Is anti-gay unconstitutional

[Squawker]

The definition of bigot is: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

That would define Gays, Blacks, Atheist and Liberals also.

I'd say advocating the arbitrary denial of civil liberties to a certain group of people simply because they are not like you would classify as intolerant, and thus bigotry.

Gays are not denied their civil liberties. They are a special interest group and do not deserve the same protection and classification of a minority group. It would be like giving special rights to PETA people to marry their animals because they love them and want to provide for them. This is an analogy, so don’t get “outraged” and hostile, because you are think screwing a dog or a goat is repugnant. Don’t want ya to be a bigot or anything.

Because opponents of gay marriage don't simply "disagree" with a "lifestyle." If only that were so. No, they want to outlaw that "lifestyle." That's bigotry, period.

They don’t approve of other “lifestyles” either, like cohabitation of heterosexuals, swinging couples, prostitution, or teen sex. This idea that people can’t judge others is way off track. Society has to have “norms” or “guidelines” to remain a civilized group of people. I am older than some here, so I can see how one thing leads to another. We haven’t become a “better” society because we have accepted behavior that wouldn’t have been tolerated in 1960. We have to pay for all of this. Teen pregnancy, STD’s AIDS, the break up of the family, divorce, welfare, drugs, crime --- the list goes on and on. It has to stop at some point. I don't have to accept every new thought or action, because I might be accused of being a bigot or discriminating. That is just an attack to justify the action. Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[shuamort]

That would define Gays, Blacks, Atheist and Liberals also.

It defines anyone displaying a bigoted behavior. But being a liberal, gay, black, et al does not a bigot one make. Because intolerance is part of that definiton and is not created solely from those items.

Gays are not denied their civil liberties.

They sure are.

They are a special interest group and do not deserve the same protection and classification of a minority group. It would be like giving special rights to PETA people to marry their animals because they love them and want to provide for them. This is an analogy, so don’t get “outraged” and hostile, because you are think screwing a dog or a goat is repugnant. Don’t want ya to be a bigot or anything.

People aren't born members of PETA, people are however born gay.

They don’t approve of other “lifestyles” either, like cohabitation of heterosexuals, swinging couples, prostitution, or teen sex.

What? That doesn't even make a lick of sense.

This idea that people can’t judge others is way off track. Society has to have “norms” or “guidelines” to remain a civilized group of people. I am older than some here, so I can see how one thing leads to another.

Slippery slope argument. Of course, one could point to slavery, racism, and misogeny as "norms" and guidelines that aren't too far in the past and we felt that we were still civilized. Mores change over time and even for the better.

We haven’t become a “better” society because we have accepted behavior that wouldn’t have been tolerated in 1960. We have to pay for all of this. Teen pregnancy, STD’s AIDS, the break up of the family, divorce, welfare, drugs, crime --- the list goes on and on.

If you cherrypick things look worse, I guess I don't see a civil rights protest led by Martin Luther King getting hosed down by firehoses as a "Better" society.

It has to stop at some point. I don't have to accept every new thought or action, because I might be accused of being a bigot or discriminating. That is just an attack to justify the action. Sorry, I don't buy it.

You can believe whatever you want, just don't expect people to keep shopping at the ol' General Store of beliefs when the Walmart sells a better product at a cheaper price.

 

[Pacridge]

You can believe whatever you want, just don't expect people to keep shopping at the ol' General Store of beliefs when the Walmart sells a better product at a cheaper price.

I really like that thought, but still detest Wal-Mart.

 

[argexpat]

Polygamy is illegal because otherwise I would marry every one of my friends, and demand that they get the same medical care that I get under my health insurance policy.

So polygamy is illegal because insurance companies don't like it? Pandering to corporate interests is about as lousy a justification for abridging civil liberties as there is.

You could demand whatever you want from your insurance company and they don't have to give it to you. In fact, they don't have to cover your spouse and children now; they do it because they're in competition with companies that do. That's called capitalism. And if polygamy were legal, insurance companies would simply adjust their business models. (This issue would also be moot if we had socialized medicine, but I digress.)

So I ask again, why is polygamy illegal? We already allow people to marry multiple times, just not at the same time?

Lastly, to bring this back around to the debate at hand: contrary to Republican bluster, same-sex marriage and polygamy are categorically different than incest and bestiality. And to equate them is specious and disingenuous and really really lame.

 

[RightinNYC]

So polygamy is illegal because insurance companies don't like it? Pandering to corporate interests is about as lousy a justification for abridging civil liberties as there is.

Just one of the 8 million reasons why it won't work, and can't work. Sorry to step on your toes.

So I ask again, why is polygamy illegal? We already allow people to marry multiple times, just not at the same time?

Lastly, to bring this back around to the debate at hand: contrary to Republican bluster, same-sex marriage and polygamy are categorically different than incest and bestiality. And to equate them is specious and disingenuous and really really lame.

I'm being serious when I ask you this - why is incest wrong? What right do YOU have to tell me I can't marry my cousin? And why is it categorically different?

 

[shuamort]

Just one of the 8 million reasons why it won't work, and can't work. Sorry to step on your toes.

And sorry to deflate your balloon, but since I have been working at one of the country's largest insurance companies for the last 6+ years, I have to point out that your hypothesis is most definitely wrong. An insurance company doesn't not insure a couple because they have multiple children, they just adjust the premium rates. The more people, the higher the rates.

 

[RightinNYC]

And sorry to deflate your balloon, but since I have been working at one of the country's largest insurance companies for the last 6+ years, I have to point out that your hypothesis is most definitely wrong. An insurance company doesn't not insure a couple because they have multiple children, they just adjust the premium rates. The more people, the higher the rates.

Am I wrong to say that it is cheaper for a husband and wife to have joint insurance coverage than for each of them to have their own individual? And I know for a fact, considering I just got my own, that it is more expensive for kids to get their own, than it is for them to remain under their parents plan.

It's illegal for lots of reasons, that was the first one I thought of.

 

[shuamort]

Am I wrong to say that it is cheaper for a husband and wife to have joint insurance coverage than for each of them to have their own individual?

Nope, you're completely right there, the more people buying as a group, the cheaper it is.

And I know for a fact, considering I just got my own, that it is more expensive for kids to get their own, than it is for them to remain under their parents plan.

Right again.

It's illegal for lots of reasons, that was the first one I thought of.

It's not illegal at all for insurance companies to insure couples, one-on-one married to polyamorous/polygamous folk. My company not only offers insurance for married people, but also those in a committed domestic partnership(CDP). We have a form for them to sign to attest that they are in a CDP and contingent on that, we insure them. There's nothing illegal about that at all.

 

[RightinNYC]

It's not illegal at all for insurance companies to insure couples, one-on-one married to polyamorous/polygamous folk. My company not only offers insurance for married people, but also those in a committed domestic partnership(CDP). We have a form for them to sign to attest that they are in a CDP and contingent on that, we insure them. There's nothing illegal about that at all.

No, I wasn't referring to the legality of insuring them, I was referring to the legality of polygamy. I think that's fantastic that your company offers CDP insurance. Are the rates similar to those for married couples? Do you offer packages for the children of those couples?

 

[shuamort]

No, I wasn't referring to the legality of insuring them, I was referring to the legality of polygamy. I think that's fantastic that your company offers CDP insurance. Are the rates similar to those for married couples? Do you offer packages for the children of those couples?

Ahh, ok. Yup, we offer packages for both, regardless of gender. So it does cover gays, straights and all of 'em in between as well as their children. I believe the rates are the same as well.

 

[RightinNYC]

Ahh, ok. Yup, we offer packages for both, regardless of gender. So it does cover gays, straights and all of 'em in between as well as their children. I believe the rates are the same as well.

That's fantastic. Why don't things like this make the news? Do you know when your company began this policy, or if it was a long standing one? It would seem like this would be a great selling point if it was advertised in specific communities. It would resolve a lot of the complaints and ease the transition into an accepting society.

 

[shuamort]

That's fantastic. Why don't things like this make the news? Do you know when your company began this policy, or if it was a long standing one? It would seem like this would be a great selling point if it was advertised in specific communities. It would resolve a lot of the complaints and ease the transition into an accepting society.

They've been offering that ever since I've been here (6+ years). As for why they don't advertise it? You got me, we do a lot of stuff that should make huge news but it just never really does. (Insurance companies tend not to have a great reputation to begin with, so that doesn't help either).

 

[weeznak308]

the bible clearly states in the new testament (1st Corinthians 6:9) that homosexuals will not go to heaven. God inspired the words of the bible. and Jesus is God so yes he did sort of speak out against it.[/QUOTE]


Werent the books of the new testement written years after Jesus's death and then amended by committee. That doesn't sound like gods words to me. It sounds like mans interpretation of gods words. If man is fallible and the bible is written by man then isn't the bible fallible? I don't consider myself religious but I don't have a problem with the idea of religion or god. A person has a right to believe that someone may or may not go to heaven but not the right to act on it. Only god can judge people. We have no right to punish people on earth for commiting acts that we believe god may have had a problem with. If they are going to hell isn't that punishment enough? Just as conservatives believe to err on the side of life I believe we should err on the side of freedom.

 

[shuamort]

:wcm to Debate Politics, weeznak308!

Here's the exact quote from the KJV version of I Corinthians 6:9 :
1st Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...

What's fun about that is that fornicators are not allowed into heaven. A fornicator being defined as someone having sexual relations outside of marriage. So, homosexuals should be fine as like as they are in a committed married relationship with each other and are masculine.

Of course, the original Greek definitions of arsenokoitai and malakos (what are translated in KJV as "effiminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind") are lost and so different Bibles have stuck or snuck their own interpretations in:

American Standard Version: unrighteous, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with men, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers or extortioners.
Amplified Bible: unrighteous and wrongdoers; impure and immoral, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuality, cheats (swindlers and thieves), greedy graspers, drunkards, revilers and slanderers, extortioners and robbers
The Answer: people who do wrong; sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, male prostitutes, men who have sexual relations with other men, steal, greedy, get drunk, lie about others, rob
The Authentic New Testament: evil-doers; immoral, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, userers, drunkards, foul-mouthed, extortioners
Christian Standard Bible: sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers
The Jerusalem Bible: people who do wrong; people of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers
King James: unrighteous; fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners
Living Bible: going to outside judges, immoral, idol worshipers, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, robbers
The Living New Testament: those doing such things, live immoral lives, idol worshipers, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, slandermongers, robbers
Modern Language: unrighteous; profligates. idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, avaricious, drunkards, slanderers, robbers
James Moffatt: wicked; immoral, idolaters, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, lustful, drunken, abusive, robbers
New American: unjust; fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, boy prostitutes, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, robbers
New American Standard: unrighteous; fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers or swindlers.
New Century Version: people who do wrong, sin sexually, worship idols, take part in adultery, men who have sexual relations with other men, steal, selfish, get drunk, lie about others, cheat
New International: wicked; sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexual offenders, thieves, greedy, drunkards, slanderers, swindlers
New Living Translation: those who do wrong; those who indulge in sexual sin, idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, thieves, greedy, drunkards, abusers, swindlers
New Revised Standard Version: wrongdoers; fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, greedy drunkards, revilers, robbers
New Testament and Psalms: (3) wrongdoers; sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers
New World: unrighteous; fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, men kept for unnatural purposes, men who lie with men, thieves, greedy persons, drunkards, revilers or extortioners.
The Promise: evil people; immoral, worships idols, unfaithful in marriage, pervert or behaves like a homosexual...thief, greedy person, drunkards, anyone who curses and cheats others.
Revised English Bible: wrongdoers; fornicator, idolater, adulterer, sexual pervert, thief, extortioner, drunkard, slanderer, swindler.
Revised Standard: unrighteous; immoral, idolaters, adulterers, sexual perverts, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers
Rheims New Testament: unjust; fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners
The New Testament: lechers, idolaters, adulterers, effeminates, pederasts, thieves, covetous, drunken, abusive, rapacious (Translated by Richmond Lattimore)
Today's English Version: wicked, immoral, worship idols, adulterers, homosexual perverts, steal, greedy, drunkards. slanders, thieves
The United Gospels New Testament: unrighteous; fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners


Here's a quick timeline too:
Version Year Translation
Koine Greek 56 malakoi arsenokoitai
Latin Vulgate 405 molles masculorum concubitores
Wyclif 1508 lecchouris synne of Sodom
Tyndale 1525 weaklings abusers of themselves with mankynde
Great Bible 1539 weaklynges abusers of themselves with mankynde
Geneva Bible 1560 wantons bouggerers
Bishops Bible 1568 effeminate liers with mankinde
Reims-Douai 1609 effeminate liers with mankind
King James Authorized Version 1611 effeminate abusers of themselves with mankind
The Revised Version 1811 effeminate abusers of themselves with men
Darby 1890 those who make women of themselves abuse themselves with men
Young 1898 effeminate sodomites
American Standard Version 1901 effeminate abusers of themselves with men
RVA 1909 los afeminados los que se echan con varones
Louis Segond 1910 les effimines les infames
Wesley's New Testament 1938 guilty of unnatural crime
Goodspeed 1951 sensual given to unnatural vice
Jerusalem Bible (French) 1955 effeminate people with infamous habits
Phillips 1958 effeminate pervert
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament 1958 voluptuous persons Sodomites
The Amplified Version 1958 those who participate in homosexuality
New English 1961 homosexual perversion
New American Standard Bible 1963 effeminate homosexuals
Today's English Version 1966 homosexual perverts
Jerusalem Bible (German) 1968 sissies child molesters
Jerusalem Bible (English) 1968 Catamites Sodomites
New American Catholic 1970 homosexual perverts sodomites
Revised Standard Version 1971 sexual perverts
The Living Bible 1971 homosexuals
New International 1973 male prostitutes homosexual offenders
New King James 1979 homosexuals sodomites
rev Luther Bibel 1984 lustknaben knabenschander
Elberfelder Bibel 1985 Wollustlinge Knabenschander
New Jerusalem Bible 1985 self indulgent sodomites
New American Catholic 1987 boy prostitutes practicing homosexuals
Revised English Bible 1989 sexual pervert
New Revised Standard 1989 male prostitutes sodomites
New Living 1996 male prostitutes homosexuals
Third Millenium Bible 1998 effeminate abusers of themselves with mankind

 

[Pacridge]

the bible clearly states in the new testament (1st Corinthians 6:9) that homosexuals will not go to heaven. God inspired the words of the bible. and Jesus is God so yes he did sort of speak out against it.

Werent the books of the new testement written years after Jesus's death and then amended by committee. That doesn't sound like gods words to me. It sounds like mans interpretation of gods words. If man is fallible and the bible is written by man then isn't the bible fallible? I don't consider myself religious but I don't have a problem with the idea of religion or god. A person has a right to believe that someone may or may not go to heaven but not the right to act on it. Only god can judge people. We have no right to punish people on earth for commiting acts that we believe god may have had a problem with. If they are going to hell isn't that punishment enough? Just as conservatives believe to err on the side of life I believe we should err on the side of freedom.[/QUOTE]

Welcome to Debate Politic!

I agree the Bible is compilation of works by several authors. It's my understanding many works, notably the books of Thomas and Mary, were excluded by the church in the 2nd century. Mainly due to their positive portrayals of women in society. And Christianity, like all religions, has evolved over the years. It’s been mended, molded and mixed with many cultures traditions and even other religions to become the many faces it now occupies. Not surprisingly, much like many Islamic sects, many of those faces tend to lay claim that they know for a fact they understand exactly what God knows, thinks, what or would want.

I also agree with your position that only God can judge. I believe the bible makes note of this fact repeatedly. That certainly hasn’t stopped many from engaging in the practice. Over and over- again and again.

 

[26 X World Champs]

They don’t approve of other “lifestyles” either, like cohabitation of heterosexuals

:rofl How many Americans disprove of living together? I don't know many married couples who didn't live together before they were married? Anyone know the stats? Here's some:

The number of households with unmarried people and no children increased from 16 percent in 1972 to 32 percent in 1998, becoming the most common living arrangement in the country.

Source: http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/991202/families.shtml

[/quote]A recent Gallup Poll shed additional light on this subject by asking Americans whether they consider sex before marriage to be "morally OK."
___The May poll found 60 percent of Americans now believe it is morally OK. Further, 52 percent said it is "morally acceptable" for an unmarried couple to cohabitate.[/quote]
Source: http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/6_25/pages/family_households.html

Even Baptists understand!

 

[26 X World Champs]

Am I wrong to say that it is cheaper for a husband and wife to have joint insurance coverage than for each of them to have their own individual?

Yes, you are wrong. It is less expensive for me to have two policies, one that is for me and my kids, and a separate one for my wife. It saves us about $1200 per year. We all have identical policies....

 

[Pacridge]

Yes, you are wrong. It is less expensive for me to have two policies, one that is for me and my kids, and a separate one for my wife. It saves us about $1200 per year. We all have identical policies....

Is that possibly because one of your employers is helping with one?

 

[Squawker]

A recent Gallup Poll shed additional light on this subject by asking Americans whether they consider sex before marriage to be "morally OK."
___The May poll found 60 percent of Americans now believe it is morally OK. Further, 52 percent said it is "morally acceptable" for an unmarried couple to cohabitate.
Source: http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001...households.html

Even Baptists understand!

That doesn't mean they approve of it. It just shows how our society has degenerated. Before the "sexual revolution" women actually respected themselves and their families.

 

[Pacridge]

That doesn't mean they approve of it. It just shows how our society has degenerated. Before the "sexual revolution" women actually respected themselves and their families.

Who are these women, who now don't respect themselves, having sex with? Men who don't respect themselves either?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Is that possibly because one of your employers is helping with one?

Nope, it costs less for one individual times two than one couple...

 

[26 X World Champs]

That doesn't mean they approve of it. It just shows how our society has degenerated. Before the "sexual revolution" women actually respected themselves and their families.

So it's women who you blame? Interesting? You sound like Archie Bunker... :doh

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes, you are wrong. It is less expensive for me to have two policies, one that is for me and my kids, and a separate one for my wife. It saves us about $1200 per year. We all have identical policies....

Whether or not that's the case, your situation is an abberation. In the majority of situation, family rates are cheaper.

 

[Bigbird]

Don't get me wrong I respect the teachings of Christ. Did he speak out against homosexuals? (It's not rhetorical, I don't know, I'm curious).


the bible clearly states in the new testament (1st Corinthians 6:9) that homosexuals will not go to heaven. God inspired the words of the bible. and Jesus is God so yes he did sort of speak out against it.

Yes, but it says so many other things modern day Christians do not follow.

Stoning your neighbor if he works on a sunday.
selling your daughter into slavery?
does the church prevent people who have sexual disease from approaching the altar?
A man shall be put to death if he sleeps in the same bed as a woman has had her period?

Why do you get to cherry pick things you want and don't want to follow?

 

[Bigbird]

I do not see it as discrimination - I see it as a states choice.

Because of activist judges, we need to make an amendment.
It will be twisted to the point of animals marrying and to the point that marriage is worthless.

Put it on a national vote or even require every state to vote on it. But do not attempt to change the rules mid game. Common sense dictates that the founding fathers had not even remotely considered same sexes to ever marry. Even as slightly back in history as the cases you sited. The idea of gays marrying and someone arguing it over 'rights' just wasn't in the equation.

I love how you say "activist judges" (all too common conservative buzzword today) but then your going to use Judges also to try and pass an amendment.

Will homosexuals be able to call those "activist judges"

activist judge is just another way of saying people who disagree with you.