Author Topic: Clear Cut: The Story Of Philomath, Oregon (Read 2528 times)

Chairboy · « **Reply #60 on:** January 06, 2008, 11:01:21 AM »

Lasz2, what business does the government have telling folks who they can marry or not? Isn't your willingness to submit to their rules basically subscribing to another aspect of the nanny state?

lazs2 · « **Reply #61 on:** January 06, 2008, 11:09:48 AM »

chair.. very good point.. the contract of marriage should be open to anyone but have no state functions or privilidge.

That is not what is being discussed here. They want to add to the burden on me. If I had my way.. marriage would be a personal contract for everyone. It would confer no monetary or governmental perks.

That is not what we have tho. I am merely saying that we are stuck with what we have but I see no reason to make it worse.

This arguement is brought up all the time here "we already pay for blah blah blah.. why not one more thing?" or.. "it won't make you go broke to pay for this one little thing quit being a meany"

I would love to roll back government spending and control but what is wrong with.. in the meantime... just stopping them from growing any worse?

lazs

Arlo · « **Reply #62 on:** January 06, 2008, 03:25:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. how are you not understanding this one.. everyone has exactly the same right so far as marriage goes.

No Laz. That's what I understand fine. You seem to be a bit confused on the details.

lazs2 · « **Reply #63 on:** January 07, 2008, 08:57:22 AM »

which details do I have wrong?

lazs

Chairboy · « **Reply #64 on:** January 07, 2008, 09:53:44 AM »

Lazs is right, gay men have the right to marry women, the same way women in Muslim countries have the right to walk in public with their faces uncovered if they're men.

lazs2 · « **Reply #65 on:** January 07, 2008, 02:46:07 PM »

well... not quite the same. No one is asking them to change their gender. No one is required to be married. it is just that if you want to get married you have to go by the same rules as everyone else.

You want to make a new type of marriage... fine.. do it. Just don't say you entitled to be part of the institution and break the rules because of some sort of sexual preference. Some guys would like to marry mom or a sister... sorry.. there are rules against it... can't marry dead people or dogs either. sometimes life is full of disapointment and heartache.

lazs

Arlo · « **Reply #66 on:** January 07, 2008, 03:09:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
which details do I have wrong?

lazs

I'd say your attempt to rationalize that a difference in sexual orientation requires proof someone deserves equal rights. Yeah. Pretty sure that's where you tripped.

lazs2 · « **Reply #67 on:** January 08, 2008, 09:15:14 AM »

where do they not get equal rights? and.. there is plenty of precident for not giving the same right to people with different sexual preferences.

child molesters... necrophliacs.. rapists and mother lovers and all sorts of sexual preference that the person can do nothing about.

lots of gays have married people of the other gender. lots don't.. lots of staight people never get married because they don't want to have just one other sex partner for the rest of their lives.

Lots of restrictions and rules to marriage.. either throw em all out and start over or quit yer whining and get your own form of contract.

It is not complex.. it is not about fred wanting to wear the wedding gown. It is about getting into everyones pocket and it is about a lot of lawyers looking at a whole new class of lucrative divorce cases.

married people are eligible for more home loans.. divorced people cause forclosure.. we don't have enough forclosures?

lazs

Chairboy · « **Reply #68 on:** January 08, 2008, 09:31:17 AM »

Pedophilia, necrophilia, rape, incest... all of your examples describe actions that are illegal, unlike homosexuality. I'm certain you didn't mean to provide such a weak rationale, why not try again? It's ok, not everyone can always hit home runs on the first try.

john9001 · « **Reply #69 on:** January 08, 2008, 09:56:24 AM »

let gays marry, then they can find out how much fun divorce court is.

Arlo · « **Reply #70 on:** January 08, 2008, 02:25:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
where do they not get equal rights? and.. there is plenty of precident for not giving the same right to people with different sexual preferences.

child molesters... necrophliacs.. rapists and mother lovers and all sorts of sexual preference that the person can do nothing about.

lots of gays have married people of the other gender. lots don't.. lots of staight people never get married because they don't want to have just one other sex partner for the rest of their lives.

Lots of restrictions and rules to marriage.. either throw em all out and start over or quit yer whining and get your own form of contract.

It is not complex.. it is not about fred wanting to wear the wedding gown. It is about getting into everyones pocket and it is about a lot of lawyers looking at a whole new class of lucrative divorce cases.

married people are eligible for more home loans.. divorced people cause forclosure.. we don't have enough forclosures?

lazs

I see. No really. I see how far you're willing to go not to get it. All homos are equivalent to pedophiles, sheephumpers and necros but NOT equivalent to heteros.

lazs2 · « **Reply #71 on:** January 08, 2008, 02:44:21 PM »

ah... so the test is legality then? I hate to break it to you but many states (rightly or wrongly) have sodomy laws.

Gays have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else. you can't get around the fact. Their sexual preference is not everyone elses problem.. it is theirs alone.

marriage is not defined as "two loving people" . It is a union between two people of different genders. Play by the rules or change the rules.

I think it is unfair to just make an exception for one oddball minority sexual preference.

lazs

Chairboy · « **Reply #72 on:** January 08, 2008, 03:18:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
marriage is not defined as "two loving people" . It is a union between two people of different genders.

Who defines it? The government? What business of theirs is it?

Arlo · « **Reply #73 on:** January 08, 2008, 03:20:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
ah... so the test is legality then? I hate to break it to you but many states (rightly or wrongly) have sodomy laws.

Guess you missed the mentioning of laws or practices (ie: slavery? Bueller?)having existed that weren't right in spite of you having just said so.

No .... the test is equality. If homosexuality isn't a crime (do you believe it is?) then your reasoning doesn't work. And where does the Constitution define a legal marriage? How will you pen this amendment, yourself?

"marriage is not defined as "two loving people" . It is a union between two people of different genders."

Like that? "Seperate but equal but not really?"