections, like hospital visitation and insurance benefits, as other married couples. Civil marriage will give same-sex couples the same economic security, protections and peace of mind in old age that are enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry will provide a clear way to deal with wills, child custody and support agreements and other legal arrangements involving same-sex couples.

All couples, lesbian and gay and heterosexual, deserve the legal protections afforded by marriage. Currently, same-sex couples in committed relationships are likely to pay higher taxes than married couples. They receive no Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner despite paying payroll taxes. They are denied healthcare, disability, military and other benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. Without a will, they often pay estate taxes when a partner dies, including significant tax penalties when they inherit a 401K pension plan from a partner. They are denied family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The choice of marriage is a fundamental constitutional right under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that should not be denied because of a person's sexual orientation. The right to marry has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.

Civil unions and domestic partnerships are no substitute for civil marriage. Though an important advance in the fight for equality, civil unions and domestic partnerships do not carry the full legal benefits (especially government and tax benefits) or cultural significance of marriage. The substitution of civil unions for legal marriage assigns same-sex couples to second class status—separate and unequal.

This is the same thing blacks went through, before the civil rights enactment.

Capt. America said:

Allowing same-sex couples to marry will make it easier for them to have the sale legal rights and protections, like hospital visitation and insurance benefits, as other married couples. Civil marriage will give same-sex couples the same economic security, protections and peace of mind in old age that are enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Allowing lesbian and gay couples to marry will provide a clear way to deal with wills, child custody and support agreements and other legal arrangements involving same-sex couples.

All couples, lesbian and gay and heterosexual, deserve the legal protections afforded by marriage. Currently, same-sex couples in committed relationships are likely to pay higher taxes than married couples. They receive no Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner despite paying payroll taxes. They are denied healthcare, disability, military and other benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. Without a will, they often pay estate taxes when a partner dies, including significant tax penalties when they inherit a 401K pension plan from a partner. They are denied family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

The choice of marriage is a fundamental constitutional right under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that should not be denied because of a person's sexual orientation. The right to marry has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.

Civil unions and domestic partnerships are no substitute for civil marriage. Though an important advance in the fight for equality, civil unions and domestic partnerships do not carry the full legal benefits (especially government and tax benefits) or cultural significance of marriage. The substitution of civil unions for legal marriage assigns same-sex couples to second class status—separate and unequal.

This is the same thing blacks went through, before the civil rights enactment.

Click to expand...

Welcome! GREAT POST! Your wrote it very well and you articulated exactly the problems that some Americans have with their civil rights simply because they're homosexual....

26 X World Champs said:

The basic fact that you are unwilling to grant fellow Americans equal rights clearly has you marked for what you really are. Do I expect you to ever acknowledge your bigotry? Of course not! Instead all of the homophobes will simply reinforce their prejudices by writing posts praising each other's bigotry and at the same time saying anyonewho disagrees with their bigotry is using "rhetoric."

Click to expand...

I have answered this question time and time again. This time I will type it slow for you too. Marriage is NOT a right - it requires a license. This isn't bigotted or or supremist - this is a fact that you are unwilling to accept. So, by that FACT that it is not a right, I do not understand what part of this you claim that I do not answer. States have the RIGHT to define a marriage however they see fit.

A judge should not make that descision or counteract that descision. In the state of Texas, the definition is clearly on the books. In the state of Mass, it was not clearly defined and therefore it was a loophole.

It seems that you are so prepared to give "rights" that you are blinded by the facts when in reality using the word "rights" and "marriage" in the same sentence is truely irrelivant to the argument.

Please prove to me how marriage IS indeed a "right" - it might alter my thought process.

There aren't many facts in your posts Capt. The people who are for gay marriage never produce anything to back their argument up. Where is the evidence they are discriminated against enough to warrant these "special rights" you speak of by the federal government? Gays have the same right to marry that I have. There is not any discrimination against them. Some people choose not to marry at all. It is their choice not to marry or partner with a woman, but they have the right to. You talk about the financial benefits of marriage, but what of the financial cost of AIDS and other diseases to the communities they live in?

Capt. America said:

The choice of marriage is a fundamental constitutional right under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment that should not be denied because of a person's sexual orientation. The right to marry has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a fundamental right under the United States Constitution.

Click to expand...

Source: Marriage Law
Federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996)

Section 1.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. Pub. L. 104-199, sec 1, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996) codified at 1 U.S.C. §7 (1997).

Section 2.

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession or tribe, respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state, territory, possession or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship. Pub. L. 104-199 sec. 2, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sep. 21, 1996) codified at 28 U.S.C. §1738C (1997).



Although state law generally governs marriages, there have been some important U.S. Supreme Court decisions relating to marriage in the last fifty years.[1] The most famous is Loving v. Virginia [2], in which the Court struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute. In Loving, the Court held that the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental right to marry that cannot be restricted because of the race of the man or woman being married.

If this is the court case you are citing, it is refering to race - not sexual orientation. The court concured that it was a fundamental "right" to be allowed to mary another human being of the opposite gender and of a different race within the defined regulations of the state.

Marriage is not listed as a civil right, Champ.

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin and in some instances sexual preference.

Click to expand...

Source

Squawker said:

There aren't many facts in your posts Capt. The people who are for gay marriage never produce anything to back their argument up. Where is the evidence they are discriminated against enough to warrant these "special rights" you speak of by the federal government? Gays have the same right to marry that I have. There is not any discrimination against them. Some people choose not to marry at all. It is their choice not to marry or partner with a woman, but they have the right to. You talk about the financial benefits of marriage, but what of the financial cost of AIDS and other diseases to the communities they live in?

Click to expand...

You..complaining about facts...wow.

The problem with this is that it isn't a factual question, it is a question of fairness, of equality. "There is not any discrimination against them. Some people choose not to marry at all. It is their choice not to marry or partner with a woman, but they have the right to." Gay people don't have the right to marry. The cost of medication will be there with or without allowing gay marriage.

You..complaining about facts...wow.

Click to expand...

Do you have some to offer? Vauge and I had links to back up what we were talking about, do you? I would like to see some clear evidense. I am more that willing to review it.

Squawker said:

You talk about the financial benefits of marriage, but what of the financial cost of AIDS and other diseases to the communities they live in?

Click to expand...

Wow! Will bigotry never cease? Amazing! Less than 19,000 Americans died in 2003 from AIDS. Any idea how many died from Second Hand Smoke? 52,000. SO what of the financial costs of that? People who smoke can get married, but people who love each other cannot get married and have equal rights.

In her decision in Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York, State Justice Doris J. Ling-Cohan had this to say, "The United States Supreme Court has made clear that the right to marry is a liberty right." She gives the following as evidence:

“Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/378.pdf... These matters involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Click to expand...

There are three decisions concerning the right of a gay couple to marry: Hernandez, et al., v. Victor L Robles, City Clerk of the City of New York, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, from Massachusetts, and Heather Anderson and Leslie Christina; et al., v. King County, et al. from the state of Washington. All three concur that marriage and the right to choose one's partner in marriage, are fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. All three confirm that it is unconstitutional to disallow gay couples the right to marry.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/378.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html
http://www.nwwlc.org/decisions/Andersen_S.J._ruling.pdf

Click to expand...

To quote from one of your sources:

The Supreme Judicial Court held today that "barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution." The court stayed the entry of judgment for 180 days "to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

Click to expand...

Excellent, you just confirmed everything I have stated thusfar. It is the STATES descision to make. Therefore, it is NOT a US Constitutional "right". The state of Mass says that it is unconstitutional for them, but has no say for my state.

On the others - again, you are citing STATE sources. Which every state has it's compelling interest to do. We are talking national level - correct?

26 X World Champs said:

How absurd! You justify being a bigot by citing that criminals are not afforded the same basic freedoms as non-criminals! That is the cornerstone of your argument?

Click to expand...

How can you justify your insulting statements as an 'argument' by repeating a jingo, which doens't even mean what you think it does.

26 X World Champs said:

Consenting ADULTS, not consenting cows. Yes, I believe that humans can eat meat, fish, etc. Here's a brain wave update...that does not mean that being for Gay rights makes someone a vegan or that eating meat makes someone a hypocrite re gay rights. Your "logic" is so contrived, so WRONG that it does clearly expose you as a bigot because as I wrote previously bigotry's roots are in ignorance, and for you to think that prisoners or cows not being treated equally or as consenting adults as the basis for banning gay marriage is a feeble attempt to mask your bigotry.

Click to expand...

Actually your's is the contrived logic. You seem to apply a rule of 'conent' to the idea of sex, to rule out something that you find abhorrent (sex with animals). But no 'consent' is given in sex with a human and any non-human; such as a device. None can be given. So, the idea of seeking 'consent' should not be an issue. It isn't with eating animals, or using them for any other purpose (medical experiments etc). Thus the issue of having sex with animals should not be an issue for you; it is because you're perosonal tastes, so you re-write an idea of when to apply a 'rule'.
Otherwise you'd be ranting against people who have sex with non-living things to, such as 'adult' toys etc. Because no consent can be given by them, either.

26 X World Champs said:

Well then you need to sit them down, treat them like they're educated and explain to them that you do not approve of their visiting porn sites until they've reached the age of CONSENT. There's that word again, CONSENT. We're talking about CONSENTING ADULTS and you're somehow equating porn sites to gay marriage as if they're related...or is that you're weakly trying to suggest that these porn sites are somehow contributing to homosexuality?

Click to expand...

No, it is you who is arguing over 'consent' yet you seem very selective in when you apply this magical rule of yours. I simply give another example; internet porn, and you find excuses in which your magical rule doesn't quite apply. That is contrived logic.

26 X World Champs said:

In BLUE state America we believe in CHOICE, logical and legal choice. To base an argument against personal freedom on the points that you're relying on really makes my points for me, thank you.

Click to expand...

So you say, but you're continual waving of 'consent' of an issue, and then withdrawing this magical rule in certain situations because you find THEM personally abhorrent shows just how conditioned you are in not being able to see an argument through.

26 X World Champs said:

Why? You're grasping for straws so you have to included criminals and animals to make your "point." How about coming up with a legitimate argument to discriminate against your fellow law abiding Americans? Give it a shot? Now keep in mind that employing bigotry in your argument completely nulls your point of view in general, and it personally exposes you as anti-American.

Click to expand...

The eating of animals, the experimentation of animals is legal. Once again you drop the 'consent' rule, and are now switching to the 'legality' rule. Simply make homosexuality illegal, and your who argument falls apart.

26 X World Champs said:

Know how weak your statement is? Employing your "logic" means that the Constitution should never be amended because it's original meaning is what it means, and the progression of intellect and changing mores do not matter. Great argument! Amendments were adopted as a vital foundation of the Constitution for precisely the opposite reason of your "means something different" rationale.

Click to expand...

Oh, please. Strawman! I never said anything about whether it should be changed or not. You uncritically wave the "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL" flag for this without realising the founding fathers didn't mean it as you think it should and even now, it doesn't mean what you think it was. But rather than deal with that you go into totally new arguments, inventing a stance you believe that I am taking (and I'm not) on constitutional change.

26 X World Champs said:

Intellectual pursuit and the evolution of American society is based on change, DUH! Otherwise we'd still have a society that includes slavery, lacks women's rights, and does not permit for equal protection under the law.

Click to expand...

And this applies to your argument, 'how?'.

26 X World Champs said:

Totally ridiculous and lame, sorry...doesn't even merit further reply other than, "WRONG."

Click to expand...

As I pointed out, this is a characteristic of the bulk of your argument 'you're wrong'.

26 X World Champs said:

Slavery was once illegal too, so was women's voting, abortion, inter-racial marriage, oral sex, anal sex, and thousands of other outdated tenets that we, as a nation have intellectually evolved from due to greater knowledge and greater social conscience. You're stuck in some law and order phase in your life where you're unable to grasp that laws from centuries past were wrong and changing them is RIGHT.

Click to expand...

More comments irrelevant to this debate.

26 X World Champs said:

I guess bigotry really offends me and I believe that bigots need to be made accountable for their sick way of thinking and their ignorance needs to be constantly exposed so that others are not lured into or so that others are lured away from the ignorance that fuels bigotry....

Click to expand...

Still that's the problem with your contrived debate. For you the idea of 'consent' is the rule for the allowance of sexual acts in private. You argue against bestiality, because no consent can be given from the animal (this is true), but then none can be given when it involves one or more people and an object such as a vibrator (the vibrator can't give consent). So you're against one form of sex when a consent human has sex with a thing (animal) that can't give consent, but not with others, such as sex between a consenting adult and a thing (an appliance, for example).

Thus the rule of 'consent' is applied very selectively.

Then you introduce a strawman argument about changes to the constitution, some cry to 'legality' that doesn't go anywhere and a few personal insults and "You're wrong!". Well done.

vauge said:

To quote from one of your sources:



Excellent, you just confirmed everything I have stated thusfar. It is the STATES descision to make. Therefore, it is NOT a US Constitutional "right". The state of Mass says that it is unconstitutional for them, but has no say for my state.

On the others - again, you are citing STATE sources. Which every state has it's compelling interest to do. We are talking national level - correct?

Click to expand...

Yes..and no....Yes it is up to each State to decide...but ultimately it is up to the Supremes to decide if a law is constitutional or not.

But you know what Vague, this is not only about laws, it's about people and treating everyone equally. You can smokescreen about what's on the books or what books equality should be written into, but at the end of the day you, and people like you are most definitely preventing your fellow Americans from "liberty & the pursuit of happiness." Why can't you let people pursue their personal happiness?

26 X World Champs said:

Yes..and no....Yes it is up to each State to decide...but ultimately it is up to the Supremes to decide if a law is constitutional or not.

But you know what Vague, this is not only about laws, it's about people and treating everyone equally. You can smokescreen about what's on the books or what books equality should be written into, but at the end of the day you, and people like you are most definitely preventing your fellow Americans from "liberty & the pursuit of happiness." Why can't you let people pursue their personal happiness?

Click to expand...

Thank you for a response that was not argumentative but passionate and to the point.

To be quite honest. I don't know. I think that it is just wrong personally. I think that the sanctity of marriage (uh oh I said it) would be in even worse shape than it's in today if we allow this, what I see as negative, to continue. Because it is in the books; I will argue against it. Just like anyone else who has an opinion on a position I will find anything I can to pull in my favor.

vauge said:

Thank you for a response that was not argumentative but passionate and to the point.

To be quite honest. I don't know. I think that it is just wrong personally. I think that the sanctity of marriage (uh oh I said it) would be in even worse shape than it's in today if we allow this, what I see as negative, to continue.

Click to expand...

Considering that 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce I personally believe that to consider the sanctity of marriage as your rationale seems hypocritical, all things considered.

I again implore you to consider the lack of basic rights afforded to gay couples who want to marry. I just don't buy that it cuts into the fabric of our society when in fact marriage is not truly a lifelong commitment to 50% of those who marry.

If we, as Americans profess to be pace setters at this point in world history isn't it time that we actually honor the word UNITED in our country's name and allow all law abiding Americans to live their life as they choose without prejudice? If we don't have ideals, and if we do not strive for them, how can we ever attain them?

vauge said:

Thank you for a response that was not argumentative but passionate and to the point.

To be quite honest. I don't know. I think that it is just wrong personally. I think that the sanctity of marriage (uh oh I said it) would be in even worse shape than it's in today if we allow this, what I see as negative, to continue. Because it is in the books; I will argue against it. Just like anyone else who has an opinion on a position I will find anything I can to pull in my favor.

Click to expand...

I think by adding to this you lend credibility and legitimacy to a highly controversial sexual practice. People are naturally resistant to that.

vauge said:

To quote from one of your sources:



Excellent, you just confirmed everything I have stated thusfar. It is the STATES descision to make. Therefore, it is NOT a US Constitutional "right". The state of Mass says that it is unconstitutional for them, but has no say for my state.

On the others - again, you are citing STATE sources. Which every state has it's compelling interest to do. We are talking national level - correct?

Click to expand...

I completely agree with you vauge. Most people think that I think that it should be nationwide and they would be correct. I however, do realize that the law is quite clear, and this does appear to be a state issue when it is not in conflict with the bill of rights, much as the Texas sodomy case and other cases are. The 14th Amm. though can be interpreted very....loosely and thus it could require it in the end. I hope it does, but at this time, I also realize that the states have the right to express their opinions of rule of the majority at the expense of the minorities. It is not a right to get married, but it should be. Legally, gay marriage is a state issue, but emotionally, it is a universal issue.

26 X World Champs said:

Considering that 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce I personally believe that to consider the sanctity of marriage as your rationale seems hypocritical, all things considered.

I again implore you to consider the lack of basic rights afforded to gay couples who want to marry. I just don't buy that it cuts into the fabric of our society when in fact marriage is not truly a lifelong commitment to 50% of those who marry.

Click to expand...

I have no issue with Civil unions. To me, this is the BEST alternative.

My personal relationship would not be altered at all if gay marriage was allowed. But, the very idea of marriage is sacred (uh oh, bringing religion into this). It is as though they want to take away the last of my privileges as a heterosexual male. I cannot allow that.

The family structure in ANY society is the deap rooted core of the personality of the masses. Any law that detours and deconstructs that family value (man and woman) is a step in the wrong direction. My personal family has no bearing on you what-so-ever, but my singular family in this government of millions still has a very minute impact on what you watch on TV, read in the paper, and possibly the job you work at.

If the very idea of a male-female marriage is ripped apart like a piece of paper - so will the life that we all know and love. One small paper cut at a time. It could take years and years for it to have the detrimental effect that I am refering, but it would be that much closer if we allow this downhill trend to continue.

If the very idea of a male-female marriage is ripped apart like a piece of paper - so will the life that we all know and love. One small paper cut at a time. It could take years and years for it to have the detrimental effect that I am refering, but it would be that much closer if we allow this downhill trend to continue.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the same logic used back when it was illegal for a black to marry a white. Have we seen the same 'detrimental effect' to marriage, because of that?

Have we seen the same 'detrimental effect' to voting, because a woman has the right to vote?

Marriage already has its problems and it has nothing to do with homosexuality but has EVERYTHING to do with 'sexuality'. We can't keep it between 2 people. So to say that allowing gay marriage will cause a 'ripping' effect, is short sited.

America is a progressive country, so it is only a matter of time.

Squawker said:

There aren't many facts in your posts Capt. The people who are for gay marriage never produce anything to back their argument up. Where is the evidence they are discriminated against enough to warrant these "special rights" you speak of by the federal government?

Click to expand...

Funny when someone as some points to make against your argument, there aren't enough facts for you. The FACT is I have some facts. Like it or not, the FACT is:

Capt. America said:

They receive no Social Security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner despite paying payroll taxes. They are denied healthcare, disability, military and other benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. Without a will, they often pay estate taxes when a partner dies, including significant tax penalties when they inherit a 401K pension plan from a partner. They are denied family leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Click to expand...

What do you mean 'discriminated against enough'? That is the whole point, is that they are discriminated against. Are you for discrimination? Do we need to go back to the dark days of the 60's? We are a better people, we should act like it.

26 X World Champs said:

Yes..and no....Yes it is up to each State to decide...but ultimately it is up to the Supremes to decide if a law is constitutional or not.

But you know what Vague, this is not only about laws, it's about people and treating everyone equally. You can smokescreen about what's on the books or what books equality should be written into, but at the end of the day you, and people like you are most definitely preventing your fellow Americans from "liberty & the pursuit of happiness." Why can't you let people pursue their personal happiness?

Click to expand...

As to your last comment about personal happiness, this is another attempt at an argument.

You've started on 'consent'.

You've mentioned 'legality'

You've mentioned 'basic constitutional rights'

and now 'hapiness'.

Whilst you've yet to develop any of these from beyond a sweeping statement or generalisation, you leave yourself way open to many a retort.

If 'hapiness' is your 'rule' of what is to be allowed, then again you are allowing for things such as bestiality, and others.

If only you take some time to construct an argument, rather than appeal to a few miss-placed jingoes, and ad homs.

Capt. America said:

Sounds like the same logic used back when it was illegal for a black to marry a white. Have we seen the same 'detrimental effect' to marriage, because of that?

Click to expand...

Yes, and one of those effects we are debating today. But, that is my personal religious take, and I would rather not go there again.