Dubya to Jump Shark

[Martlet]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
Theft, rape and murder, those have victims.  One person harms another.
Not the case with homos getting married.  Who is the victim?  Nobody.

Ok, well throw prostitution, drugs, and pornography onto the list, then.

[FUNKED1]

You are saying gays have the right to seek this privilege, and they do; the religious have the right to object, and they do. Simple. I don't take anything from the other side for influencing society as they wish so long as they stay within the process. It isn't personal to me.

So Kieran, it is OK for the majority to change the Constitution however they want, regardless of the effects on personal liberty?
What if the majority decided Christianity is wrong and that believers will all be imprisoned?  That would be OK "so long as they stay within the process"?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
So Kieran, it is OK for the majority to change the Constitution however they want, regardless of the effects on personal liberty?
What if the majority decided Christianity is wrong and that believers will all be imprisoned?  That would be OK "so long as they stay within the process"?

What other avenue do you propose they take to promote their goals?

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by Martlet
So what do you propose the people who oppose gay marriage do?  They passed laws, but those laws were ignored.

Is there another option to promote their views?

How dare they violate the laws that the majority passed to oppress them. Next thing you know they will be marching in DC like those uppity blacks did during the civil rights movement. Come brother martlet lets dawn our hoods!

Mass civil protest is the best thing for a democracy. A large group of people that believe that the law in their state is wrong and unconstitutional are challengeing it with non violence. I see no wrong doing here.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
How dare they violate the laws that the majority passed to oppress them. Next thing you know they will be marching in DC like those uppity blacks did during the civil rights movement. Come brother martlet lets dawn our hoods!

Mass civil protest is the best thing for a democracy. A large group of people that believe that the law in their state is wrong and unconstitutional are challengeing it with non violence. I see no wrong doing here.

Do you plan on answering the questions, or just hoping your empty satire will fly by un-noticed?

[Frogm4n]

They are challenging if indeed the laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional. What else can you ask of them martlet.

[Martlet]

I don't ask anything of them.  I simply asked a question.

If those who oppose gay marriage, which is the majority, have already passed laws stating such, and those laws are being ignored, what alternative do they have to pursue their beliefs other than a Constitutional Amendment?

[Frogm4n]

I guess they dont have another method. Just like the prohibitionists.

[majic]

You know, I generally vote conservative because I think the gov't should stay out of people's lives.  This is another case where the gov't should just stay away.


The "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"/slippery slope  arguments are ridiculous.  Two women getting married has no effect whatsoever on my life, therefore I don't care.

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by majic
You know, I generally vote conservative because I think the gov't should stay out of people's lives.  This is another case where the gov't should just stay away.


The "give them an inch and they'll take a mile"/slippery slope  arguments are ridiculous.  Two women getting married has no effect whatsoever on my life, therefore I don't care.

Funny how quickly the partys platforms change. Democrats are more and more becoming socially conservitive.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Martlet
Ok, well throw prostitution, drugs, and pornography onto the list, then.

Wait a minute, so if a gay couple live together, have good jobs, pay taxes, are involved in their community, donate to local charities, and are model citizens, they are thrown in with prostitutes, drug pushers and pedophiles? I can't agree there. That being said, I would vote against gay marriage if it was put in front of me(just like I would vote against brothers and sisters getting married). I also believe it should be left to the states, not the fed.

As I believe, gay unions have more rights than a man and a woman living together who are not married, so I do not see the need to tread on marriage. I think the gay community is going to feel the wrath of the actions of gay extremists.

As for Bush's actions, I think Dune said it best.

[Eagler]

they are being discriminated against??

my employer (and am sure many others, most probably in CA) allows gays to be insured as if they were married, PC phrase  they use is "same sex domestic partner", while a man and woman just living togther are not allowed the same benefit, they have to get married to qualify.

who is being discrimated against here, the straight couple or the gay one?

funny/strange world we live in today ..

[majic]

Originally posted by Frogm4n
Funny how quickly the partys platforms change. Democrats are more and more becoming socially conservitive.

I disagree, the Dem's always seem to push for that nanny state utopia.  The only reason this has become a GOP issue is the damn religious nutbags that attached themselves to the party.  Why I won't even consider joining the party.


Disclaimer:  I have no problem with religion (in fact I don't like how it has been persecuted lately), but just as the anti-religious shouldn't be able to force their views on the public at-large, the religious should not be able to either.  That's what the Constitution intended IMO.

[Frogm4n]

Originally posted by Eagler
they are being discriminated against??

my employer (and am sure many others, most probably in CA) allows gays to be insured as if they were married, PC phrase  they use is "same sex domestic partner", while a man and woman just living togther are not allowed the same benefit, they have to get married to qualify.

who is being discrimated against here, the straight couple or the gay one?

funny/strange world we live in today ..

I thought that would be considered common law eagler.
And your employer gives those benefits to gay couples and not straights because of the fact they cannot get married. If they had the ability to get married im sure they would not offered benefits to gays who are not married , like the straight couples.

[majic]

"who is being discrimated against here, the straight couple or the gay one?"


The gay couple, because they can't be married in the first place.  Kudos to your employer for recognizing that and doing something.  Of course the ideal solution is for the gov't to just butt out of people's lives so your employer doesn't have to take steps like that.