Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FUNKED1 on February 24, 2004, 09:49:36 AM
-
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4426087
Unbelievable. I literally can not believe they are this stupid, and that they think voters are this stupid. Please prove me right America.
-
I dunno, looks like most are opposed to legalizing gay marriage. Probably a non-issue come election time.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html
-
What is your point?
-
Along with Tax Cuts...its one of the few things he's done right.
He needs to re-think Immigration tho.
-
Personally, I don't think he has a choice in the matter. I'm all for such an ammendment, myself. The joyful acceptance of this lifestyle by the public, or having it forced upon an unwilling public, either way, would spell the doom of our country...the ol' "slippery slope" thingy, ya know? But this is only my humble opinion.
-
FUNKED1
if you hurry, you can still get hitched in SF :)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
FUNKED1
if you hurry, you can still get hitched in SF :)
Nope, too late, Arnie told 'em to stop.
-
Opposing gay marriage is one thing.
A constitutional freakin' amendment is quite another.
Shouldn't amendments be reserved for important issues? Like maybe a balanced budget or limits on taxation?
And since when is the Consitution a tool to deny rights to citizens? I thought the whole idea was to reserve rights that government tyrrany can not take away? You know, those wacky concepts like "freedom" and "liberty"...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
FUNKED1
if you hurry, you can still get hitched in SF :)
Eagler they can say a lot of things about you, but they can't say you aren't predictable. :)
-
I think that would fall under "the pursuit of happiness". Friggin communist liberal Constitution.
-
Do I understand correctly ?
A modification of the constitution for the purpose banning gay mariage ?
Wow ...
-
Dont forget that in order to add an amendment to the constitution a constitutional convention needs to be assembled. Once a convention has come to order the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION is fair game for revision.
With regards to gay marriage I would be EMBARRASED to see it addressed in the constituion in any manner. Almost as embarrasing as living in a world where unisex marriages are considered normal. Pursuit of Happiness is not a license to perversion.
-
It would never be ratified and I'm sure he knows this. Not likely to put off any of his supporters nor gain him any votes from the left. Like I said, non-issue.
-
Gay marriage is the most important issue in the world today.
-
Never happen Funky for the reason Yeager pointed out: It opens the constitution for all manner of changes and no one is crazy enough to risk that. Heh, not even Bush. ;)
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Never happen Funky for the reason Yeager pointed out: It opens the constitution for all manner of changes and no one is crazy enough to risk that. Heh, not even Bush. ;)
curly
Careful Curly, Arnold wants to be The Prezinater and that would require changing the Constitution. 2 birds with 1 sledgehammer.
-
yeager, there's a difference between passing an amendment and a constitutional convention.
Yeah, and give me a break. This will be the best amendment since XVIII
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Gay marriage is the most important issue in the world today.
For you.
How's that Streisand CD holding up?
-
Originally posted by straffo
Do I understand correctly ?
A modification of the constitution for the purpose banning gay mariage ?
Wow ...
Does French law allow same-sex marriage?
-
It would not ban gay marriage. It would simply define legal marriage as a union between a single MAN and a single WOMAN.
The gay folk would call it a ban. I would call it a clarification. The states would still be allowed, and as I understand it, encouraged to create laws protecting the rights of gay couples.
You may be right dinger. When is a constitutional convention required?
-
Lets see....
Crappy stance on immigration... check
Blew the budget to kingdom come..... check
Wants to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens... check
Lied about WMD..... check
Thinks science is a dirty word (stem cell research)... check
Wondering why he'd get anyone's vote.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You may be right dinger. When is a constitutional convention required?
Dinger is incorrect.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
curly
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Unbelievable. I literally can not believe they are this stupid, and that they think voters are this stupid. Please prove me right America.
Bush can get the votes in Congress... though he'll have a tough time getting it ratified by 2/3 of the states.
It's amaizing how the Right Wing get all up set about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes... and what status other people have between themselves and society.
Conservatives are a bunch of noisy busy bodies!
At the same time they love their music, TV shows, fashion, and all kinds of other things that gay people create and contribute to in American society.
It's nice to have second class citizenry.. isn't it.
Heck perhaps Bush can even get women's vote and civil rights admendments revoked....
Fascism is still alive.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Bush can get the votes in Congress... though he'll have a tough time getting it ratified by 2/3 of the states.
It's amaizing how the Right Wing get all up set about what other people do in the privacy of their own homes... and what status other people have between themselves and society.
Conservatives are a bunch of noisy busy bodies!
At the same time they love their music, TV shows, fashion, and all kinds of other things that gay people create and contribute to in American society.
It's nice to have second class citizenry.. isn't it.
Heck perhaps Bush can even get women's vote and civil rights admendments revoked....
Fascism is still alive.
Yep.
Next we'll work on getting all BBS second accounts disbanded. Stay tuned.
-
Funny how the lefties think that a judge defying state law by marrying homosexuals is an example of healthy democracy.
Homosexuals have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else. They have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.
ra
-
Originally posted by ra
Does French law allow same-sex marriage?
Almost it's called a PACS.
-
Originally posted by ra
Funny how the lefties think that a judge defying state law by marrying homosexuals is an example of healthy democracy.
Homosexuals have the exact same marriage rights as everyone else. They have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex.
ra
Ditto
-
Originally posted by ra
Funny how the lefties think that a judge defying state law by marrying homosexuals is an example of healthy democracy.
ra
you do understand how this country was founded, and the principles of fighting for freedom on which it was based right ra?
Or are you just another ditto head that is crying for a nanny state to make sure all the people stop sinning against the bibble? Well if so you better start getting stores to ban pork and shellfish. Maybe a constitutional admendment is in order.
-
How does opposition to silly frivolous Constitutional amendments on issues the government has no business dealing with make one a lefty?
-
From Curly's link:
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.
So let's all pile on Bush for expressing his opinion. :rolleyes: I oughta sic the ACLU on you guys for trying deny free speech here. They're chompin' at the bit waitin' for me to say go.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
How does opposition to silly frivolous Constitutional amendments on issues the government has no business dealing with make one a lefty?
Because you argue with our lord and emporer George W. Bush SIEG HIEL!
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
How does opposition to silly frivolous Constitutional amendments on issues the government has no business dealing with make one a lefty?
The government has no business defining marriage? That's an interesting take. Let's render all laws regarding marriage null and void.
-
Curly, I stand by what I said, and that link backs me up.
passing amendment != constitutional convention. A CC can make an amendment, but it's not the only way; and it's a way that's never been used.
Libertarians are lefties in disguise.
-
Originally posted by ra
The government has no business defining marriage? That's an interesting take. Let's render all laws regarding marriage null and void.
Let's. It's a personal/spiritual thing between two people, and the government has no business regulating it.
-
"In God We Trust"
It says so right here on this Nickle..........
-
History repeating itself, in a few decades even the most retarded conservative will accept that gays have as equal rights as any other citizen.
Only a few lost rednecks will cherish the time they could still discriminate at will, just as happened with another oppressed group a last two centuries, remember that one?
Discrimination is immoral, not two people dedicated to spending their life together in matrimony.
-
Yes and we can all thank McCarthyism for that yeager.
BTW nice orginal name. You and maverick should have a tea party.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Let's. It's a personal/spiritual thing between two people, and the government has no business regulating it.
A marriage is a legal arrangement. You don't know what you're talking about. Typical for a lefty to use any political issue as a chance to trumpet how open minded he is, rather than talk about the substance. Continue.
ra
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Let's. It's a personal/spiritual thing between two people, and the government has no business regulating it.
Agreed. It will also be interesting to see the fireworks in the Cheney household if this goes further.
More specifically, the gov't should just allow the civil part of the ceremony and call it a day.
h
-
Originally posted by Yeager
"In God We Trust"
It says so right here on this Nickle..........
oh and its not the christian god that we trust, its any god. Thats how its slips by the seperation of church and state clause.
So yes in God we turst, and my God is a happy fruity God that supports gay marriage and is angered by people that push their values on others. It also ****s out Hot wings and throws up a nice lager.
-
Originally posted by ra
Typical for a lefty to use any political issue as a chance to trumpet how open minded he is, rather than talk about the substance. Continue.
ra
Typical for a narrowminded conservative to desire regulating and limiting the freedom of those with different ideas and values while having a seizure at the thought any federal influence on themselves. Ladies & Gentlemen, today's word is 'Hypocrit'...
-
Originally posted by ra
A marriage is a legal arrangement.
I'm saying it shouldn't be a legal arrangement. Why does the government need to be involved? Can you elaborate on that instead of making unfounded declarations about my knowledge and political orientation? I realize that ad hominem is an appealing form of argument to the weak-minded, but I think you are smarter than that.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
"In God We Trust"
It says so right here on this Nickle..........
Shouldn't that read "In Gun we trust"
-
Originally posted by Dinger
Curly, I stand by what I said, and that link backs me up.
passing amendment != constitutional convention. A CC can make an amendment, but it's not the only way; and it's a way that's never been used.
Libertarians are lefties in disguise.
Dinger, in practice, there's one way to amend the constitution and that's through a constitutional convention.
For example, 2 sticks of dynamite will flush a toilet, but it's normally not done that way. :)
curly
-
This entire issue makes me laugh. The people against it become hipocrites, and most of them cannot even give a logical arguement other then "the bible says so".
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
This entire issue makes me laugh. The people against it become hipocrites, and most of them cannot even give a logical arguement other then "the bible says so".
Which rewrite?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm saying it shouldn't be a legal arrangement. Why does the government need to be involved? Can you elaborate on that instead of making unfounded declarations about my knowledge and political orientation? I realize that ad hominem is an appealing form of argument to the weak-minded, but I think you are smarter than that.
What you are describing is shacking up, which is not at issue. But you are getting to the real issue indirectly. The purpose of this gay marriage push is to erase the meaning of marriage in our society by making it the equivalent of shacking up. No alimony, no pensions for widows. Good stuff like that. People would be free to call themselve married, but it would have no legal meaning. Social re-engineering at its finest.
ra
-
No ra wrong again. Gays just want to have the ability to leave pensions for their 'widows', etc. And for the catcher to have something to get excited about like a women.
-
So Ra, you are saying that in the hundreds (thousands?) of years that marriage existed before the invention of things like alimony or pensions for widows, marriage had no meaning? Marriage only became sacred when the government made it their business?
I think alimony is ridiculous. But that's a whole other discussion.
Pensions for widows makes more sense. I assume you are talking about government pensions. I don't see why a married person should recieve more posthumous benefits than a single person. You should be able to designate a beneficiary in case of your death, and the government has no business telling you who that beneficiary can or can't be.
-
Originally posted by ra
What you are describing is shacking up, which is not at issue. But you are getting to the real issue indirectly. The purpose of this gay marriage push is to erase the meaning of marriage in our society by making it the equivalent of shacking up. No alimony, no pensions for widows. Good stuff like that. People would be free to call themselve married, but it would have no legal meaning. Social re-engineering at its finest.
ra
Therefore all rights normally extended to married people should be applicable to gays as well, marriage itself doesn't change in any way.
-
Same arguement they use for interracial marriage, and yet still weak.
-
How ironic. The same crowd that cries foul and hoists the "solicialism" flag every time the government tries to legislate clean air(such as banning smoking in bars, etc.), has no problem with the government making constitutional ammendments telling us whom we can or can't marry.
H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y
-
Tempest in a teapot. You all are winding yourselves up over nothing.
Bush knows that most Americans (according to the polls) support such a ban. He also knows that trying to get a new amendment passed is almost as hard as sniping porn stars who have cancer (Which, MrBlack tells me, is incredibly hard). So he floats his idea, bucks up the conservative faithful, and gets to screw Kerry while he's doing it. Becuase either Kerry, a) says he supports the ban, pissing off the lefties and agreeing with Bush on something or b) he opposes it and looks really bad to the South and the Midwest.
It's a win-win. Don't get me wrong, I think the Fed's have much better things to do with thier time, but in the long run I don't think this is going anywhere.
It's just political posturing.
-
Dune is correct. Dubya has nothing to lose on this, and it distracts people from all of the very real shortcomings of his administration. It's just sad.
-
But no he isnt doing what dune says! He aint no good at politicing, he said so himself! Why would he say he wont get involved in playing power politics unless he was just saying that, because that in itself is playing power politics.
No our lord-emprorer is a humble man! he really cares about this issue nooo............
-
Curly, read the link you posted. How many constitutional amendments have we had since the bill of rights? How many of those have come from a constitutional convention?
0
How many constitutional conventions have we had since 1789?
0
-
Dinger you lefty!
-
Originally posted by Dune
Tempest in a teapot. You all are winding yourselves up over nothing.
Bush knows that most Americans (according to the polls) support such a ban. He also knows that trying to get a new amendment passed is almost as hard as sniping porn stars who have cancer (Which, MrBlack tells me, is incredibly hard). So he floats his idea, bucks up the conservative faithful, and gets to screw Kerry while he's doing it. Becuase either Kerry, a) says he supports the ban, pissing off the lefties and agreeing with Bush on something or b) he opposes it and looks really bad to the South and the Midwest.
It's a win-win. Don't get me wrong, I think the Fed's have much better things to do with thier time, but in the long run I don't think this is going anywhere.
It's just political posturing.
Excellent post, Sir.:aok
-
Seperation of Church and state?
Mind pointing me to where it is? I can't find it anywhere...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Seperation of Church and state?
Mind pointing me to where it is? I can't find it anywhere...
Constitutional Principle, actually.
Learn more:
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/toc.htm
h
-
Oh, so I finally get it.
It doesn't actually exist. Thanks horn. :)
-
^^it does exist. Just because you are incapable of conceptualizing it doesn't make it less so.
h
-
Wow, all kinds of topics touched on here....
First of all, on topic:
I don't see why so many people are up in arms about gay marriages. If you are opposed to it...I'll say this slowly....
don't.....marry.....a....gay...person!! Whew...how hard was that? :lol
As for "In God We Trust" thing, it was added to currency in the late 1800's (i.e. over 100 years after this country was founded) and to paper money in the 1920's IIRC.
Just like like "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 (56?). McCarthyism at its finest.
Unfortunately, the SCOTUS let it pass constitutional muster at the time by declaring it "ceremonial deism". Unfortunately, the fact that so many religious folks start screaming and complaining the minute it is suggested to remove gives the proof to that lie. :rolleyes:
As for the old (and I mean real old) argument the the words, or phrase 'Seperation of Church and State" is not found in the consititution. Well, that's true, and there are lots of other things that we take for granted in our modern legal system that aren't in the consitution. You go that argument, it's a really slippery slope.
You wanna know where the phrase came from? I believe it came from Thomas Jefferson's (You remember him, right?) Letter to the Danbury Baptists. Looking at the context of the times (it wasn't called the enlightenment for nothing) and the political climate in which the constitution of the US was written, it is clear the the framers of the constitution intended there to be a separation that prevented government interference with religion and religious interference with government.
Remember, many of the settlers came here to escape religious persecution.
If any of you are interested in tangling with, or asking questions of, some realy knowledgable people on this topic, check out this site (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=67).
Oh, and one other thing, don't take anyone's word on this. Do yourself a favor and do some research (real research, not listening to Faux News re-writing history) and back up some of those unfounded assertions floating around in this thread. Don't believe me either, go out and prove me wrong! Especially since most of this is off the top of my head. :)
Cheers,
Spitter
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Personally, I don't think he has a choice in the matter. I'm all for such an ammendment, myself. The joyful acceptance of this lifestyle by the public, or having it forced upon an unwilling public, either way, would spell the doom of our country...the ol' "slippery slope" thingy, ya know? But this is only my humble opinion.
With every single homosexual marriage in San Francisco, you become more and more attractive to your own gender.
Damn... you're getting sexy. :D
-
Bush and his "opinions" remind me on these hardliner moslem idiots.
He's Talibush
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
With every single homosexual marriage in San Francisco, you become more and more attractive to your own gender.
Damn... you're getting sexy. :D
Got pics? ;)
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
With every single homosexual marriage in San Francisco, you become more and more attractive to your own gender.
Damn... you're getting sexy. :D
Remind me not to get drunk around you.. don't want to wake up with a sore tailpipe!
-
^^it does exist. Just because you are incapable of conceptualizing it doesn't make it less so.
Let me put it this way. Might be difficult for a liberal / fabricator to comprehend this.
If it's not on paper, it's not passed through congress, it's not a law. Therefor, this doesn't exist at all.
-
I smell a Hortlund wannabe.
-
I believe it is ratified by individual states...... Not sure though. Something about a Connecticut Convention during the Confederation period (the first one).
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I smell a Hortlund wannabe.
No, Hortlund understands how laws and constitutions work.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Remind me not to get drunk around you.. don't want to wake up with a sore tailpipe!
It doesn't matter whether you're pitching or catching... it's still baseball. :)
-
This topic again. Bah.
Look, I am against gay marriage. I don't have to explain why to anyone. I will support candidates in the Congress and Presidency that feel the same way. I will hope the President will select Supreme Court Justices that will also interpret the Constitution in a manner I agree with on this and any other topic. The rest of you feel free to do the same, I won't begrudge you that freedom.
Frogman, I was trying to figure out your shades account, but it really doesn't matter. For a fellow that is supposedly "enlightened", you sure have a particular talent for ignorance.
-
lol when have i ever said i was enlightend.
And your obviously in the closet gay, that can be the only reason your against gay marriage and wont explain why other then 'cause'.
-
Wow. How analytical of you. Typical Frogman comment- all blather, no substance.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Wow. How analytical of you. Typical Frogman comment- all blather, no substance.
Now now, i see your hidden comments, and no i will not be the man to help you come out of that closet. But i hear funked is free on weekends.
-
Why do gay guys always accuse everyone else of being closet gays? Is that some homosexual fantasy?
-
Only to people that cannot support an arugement. IF your against gay marriage. Why? It is not a hard question. They dont affect your life or mine, that is my reasoning.
-
Made you stop thinking about WMD and AWOL didn't it?
-
Well seeing how you fancy yourself as the sole arbiter of what is a worthwhile argument and what isn't, I'll leave it to the salient points. I support the leadership that matches my beliefs, you can do the same. It doesn't matter at all why that is. Even you should be able to work that one out.
At the risk of sounding condescending, I don't credit you with the intelligence or integrity to enter a serious debate on the color of the sky.
-
If you cannot defend your arguement on such a simple subject as this one. Then man, i guess your not at my level.
-
No No No!!! You are all taking his stance out of context. Bush is not opposed to gay marriage he is simly coming out agiant pork spending and there really is no perfect gay wedding policy just yet..
YOU ARENT THINKING PEOPLE!!!! Look at the issue more deepoly and you will see Bush is honestly commited to gay marriage!!! Heck his VPs daughter is gay, Bush choosing him as VP makes bush a gay rights hero!!!!
-
Every Constitutional amendment except one served to extend freedoms in the U.S.
Bush is an idiot.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Bush is an idiot.
News, news....
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Every Constitutional amendment except one served to extend freedoms in the U.S.
Bush is an idiot.
We have a WINNER!
-
I've to understand why all the homophobe are against gay mariage ...
so far it's the best way to give them divorce
(and that's really homophobic :))
-
There was some stupid cow from the Christian Coalition of America being interviewed on BBC radio this morning on this very subject. She was unable to answer the question as to why gay marriage is the threat to the estalished order that Bush is claiming, despite being pressed on the point numerous times by the interviewer. A pattern I see repeated here funnily enough.
Land of the free? Muaaaaahhhhaa. :lol
-
Originally posted by Momus--
There was some stupid cow from the Christian Coalition of America being interviewed on BBC radio this morning on this very subject. She was unable to answer the question as to why gay marriage is the threat to the estalished order that Bush is claiming, despite being pressed on the point numerous times by the interviewer. A pattern I see repeated here funnily enough.
Land of the free? Muaaaaahhhhaa. :lol
Christians sometimes amaze me.
Me, I'm hard pressed working out what's right for myself vis-a-vis dinner tonight. The lady you're talking about knows what's right for people she's never even met, and not about dinner but issues like who they should marry! Wow!
Lucky for us poor buggers who're not sure what's right for us there are people who know what's right for everybody. It's as reassurring as being in a communist state, really, isn't it? Ready-to-wear morals - one size fits all.
Now if only she'd get around to telling me what I want for dinner tonight...
-
How about... Gyoza dumplings followed by Singapore Soba noodles. My favourite. You should be able to track down something like that in HK? :D
-
saw stats which indicated the majority agree with Bush on this issue
-
Originally posted by Dowding
How about... Gyoza dumplings followed by Singapore Soba noodles. My favourite. You should be able to track down something like that in HK? :D
Naaah too Japanese for my taste tonight - guess you're not a very good Christian. ;)
Come on you Christians, I'm hungry!
-
Don't get me wrong -Dead-, I know some wonderful Christians who are demonstrate their faith daily via their *actions*. However, I don't count as Christians these fat-assed complacent bubbas that are crying about something that has NO POSSIBLE IMPACT ON THEIR LIVES other than to stoke their prejudices. They might talk the talk, but they certainly don't walk the walk.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Don't get me wrong -Dead-, I know some wonderful Christians who are demonstrate their faith daily via their *actions*. However, I don't count as Christians these fat-assed complacent bubbas that are crying about something that has NO POSSIBLE IMPACT ON THEIR LIVES other than to stoke their prejudices. They might talk the talk, but they certainly don't walk the walk.
Hehe don't get me wrong either - I'm not trying to torment all Christians either - just the ones that "know" what's "right" for everyone. I figure if they can say who people they've never met can and cannot marry, and define it as being "right" asking them what's right for my dinner should be a walk in the park for them and IMO of as much impact on their lives as who someone they don't know marries.
Indeed the question is also about as religiously relevant - because the bible does proscribe the eating of certain things IIRC saying it's "an abomination unto the Lord".
I couldn't care less who someone I don't know marries, sleeps with or what they eat, and am of the opinion that it's really none of my business (unless it's me they're trying to marry, eat or sleep with ;) ) - but then I never really did get the hang of the whole religion thing.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4426087
Unbelievable. I literally can not believe they are this stupid, and that they think voters are this stupid. Please prove me right America.
He smoked Cocaine, what's not to expect?
He's a moron.
Karaya
-
Man, I just went through this in another thread.
You have your morals, others have theirs. You think it doesn't affect you because it doesn't impact your morals. Others believe it does impact their morals vis-a-vis the society in which they live. So the argument boils down to a pretty black-and-white issue for both sides; anti-gay marriage folks have one picture of preferred society in their minds, pro-gay marriage folks have another for themselves. Both sides have the right to seek satisfaction. One side is going to wind up losing in the end- that's the way it goes. There is no sense getting all insulting and personal about it.
-
The reason some people want to ban Gay Marriage is because they see it as an immoral act like Theft, Rape, murder...
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Opposing gay marriage is one thing.
A constitutional freakin' amendment is quite another.
Shouldn't amendments be reserved for important issues? Like maybe a balanced budget or limits on taxation?
And since when is the Consitution a tool to deny rights to citizens? I thought the whole idea was to reserve rights that government tyrrany can not take away? You know, those wacky concepts like "freedom" and "liberty"...
I gotta agree with Funky on this one.
I don't want 'em messin' with the "most Holy of Holies" (Star Trek reference) for something as trivial as gay marriage.
It's not like we're talking about Emancipation, or giving women the right to vote here.
The issue is about how it's only socially or morally acceptable for a man and a woman to be legally acknowledged as a union.
I really don't understand the big deal, it's not as if banning same sex marriage is gonna stop homosexuality.
Homosexuals are gonna have relations regardless, so why not allow them to marry? Whom does it hurt? Insurance Companies?
I gotta tell ya, I've got bigger things in my life to concern me than to fret over whom is hitched to whom.
Banning gay marriages is as if to say only opposite sexs have the right to to stand in court and hack up joint property, why not give gays the chance to really get screwed up the butt as many straight folk do everyday thru divorce?
To sum it up, I just want them political pinheads to keep thier meathooks off the Constitution of the United States.
-
Originally posted by milnko
To sum it up, I just want them political pinheads to keep thier meathooks off the Constitution of the United States.
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?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Man, I just went through this in another thread.
You have your morals, others have theirs. You think it doesn't affect you because it doesn't impact your morals. Others believe it does impact their morals vis-a-vis the society in which they live. So the argument boils down to a pretty black-and-white issue for both sides; anti-gay marriage folks have one picture of preferred society in their minds, pro-gay marriage folks have another for themselves. Both sides have the right to seek satisfaction. One side is going to wind up losing in the end- that's the way it goes. There is no sense getting all insulting and personal about it.
You still don't get it. While you may feel that your 'morals' are at stake that can hardly be qualified as others interfering with your life.
People like yourself on the other hand are indeed interfering to the gravest extent possible, what if legislation was promoted forbidding you to marry your girl?
You have no more business dictating others who they can marry than they can you - That is the essence of this debate, not the term 'morals' behind which bigots cover themselves.
-
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?
They can pass all the state laws they want, I don't care.
But to amend the Constitution of the United States? To ban same sex marriage? Come on, that's a bit ridiculous.
My view basically is the more ya amend the Constitution, the farther away ya get from the original intent of the document, and the easier it is to add to it in the future.
-
Originally posted by milnko
They can pass all the state laws they want, I don't care.
But to amend the Constitution of the United States? To ban same sex marriage? Come on, that's a bit ridiculous.
My view basically is the more ya amend the Constitution, the farther away ya get from the original intent of the document, and the easier it is to add to it in the future.
That's great, and I agree with you.
However, you didn't answer my question. What other avenue do they have to further their beliefs?
-
Also the thread topic/issue is not whether the gays being married in SF is illegal, they obviously are, but that is an issue for the state of California to deal with, and not an issue for the federal goverment.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
saw stats which indicated the majority agree with Bush on this issue
Can you say Argumentum ad populum (http://Argumentum ad populum)??
This is along the lines of "if you don't like the way things are in this country, move out!"
The ignorance displayed in these statements about the nautre of the constitution and system of governance set up by the framers of the US constitution is astounding.
The whole reason we have a Bill of Rights is to prevent "tyranny of the majority" (Madison's words, IIRC). Our consitution was set up to protect the rights of the minorities.
Following your "argument", Eagler, if your community decided that only gay marriage was legal, you'd have no problem with that? Since it's the law? Or you would just move to another community? No fuss, no complaining, it's what the majority willed.
That's what it sounds like you're saying. If not, you're just raising a big ugly flag of hypocrisy and waving it around for all the world to see.
Cheers,
Spitter
-
Originally posted by Thud
You still don't get it. While you may feel that your 'morals' are at stake that can hardly be qualified as others interfering with your life.
People like yourself on the other hand are indeed interfering to the gravest extent possible, what if legislation was promoted forbidding you to marry your girl?
You have no more business dictating others who they can marry than they can you - That is the essence of this debate, not the term 'morals' behind which bigots cover themselves.
I totally get it. I don't think you do though, because you can't look outside your own belief system. I didn't claim my beliefs wouldn't interfere with others, I said their beliefs interfere with mine. You don't think they do, but they most certainly affect the society in which I have to live. I have the right to influence that society as much as any other citizen in this country. One side will win, one will lose, that's how it goes.
See, what you aren't getting is you're telling Christians to shut up and take it. 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.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The reason some people want to ban Gay Marriage is because they see it as an immoral act like Theft, Rape, murder...
Theft, rape and murder, those have victims. One person harms another.
Not the case with homos getting married. Who is the victim? Nobody.
-
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.
-
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"?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
They are challenging if indeed the laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional. What else can you ask of them 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?
-
I guess they dont have another method. Just like the prohibitionists.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ..
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
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?
Nah, that wasn't what I was saying at all. Someone gave examples of things that were illegal and considered morally wrong. Someone else pointed out that those crimes had victims. I tossed out a few crimes that are usually accepted as being victimless, but outlawed primarily because of moral issues.
I'm not lumping anyone in with anybody. Nor do I necessarily disagree with the issue. I just can't see what options are open to the gay marriage opponents at this point other than to pursue a constitutional amendment.
-
I do believe that drugs and prostitution should be legalized though. If people want to fry their brains and pay 100 bucks for bad sex more power to them.
Pornography already is so thats a mute point.
-
There are three types of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics...
Understanding that the majority of americans are for freedom and the pursuit of happiness, I can not believe that the majority of americans would be against gay marriage. I would believe instead that the majority of americans would consider the marriage of a gay couple to have absolutly zero impact on their own personal lifes. They might not support gay marrage because they are not gay, but I dont feel the majority of americans would prevent said marriage.
I think Jon Stewart said it best. 'This whole thing is the work of Chenney not wanting to have to pay for his gay daughter getting married.'
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Man, I just went through this in another thread.
You have your morals, others have theirs. You think it doesn't affect you because it doesn't impact your morals. Others believe it does impact their morals vis-a-vis the society in which they live. So the argument boils down to a pretty black-and-white issue for both sides; anti-gay marriage folks have one picture of preferred society in their minds, pro-gay marriage folks have another for themselves. Both sides have the right to seek satisfaction. One side is going to wind up losing in the end- that's the way it goes. There is no sense getting all insulting and personal about it.
Pretty cut and dried - so tell me, now you've cleared up who I can and can't marry, what should I have for my dinner?
BTW as a gedanken experiment how comfortable do you feel with the statement you made above if we replace the emotive words: take out the word "moral" and insert "favourite meals" and take the word "gay marriage" and insert "potato salad":
"You have your favourite meals, others have theirs. You think it doesn't affect you because it doesn't impact your favourite meals. Others believe it does impact their favourite meals vis-a-vis the society in which they live. So the argument boils down to a pretty black-and-white issue for both sides; anti-potato salad folks have one picture of preferred society in their minds, pro-potato salad folks have another for themselves. Both sides have the right to seek satisfaction. One side is going to wind up losing in the end- that's the way it goes. There is no sense getting all insulting and personal about it."
Here's my point: I'm not pro-potato salad, it's not one of my favourite meals - I just don't think I should be able to tell anyone else that they can't enjoy potato salad just on the strength that it's not one of my favourite meals. It's not like they're even forcing me to have potato salad. In fact I don't think it's any of my damn business: if two people want to have a potato salad, if that's their favourite meal, it's up to them.
Now what is for dinner? ;)
-
Martlet the crimes you listed were State Crimes, with the exception of a Drug Pusher and that would have to be on a large scale to fall under Federal jurisdiction. So it appears that it would have to be a state by state issue and the laws against same sex marrage would have to be written to comply with the Constitution.
What has happened is a Federal Court overturned an unconstitutional law. If you are really, really, really bothered that 2 people of the same sex want to get married then you need to call your State Legislature and have them write a law that IS constitutional. I'm sure if you sent some money to Pat Robertson that God will make it happen faster.
The United States is not a religious state. If you want to live in a religious state then you need to move to Iran or the Vatican. Short of that you just going to have to sit there and sulk about it like the rest of the Homophobes.
-
Some people feel the morals, actions, and participation of individuals in some circumstances affect the community. You can't compare same sex marriage to lunch in terms of societal impact.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Ok, well throw prostitution, drugs, and pornography onto the list, then.
Sounds like a serious party - I'll be round after dinner. ;)
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Martlet the crimes you listed were State Crimes, with the exception of a Drug Pusher and that would have to be on a large scale to fall under Federal jurisdiction. So it appears that it would have to be a state by state issue and the laws against same sex marrage would have to be written to comply with the Constitution.
What has happened is a Federal Court overturned an unconstitutional law. If you are really, really, really bothered that 2 people of the same sex want to get married then you need to call your State Legislature and have them write a law that IS constitutional. I'm sure if you sent some money to Pat Robertson that God will make it happen faster.
The United States is not a religious state. If you want to live in a religious state then you need to move to Iran or the Vatican. Short of that you just going to have to sit there and sulk about it like the rest of the Homophobes.
That's the point. Until the constitution is changed, no law making same sex marriage illegal will be constitutional. The constitution must be changed. I believe when it was written, the idea of same sex marriage wasn't even thinkable, otherwise, it would already be there.
-
"I believe when it was written, the idea of same sex marriage wasn't even thinkable, otherwise, it would already be there."
I disagree, the framers of the Constituton wanted people to be free to run their own lives IMO.
-
We'll never know. They didn't let women vote, though, so perhaps they only wanted men to be free to run their own lives?
-
Can anyone that is against gay marriage tell give me a reason why they are against it other then a religious one? Sure the majority of americans do not approve of it, but hell 80 percent of americans were pro slavery right up to the civil war.
Because the majority believes something does not make it right.
Is there anyone that can give a real reason why gays shouldnt marry?
-
**crickets**
-
Originally posted by Martlet
**crickets**
Because there really isn't a rational reason.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Because there really isn't a rational reason.
And thats the reason why I feel that most americans would be against a Constitutional Amendment even if they didnt 'agree' with same sex marriage..
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Is there anyone that can give a real reason why gays shouldnt marry?
Because I don't believe brothers and sisters should marry, or men and cats, or any other extreme combination. If a man wants to shack up with a cat, that's his business, but I don't believe they should be allowed to marry. I don't believe it should be so, so I vote against it.(would vote against it)
-
Who knows. If enough people believe that it contributes to the moral decline of their community, they'll support the ban.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
(just like I would vote against brothers and sisters getting married).
There's nothing immoral about a brother and sister marrying... closed societies, like the royal famillies of Europe, polonesian tribes, and west virginians have practiced brother-sister marriages for generations.
The reason why historically close relative marriages have been banned and then deemed immoral is because if they choose to procreate... their close genic combination has a high chance of producing birth defects, like mental retardation, downs syndrome, etc.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Because I don't believe brothers and sisters should marry, or men and cats, or any other extreme combination. If a man wants to shack up with a cat, that's his business, but I don't believe they should be allowed to marry. I don't believe it should be so, so I vote against it.
Thats a fairly ignorant statement.
And martlet if your so worried about what you think is a decline of morles why dont you push for an admendment to ban devorces? OR make adultrey illegal? These things hurt the 'sanctity' of marriage far worse then gay couples( the greeks who basicly invited the western religion had no problems with this).
Quicky marriages in las vegas. Get those banned.
I smell hypocricy.
-
Martlet, you should be circulating a petition. If you believe that strongly about it. I guess going door to door and looking people in the eye IS asking quite a bit...
-
I never said I was opposed to same sex marriage. I'm discussing points, not forming a position.
Originally posted by rpm371
Martlet, you should be circulating a petition. If you believe that strongly about it. I guess going door to door and looking people in the eye IS asking quite a bit...
I've served on more action committees than I care to discuss. I have no problem looking people in the eye and delivering my opinion, regardless of the issue.
-
Ban divorce while you are at it. Biggest immoral loophole there is.
-
Ban interracial marrage. It's an abomination! Isn't it clear Jesus wanted Whites with Whites ONLY!?! Oh Lord, deliver us from this blah,blah,blah...
-
This issue really does bring out bigotry in people. Its an issue where its still okay to voice your true hatred of a group. There is no reasonable explanation other then pure bigotry to why you would be against gay marriage.
(or a pandering politition thats another explanation)
-
Marriage is the lawful union between husband and wife.
Not between wife and wife, not between husband and husband.
Liberals using race and divorce as weapons against the institution of marriage fall into the same catagory as the sexual deviants who seek to invalidate marriage with perversion.
The time has come to finally make a stand against the God hating left, athiest socialist anarchists and sexual deviants.
You can have your freedom to be deviant, just dont invade the established insiitution of marriage and demand inclusion when your very choice to deviate excludes you.
:eek:
-
You can have your freedom to be deviant, just dont invade the established insiitution of marriage and demand inclusion when your very choice to deviate excludes you.
You really think people just 'choose' to be Homosexual?
-
Salad is the lawful union between potato and egg.
Not between egg and egg, not between potato and potato.
Souschefs using different recipes and separate dips as weapons against the institution of salad fall into the same catagory as the soup drinkers who seek to invalidate salad with perversion.
The time has come to finally make a stand against the Chef hating sauciers, good housekeeping cooks and soup drinkers.
You can have your freedom to cook differently, just dont invade the established insiitution of salad and demand inclusion when your very choice to cook differently excludes you.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
This issue really does bring out bigotry in people. Its an issue where its still okay to voice your true hatred of a group. There is no reasonable explanation other then pure bigotry to why you would be against gay marriage.
(or a pandering politition thats another explanation)
This is why no explanation will work for you. You've already made up your mind you are right. You are demanding people to convince you of something you cannot be convinced of. You are not being sincere in your attempt to understand the other viewpoint, you're only looking for another opportunity to thump your chest and feign superiority.
-
Dread, your silly cooking analogy has no bearing on reality. But continue to beat a dead horse if you like.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
This is why no explanation will work for you. You've already made up your mind you are right. You are demanding people to convince you of something you cannot be convinced of. You are not being sincere in your attempt to understand the other viewpoint, you're only looking for another opportunity to thump your chest and feign superiority.
Hello Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
-
On the other hand I really dont see a problem with homosexual marriage. But I do wonder why, after being so compelled to deviate from the obviously normal noodle/vagina routine, homosexuals would even want to be associated with the tradition, the very institution that promotes noodle/vagina harmony.
It cant be about equal protection, states are prepared to grant that through civil unions......
Just a thought :rofl
-
Funked-
It's only a matter of time before something like that does indeed happen. I won't be "okay" with that any better than gays are right now. Never suggested gays had to be "okay" with anything. They have their opportunity to reform America, I have mine.
As for the Constitution being amended, we'll see. But let's recognize something here... the gays are the folks bringing this to a head. They are trying to backdoor gay marriage into law through lawsuit and unlawful weddings now in SF. They are forcing the rest of America to be "okay" with gay marriage by forcing each state to respect gay marriages from other states (Massachusetts may be the first). Right now individual states can deny that privilege, but it's only one Supreme Court decision from becoming the law of the land. This means the only recourse to the 38 states that currently have same-sex marriage amendments (meaning anti-gay marriage) to protect their right to remain so in the only way possible- through Constitutional amendment.
Now I am not excited about the course we are on, but personally, I'm pretty damned tired of being pushed and just taking it. I don't believe in the lifestyle. I don't support it. I do believe it is immoral. Why in the world would I support a law respecting an immoral activity? Easymo said it best..."gays have gone beyond simply getting acceptance. They appear to want the religious to advocate their behavior."
Gays may get the right to marry- probably will, in fact. I will not support it in any way, shape, or form. It won't change the outcome one iota, but I will have a clear conscience nonetheless.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Hello Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
That may very well be, rpm. OTOH, I am not asking for your explanation for why you support homosexuality- in fact, it doesn't matter to me at all. Same for Frogman.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Salad is the lawful union between potato and egg.
Not between egg and egg, not between potato and potato.
Though your cause sounds worthy...
I would disagree agree with your definition that all salads are potato and eggs.
I prefer iceberg, romain, bitter loose leaf, green olive, sliced pear, sliced apple, egg, pepper, cheddar and ranch dressing in my salad.
For me hold the Potato!
Lucky for the both of us. I don't have to eat your salad and you don't have to eat mine, and what we do in the privacy of our own kitchen is our affair.
Personally, I have no opinion good or bad over your choice of salad ingredients... however, immoral they may be.... after all no one is forcing me to mix eggs and potatos together.
-
There are some sects that believe that sex, even in marriage, for purposes other than reproduction is amoral. There are those that believe that non-reproductive practices like oral sex are amoral. So why stop with gay marriage? Why not criminalize amoral sex that does not serve reproduction or at the very least outlaw marriage to people who will not sign a contract stating that they will only practice morally approved sexual practices in their bedroom and that they accept Jesus Christ as their lord? As also noted, divorce should be outlawed and adultry criminalized. [I mean why not? Just because you may disagree with someone else's sense of morality doesn't matter, does it, as long as you hap[pen to belong to the majority opinion.]
Threads like these are always a good time to reference my favorite theologian: Jack Chick
The Gay Blade (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp)
DOOM TOWN (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0273/0273_01.asp)
Charon
-
Ah, the ol' "We can't stop everything, so why stop anything?" argument. Yes, I've seen that one. ;)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Funked-
It's only a matter of time before something like that does indeed happen. I won't be "okay" with that any better than gays are right now. Never suggested gays had to be "okay" with anything. They have their opportunity to reform America, I have mine.
As for the Constitution being amended, we'll see. But let's recognize something here... the gays are the folks bringing this to a head. They are trying to backdoor gay marriage into law through lawsuit and unlawful weddings now in SF. They are forcing the rest of America to be "okay" with gay marriage by forcing each state to respect gay marriages from other states (Massachusetts may be the first). Right now individual states can deny that privilege, but it's only one Supreme Court decision from becoming the law of the land. This means the only recourse to the 38 states that currently have same-sex marriage amendments (meaning anti-gay marriage) to protect their right to remain so in the only way possible- through Constitutional amendment.
Now I am not excited about the course we are on, but personally, I'm pretty damned tired of being pushed and just taking it. I don't believe in the lifestyle. I don't support it. I do believe it is immoral. Why in the world would I support a law respecting an immoral activity? Easymo said it best..."gays have gone beyond simply getting acceptance. They appear to want the religious to advocate their behavior."
Gays may get the right to marry- probably will, in fact. I will not support it in any way, shape, or form. It won't change the outcome one iota, but I will have a clear conscience nonetheless.
Juist like interracial couples wanted the same rights in the 1960s/70s. Same issues here. Many states out lawed interracial marriages specially between blacks and whites.... it was ok for a white to marry a chinese or orient... but not a black.
Gay people want to have civil unions with the same legal rights as married men and women.
The right to make medical decisions
The right to property
The right to power of attorney
The right to hospital visists
The right to adopt and raise childen and make decisions.
The right to life insurance, medical insurance, emergency leave, paternal leave...
Federal and State Tax benifets, tax burdons, etc...
All the legal rights that married people have just by applying for the $15 to $30 license.
This is no body's business, except their own. It affects no one but the two people who wish to be married.
It doesn't make the community immoral, it doesn't corrupt children, it doesn't bring down house values in the neighborhood.
It makes no difference in the world.
It's just exposes the bigotry and hypocrisy which lives in America.
The only issue here that people are stuck on is that the couple has the same gender.
Ain't it odd that all these "anti-big-government" conservatives want the government to be into every's business.
-
Homosexuallity occurs throughout nature Chuck and has since the beginning of time, common amoungst all upper primates which you are still a member of unless you believe in fairy tales about virgin mothers and shooting stars.
But then again they'll all burn in hell with Jimmy Swaggart.
-
Ah, the ol' "We can't stop everything, so why stop anything?" argument. Yes, I've seen that one.
If that a reference to my post, it's actually more a case of:
"Your rights end where my opinion begins... as long as I'm in the majority."
Which would be followed by: "What do you mean my wife and I can't practice oral sex in our marriage bed if we want too? Our marriage is anulled?!!! Who in the HE double hockey sticks do you think you are to tell ME that?!!!"
Charon
-
Originally posted by Torque
Homosexuallity occurs throughout nature Chuck and has since the beginning of time, common amoungst all upper primates which you are still a member of unless you believe in fairy tales about virgin mothers and shooting stars.
But then again they'll all burn in hell with Jimmy Swaggart.
I don't think that any of the other "upper primates" have constitutions or marriage. Heck, they don't even pay taxes. We are so oppressed.
-
Gay people want to have civil unions with the same legal rights as married men and women.
The right to make medical decisions
The right to property
The right to power of attorney
The right to hospital visists
The right to adopt and raise childen and make decisions.
The right to life insurance, medical insurance, emergency leave, paternal leave...
Federal and State Tax benifets, tax burdons, etc...
Medical decisions- right.
Property- right.
Attorney- right.
Hospital visits- not a right.
Adopt children- not a right.
Insurance- not a right.
Taxes- only if you pay in.
You see, we fundamentally disagree on what a right actually is.
-
all these attempts to defile marriage by pointing out the already existing flaws in human behavior are truly moronic.
Why would you just add another flaw to the equation to justify further erosion of morality instead of trying to improve the situation?
"A man is drowning that you do not want to drown. He has 3 stones around his neck and the stones are weighing him down but he can barely just manage to breath and stays alive. Why would you tie a fourth stone around his neck, if doing that would surely drown him? Unless you really did indeed want the man to drown!"
Citing all heterosexual deviants as the very reason to add homosexual deviants into the already suffering mix is plain illogical, to me at least ;)
-
Anyway, if a few of you "anti-homosexual bigotry" types want to see some bigotry, look no further than the "Passion" thread. My, my, just read some of the stuff you yourselves have written.
"Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle" indeed. :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I don't think that any of the other "upper primates" have constitutions or marriage. Heck, they don't even pay taxes. We are so oppressed.
Don't know about the primates, but many animals mate for life. What's even better, they don't cheat on their mate. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Who knows. If enough people believe that it contributes to the moral decline of their community, they'll support the ban.
I realize your generalizing when you made this statement, but I honestly don't understand how people could be that uninformed. By allowing same-sex marriage they don't contribute to the decline in morals. Gays are already living together and porkin sphincter in their bedrooms. All they want is the ability to get recognized by the law to recieve the marriage benefits. By giving gays equal rights under the laws there is no moral decline, just an increase in personal freedom, which can only be viewed as a good thing.
I'm not even for laws that allow same-sex marriages. I'm for revising current laws to not include a clause that specifies gender when talking about marriage. If a church doesn't want to recognize gay marriage, it doesn't have to. It's a private organization that is privately operated. The government is supposed to be representative of the people, you know the whole "for the people by the people" thing. By denying the rights to equal treatment, gays are no longer people.
The reason some people want to ban Gay Marriage is because they see it as an immoral act like Theft, Rape, murder...
This was posted by lasersailor, but I didn't add it in. The reason those are laws are not because of the morality of the issue, they are laws because they are property rights issues. Gay marriage is about property rights, but its about the restriction of property rights. Legitamite goverments are not setup by the people to restrict, but to help preserve and protect property rights.
Most laws by this definition are already impedeing upon personal freedoms, (i.e. prohibition, prostitution)
-
Yes torque you are correct. Inside the chest of every human being beats the heart of a viscious uncaring instinctive blood thirsty animal. What usually seperates humans from animals is the way we treat each other, or try to, with love, respect and understanding.
I believe the human desire for the answer to the question of "who am I and why am I here" is a desire unique only to humans and suggests the possibility, damned near gaurantees that fact that a fundamental and irreconcilable difference between apes and humans exists and always has existed. I dont necessarily believe in a Christian God but I believe that my life will be a constant journey looking for and trying to understand God.
Perhaps you are just an evolved ape, or a weak excuse of one, that has no greater purpose than eating, defacating, ejaculating and sleeping, but I prefer to think of myself as something with potentiol far beyond what the animal in me can accomplish.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Medical decisions- right.
Property- right.
Attorney- right.
Hospital visits- not a right.
Adopt children- not a right.
Insurance- not a right.
Taxes- only if you pay in.
You see, we fundamentally disagree on what a right actually is.
I'm not talking about constitutional rights.
Legal rights that state laws give spouses.
When your husband is in the hospital, immediate family have a right visit them.
What ever rights by law a man/woman marriage have this is what gay people want.
So if an employer allows family medical insurance to their man/woman married employees, gays want this too... this is actually kind of moot because many larger employers have move to adding this as benefit.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
Though your cause sounds worthy...
I would disagree agree with your definition that all salads are potato and eggs.
I prefer iceberg, romain, bitter loose leaf, green olive, sliced pear, sliced apple, egg, pepper, cheddar and ranch dressing in my salad.
For me hold the Potato!
Lucky for the both of us. I don't have to eat your salad and you don't have to eat mine, and what we do in the privacy of our own kitchen is our affair.
Personally, I have no opinion good or bad over your choice of salad ingredients... however, immoral they may be.... after all no one is forcing me to mix eggs and potatos together.
You soup drinker! All salads are potato and egg only - for it is written in the Larousse Gastronomique that any salad not of potato and egg is an abomination unto the Chef. Oh and neither shalt thou eat hot dog buns!
Feel free to start your own heretical sect. But don't forget - no sects before salad! ;)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Yes torque you are correct. Inside the chest of every human being beats the heart of a viscious uncaring instinctive blood thirsty animal. :aok
Whoa there buddy, maybe inside you. Before you make broad generalizations like i do maybe you should check yourself before you wreck yourself.
(btw you disgrace chucks name with your bible thumping)
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
(btw you disgrace chucks name with your bible thumping)
You disgrace Loyd Bridges
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You disgrace Loyd Bridges
I bet there are quite a few around here that are far too young to know what you're talking about. ;)
(http://www.rareserials.com/images/sea-hunt.jpg)
-
Morals... huh... my morals are just fine, and if two men or women getting married effects your morals - you got some issues that need fixin'.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You disgrace Loyd Bridges
That gave me a chuckle.
-
Dont sweat it frog, I simply have more respect for the intellect of my 6 month old grandson then I have for your intellect as demonstrated on this bbs.
And if you knew anything at all about Charles Yeager you would know that he is a mean opinionated SOB, for in his life his opinion is the only one that matters. At least I care enough to bother reading what twits like you think :lol
-
:D Loved that show when I was a kid.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Perhaps you are just an evolved ape, or a weak excuse of one, that has no greater purpose than eating, defacating, ejaculating and sleeping, but I prefer to think of myself as something with potentiol far beyond what the animal in me can accomplish.
:aok
You sound like a few of my ex girlfriends Chuck.
cheers...
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I bet there are quite a few around here that are far too young to know what you're talking about. ;)
(http://www.rareserials.com/images/sea-hunt.jpg)
That's not Lloyd Bridges, that's Mike Nelson!!!
(cue music: Da na naaa, bomp bomp bommm)
-
Ahh yes, my dear Torque!
I remember the good old days when you would give even the biggest egos in the game fits of compulsive rage over the battlefield!
Whatever happened to the good times ;)
-
Originally posted by -dead-
You soup drinker! All salads are potato and egg only - for it is written in the Larousse Gastronomique that any salad not of potato and egg is an abomination unto the Chef. Oh and neither shalt thou eat hot dog buns!
Feel free to start your own heretical sect. But don't forget - no sects before salad! ;)
Blasphemer! You'll wilt in the putrid purgatory of somanila (sp?) for you transgressions.
to clarify: It is wait 20 minutes after eating before having sects, otherwise you could drown in your own soup. And only apply hot dog when her dressing is splashing.
-
US polling infomation regarding gay marriage can be found here.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Frogm4n, before chatising someone about thier arguements you might want to check out the following falacies.
Ad Hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Appeal to Ridicule
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
PS: Did someone really call Funked a lefty? Darn, but I hate those personal freedom loving, ulta-capitalist lefties. :mad:
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
When your husband is in the hospital, immediate family have a right visit them.
Not to split hairs too much, but visitation in a hospital is hospital policy, not a "right".
-
And, if visiting your partner in a hospital is the issue, then it needs to be addressed from that aspect-talk to the hospital about your issue, not the legal system.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
And, if visiting your partner in a hospital is the issue, then it needs to be addressed from that aspect-talk to the hospital about your issue, not the legal system.
Exactly. It should have nothing to do with marriage or the government. You should be able to nominate who can visit you and who can make decisions for you if you are incapacitated.
-
Oh, and what Thrawn said.
I will honestly debate anyone that has an actual desire to discuss, and I don't run from my viewpoint. OTOH, there is little reason to attempt to engage someone in discourse who has already displayed a marked tendency to mock everything counter to his/her current viewpoint.
Thrawn and I have often disagreed, but I can honestly say he has never stooped to cheap shots to win a debate. I have to respect that. There are lots of guys that give me total crap about my views, but I can take that because they can balance the crap with some actual logic. So what if we ultimately disagree? I still respect them.
Then there are posters that offer nothing but vitriol. Nothing short of total agreement with their viewpoints will avoid immediate personal attacks. This is your category, Frogman. It isn't likely we'll ever agree on anything, and as you don't tend to handle disagreement all that well, ah... why discuss anything with you? Of course this will undoubtedly be met by one of your witticisms, but then, you'd only prove my point by doing so. :D
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Along with Tax Cuts...its one of the few things he's done right.
He needs to re-think Immigration tho.
Hello tax cuts..goodbye social security...
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Hello tax cuts..goodbye social security...
Actually, he declared pretty emphatically today that he wasn't touching Social Security.
That was Greenspan's suggestion.
-
Actually, Greenspan said the massive deficit was going to bankrupt Social Security and he suggested 1 way of stopping it. Which President was it that spent the budget surplus and ran up the biggest deficit in history? Martlet, can you help me with this?
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Actually, Greenspan said the massive deficit was going to bankrupt Social Security and he suggested 1 way of stopping it. Which President was it that spent the budget surplus and ran up the biggest deficit in history? Martlet, can you help me with this?
Sure, the only president in the last 10 years to take the war on terrorism to the terrorists, and then lower my taxes.
Explain to me how a deficit can bankrupt Social Security if you aren't spending the Social Security to pay back the deficit.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Actually, he declared pretty emphatically today that he wasn't touching Social Security.
That was Greenspan's suggestion.
Nothing he says is his suggestion. WMD, bad intelligence, it's always someone else's stuff. Election year, of course he's not touching Social Security, but that's just my opinion.
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Don't know about the primates, but many animals mate for life. What's even better, they don't cheat on their mate. :)
curly
Dolphins are known to engage in bisexual behavior...apes and chimps, too.
:lol
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Ditto
Do you guys really not understand our government? The judiciary isnt the final say. Lawsuits, appeals etc. The legislature and executive can make new laws if they disagree with the Judicial branch. The judicial branch can interpret the laws that are made. It is a circle that never ends which makes us great.
Some of you really are scary with the way you are blaming judges for anything you disagree with.
Here is a link to help you understand the workings of our government:)
http://www.congressforkids.net/Constitution_threebranches.htm
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sure, the only president in the last 10 years to take the war on terrorism to the terrorists, and then lower my taxes.
Explain to me how a deficit can bankrupt Social Security if you aren't spending the Social Security to pay back the deficit.
We ARE spending money from Social Security to pay back the deficit. Do you live in a cave somewhere? Get informed Martlet.
-
The administrations goal was to kill social security. What better way to do it then to bankrupt it.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You are saying gays have the right to seek this privilege, and they do; the religious have the right to object, and they do.
Marriage isn't a privilege, it is a citizen's right. Despite what you and other bigots may wish and strife for, gays are citizens as well. And no, the religious shouldn't have the right to curtail other citizens' rights.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
We ARE spending money from Social Security to pay back the deficit. Do you live in a cave somewhere? Get informed Martlet.
Is the rpm bizarro world of civics? How about a link?
-
Originally posted by Thud
Marriage isn't a privilege, it is a citizen's right. Despite what you and other bigots may wish and strife for, gays are citizens as well. And no, the religious shouldn't have the right to curtail other citizens' rights.
Ow, ow, he called me a BIGOT. That'll stop me for sure- wait a minute, no it won't.
You quote me in the Constitution where it says marriage is a right and you win the argument. Go right ahead, I have all the time in the world.
From a legal standpoint (and that is the view you are arguing) it's a privilege, like driving. There are laws that govern it. You do not have the "right" to marry whom you choose under any legal system. Sorry.
Bigot- the most overused word in the liberal dictionary.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
We ARE spending money from Social Security to pay back the deficit. Do you live in a cave somewhere? Get informed Martlet.
Nope. When Reagan quadrupled your SS payments and stole the money to fill the gaping holes in his budget(so he could say he didn't raise taxes:lol ) congress changed the laws that govern SS so it could never happen again. So I believe that is not the case today.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You quote me in the Constitution where it says marriage is a right and you win the argument. Go right ahead, I have all the time in the world.
From a legal standpoint (and that is the view you are arguing) it's a privilege, like driving. There are laws that govern it. You do not have the "right" to marry whom you choose under any legal system. Sorry.
Bigot- the most overused word in the liberal dictionary.
- Does a right have to be in the constitution per sé? -> No, one can have the right to receive medicare etc, not a constitutional right but nevertheless one put down in legislation right?
As far as my knowledge goes the law right now entitles everone to marry unless they are related to a certain degree?
Bigot: "A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion."
Well if you still believe that that does not qualify you as a bigot, soit.
On the subject itself: Let's assume for a minute that an amendment was proposed banning christians from marrying, they would be allowed to shack up though. How would you react, think about that and you'll finally understand...
And on the issue of gay marriage intervening in your life, it doesn't. Not as long as you don't propose to a man at least. Them pushing for a law against christians or straight people marrying (I assume you're hetero) would interfere with your life, anything short of that does not.
-
To quote Easymo, "Your nazi may vary". I can change that to "Your bigot may vary".
To you I am a bigot, to me you are a bigot. Who cares? It's just another way of saying you disagree with someone's viewpoint. You are using it to club me into submission, which I assure you will not work.
Marriage is not a right under our Constitution. Neither is health care. Laws can be made that will extend the privilege to citizens. Marriage and medicare are such institutions legally.
Now if you want to discuss the religious aspect of marriage, you lose hands down. Marriage is specified religiously as a union between a man and a woman. I'm sure you don't really want to talk about that part though.
-
On the subject itself: Let's assume for a minute that an amendment was proposed banning christians from marrying, they would be allowed to shack up though. How would you react, think about that and you'll finally understand...
And on the issue of gay marriage intervening in your life, it doesn't. Not as long as you don't propose to a man at least. Them pushing for a law against christians or straight people marrying (I assume you're hetero) would interfere with your life, anything short of that does not.
You are about the 100th person to suggest this to me. For the 100th time, I would not like it, and I would attempt to redress the situation. Just as the gays are attempting to do so in their situation, and I do not hold that against them.
You do not share my belief system, so don't condescend to tell me what interferes with my life and what doesn't. I could give you a list of things that affect me, but you'd dismiss them as irrelevant, and they would be, to you. It does not change the impact they have on me and many, many people that share my belief system. Bear in mind, 38 of 50 states have laws against gay marriage right now, and more are preparing legislation. I am not alone on this.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
You are about the 100th person to suggest this to me. For the 100th time, I would not like it, and I would attempt to redress the situation. Just as the gays are attempting to do so in their situation, and I do not hold that against them.
You do not share my belief system, so don't condescend to tell me what interferes with my life and what doesn't. I could give you a list of things that affect me, but you'd dismiss them as irrelevant, and they would be, to you. It does not change the impact they have on me and many, many people that share my belief system. Bear in mind, 38 of 50 states have laws against gay marriage right now, and more are preparing legislation. I am not alone on this.
In furtherance of this, if it takes place in my community, if it affects my children, then it affects me.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
In furtherance of this, if it takes place in my community, if it affects my children, then it affects me.
Exactly.
-
How it will affect your children ?
Please devellop a bit as I don't see how your children will be concerned.
-
Yeah, I'm curious as to how a gay family effects your children? I grew up in a time where gays were actually open, and one of my friends in grade school (K-8) had gay parents who had gay friends over all the time.
They didn't effect me at all, or attempt to recruit me to play for the same team.
It almost seems like you would be that white person who would touch a black person and then look at their fingers to see if it rubbed off.
-SW
-
Gayness is an infection! George Michael caught gayness from a toilet seat!
-
First, anything that happens in the community affects the children. If there is a liquor store in the common, it affects the children. If there is a church downtown, it affects the children. A community is a melting pot of all the local influences.
Second, let's assume for the sake of this discussion that I am against same sex marriage. The reason why doesn't matter. My children go to school. If they go to school with the children of a SSM couple, they are affected.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with SSM or homosexuality, it is a deviant behavior. As Americans, we accept many deviant behaviors. What happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom. When you legalize SSM, it's no longer staying in the bedroom. It's now in the community.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Gayness is an infection! George Michael caught gayness from a toilet seat!
hahem... in this particuliar case I think it's the reverse (not that it give sense to this sentence :p)
-
Originally posted by straffo
How it will affect your children ?
Please devellop a bit as I don't see how your children will be concerned.
My children will be indoctrinated into a society that tells them it is normal behavior, which is strictly against our belief system. Schools will also be forced to teach "gay education"- there are samples of schools already discussing this. Good enough?
-
Christians complaining about indoctrination is a new one. If you want to see some proper indoctrination, take a vacation in Northern Ireland some time. They like to spit at kids over there.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Christians complaining about indoctrination is a new one. If you want to see some proper indoctrination, take a vacation in Northern Ireland some time. They like to spit at kids over there.
What's that got to do with SSM in the US?
-
Originally posted by an American to a fellow American
To you I am a bigot, to me you are a bigot.
That results in a Syllogism:
The Americans are a bunch of bigots, with opposing opinions, but bigots, nontheless.
:D
I like the flawed logic ;)
Joke made, go on with your battle :)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
In furtherance of this, if it takes place in my community, if it affects my children, then it affects me.
Nonsense, it doesn't make the slightest difference whether the gay couple living a street away is married or not. The piece of paper they have in their kitchendrawer does not affect you, your community and most of all it doesn't affect your kids.
Explain to me what difference that marriage act in their drawer makes in your life, please...
-
Did you miss this Thud?
My children will be indoctrinated into a society that tells them it is normal behavior, which is strictly against our belief system. Schools will also be forced to teach "gay education"- there are samples of schools already discussing this. Good enough?
-
Originally posted by Thud
Nonsense, it doesn't make the slightest difference whether the gay couple living a street away is married or not. The piece of paper they have in their kitchendrawer does not affect you, your community and most of all it doesn't affect your kids.
Explain to me what difference that marriage act in their drawer makes in your life, please...
I just did.
By teaching my children that what goes on in your bedroom is your business teaches them tolerance.
By teaching my children that homosexuality isn't deviant behavior, but is the same as heterosexuality, goes against some people belief systems.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Did you miss this Thud?
My children will be indoctrinated into a society that tells them it is normal behavior, which is strictly against our belief system. Schools will also be forced to teach "gay education"- there are samples of schools already discussing this. Good enough?
That's the game, Hortlund. Ask for examples, but don't acknowledge any as valid. It's why it is tiresome to discuss why I believe as I do. Better to simply say, "They are my beliefs, that's all" and leave it at that.
-
My children will be indoctrinated into a society that tells them it is normal behavior, which is strictly against our belief system
Well society change it's a fact what can seen as the norm today will perhaps seen as disgusting in 100 years ..
There is a lot of behaviour that can be seen as against one or another belief ie I guess your not shocked when eating pork ?
We are now shocked to see child geting married in some country at the age of 12 but it did happen in hour country before ...
This part of your post show yet another difference between our country.
Schools will also be forced to teach "gay education"- there are samples of schools already discussing this. Good enough?
I don't think it will happen here school is supposed to be neutral (see our recent religious symbol ban law )
For exemple sexual behaviour is suposed to be part of the "sphére privée" (privacy space ?) exactly like personnal belief.
One of the problem in this discution is the mix between a sacrement and the legal right and obligations there is between married people.
One is purely a religieous act.
The other is more a equality concern facing law/IRS etc ...
This was somewhat solved in France by the creation of what I call a "lightweight marriage" : le PACS.
The PACS is a contract concluded between two major people, of different sex or of the same sex, to organize their common life. It creates rights and obligations for the partners, in particular "a mutual and material help".
Even if the PACS give almost the same right (I'm not sure being married :)) it's not recognized by church exactly like my marriage because I didn't get married in a church (and it won't happen :))
-
What the **** is gay education?!
-SW
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Christians complaining about indoctrination is a new one. If you want to see some proper indoctrination, take a vacation in Northern Ireland some time. They like to spit at kids over there.
But don't you see? Schools are forbidden to indoctrinate children into a system of values based on religion- and I accept that as valid. OTOH, schools will indoctrinate children into a value system that says gays are normal. One value system is favored over another, and it directly impacts me (the teacher) and my children (the students).
Gays are free to fight for whatever they like, but I am also free to fight for my beliefs.
I'm definitely loving the bigot and racist comments, particlurly from some of the bigger religious bigots. If being against homosexuality makes me a bigot, color me guilty, and proud of it. Racist? Hehe, rich. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
What the **** is gay education?!
-SW
You'll have to go to New York to find out. Or do a google.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Regardless of whether or not you agree with SSM or homosexuality, it is a deviant behavior. As Americans, we accept many deviant behaviors. What happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom. When you legalize SSM, it's no longer staying in the bedroom. It's now in the community.
You are the culmination of incoherence, sex between consenting adults is legalized, yet it is expected to stay in the bedroom, especially in the kind of society you desire (assumption).
Yet homosexuality becomes 'public' when legalized and that does pose a problem?..
Ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by Thud
You are the culmination of incoherence, sex between consenting adults is legalized, yet it is expected to stay in the bedroom, especially in the kind of society you desire (assumption).
Yet homosexuality becomes 'public' when legalized and that does pose a problem?..
Ridiculous.
I don't have the slightest idea what you are trying to say.
Sorry.
-
Schools are forbidden to indoctrinate children into a system of values based on religion- and I accept that as valid.
You don't have religious schools in the US? Like the Catholic or Church of England schools over here?
Frankly, schools should be a place of tolerance, teaching pupils about other religions (both in the faith based sense of the word and its secular 'way of life' definition). Then they can make an informed opinion.
If people want to indoctrinate their kids, they should do it at home or piss off out of the country.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
You don't have religious schools in the US? Like the Catholic or Church of England schools over here?
Frankly, schools should be a place of tolerance, teaching pupils about other religions (both in the faith based sense of the word and its secular 'way of life' definition). Then they can make an informed opinion.
If people want to indoctrinate their kids, they should do it at home or piss off out of the country.
Those are private schools, not public.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I just did.
By teaching my children that what goes on in your bedroom is your business teaches them tolerance.
By teaching my children that homosexuality isn't deviant behavior, but is the same as heterosexuality, goes against some people belief systems.
It isn't deviant behavior, it just isn't the same as heterosexuality. What would you like to teach them exactly?
And I mean exactly...
-
Originally posted by Thud
It isn't deviant behavior, it just isn't the same as heterosexuality. What would you like to teach them exactly?
And I mean exactly...
It is deviant behavior. You obviously are confused about the definition of "deviant".
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It is deviant behavior. You obviously are confused about the definition of "deviant".
Or perhaps you are. I always interpret 'deviant' as 'different from existing norm(s)'. That hardly qualifies homosexuality as deviant these days, perhaps from your own perspective but that could hardly be called objective.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Or perhaps you are. I always interpret 'deviant' as 'different from existing norm(s)'. That hardly qualifies homosexuality as deviant these days, perhaps from your own perspective but that could hardly be called objective.
Actually, that exactly qualifies homosexuality, as is indicated by the current proposed legistion in most states.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I don't have the slightest idea what you are trying to say.
Sorry.
Very well, I'll elaborate. You claim that legalizing SSM's would put them in the center of society thus influencing all the children with their little fragile minds bla bla....
Homosexual sex would stay in the bedroom irregardless, as heterosexual sex is supposed to despite heteros being allowed to marry.
Now explain to me what the influence of legalized SSM would be on bring gay sex out of the bedroom into society?
It does not change a thing for the environment, your children will still see two men or women walking hand in hand, just with wedding rings.
The worry that SSM's may change everyday life for others is just a pathetic excuse behind which people like you, who just don't approve of gays, hide themselves.
-
martlet is just a scared white man holed up with his guns trying to protect his family from the big bad world outside. Kinda pitty the poor guy.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Actually, that exactly qualifies homosexuality, as is indicated by the current proposed legistion in most states.
As you might understand, my interpretation of 'existing norms' is hardly influenced by what conservative U.S. state legislation has said on any given problem...
Not because I am not a citizen of those but rather because I believe they don't reflect the way a modern society should be set up.
-
The problem with bandying about the word deviant is that you are required to define what is normal to define what is deviant.
It's really a question of context: which terms are we using? The problem being that in order to measure a circle one can start anywhere. In the sweeping general terms of "heterosexual" and "homosexual", the homosexuals can be considered deviant - but then so would virgins be. But if we get down to specifics, a lot - probably all of the heterosexuals end up deviants. Is doggy style deviant? Is liking bums more than breasts deviant? In terms of world numbers, of course, we then have to accept that all US citizens are deviants anyway.
And at the end of the day the biggest deviant of all would be the person who was average and statistically normal (heck, the average person has only one testicle).
So until you can figure out what really is normal, the whole deviant thing is moot.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Actually, that exactly qualifies homosexuality, as is indicated by the current proposed legistion in most states.
In 2000, the last state law banning interracial marriage in Alabama was finally repealed Mart.
-
Originally posted by Torque
In 2000, the last state law banning interracial marriage in Alabama was finally repealed Mart.
Yet another issue that had all the scared white biggots screaming the world was going to end and that people would be marrying chickens and dogs next.
-
Kieran was right. It doesn't matter how many times you answer the question, you ignore it and ask the same question over again. I'll answer it one last time.
Through legalization of SSM, your are inferring that a homosexual relationship is on the same footing as a heterosexual relationship. Most people don't hold this to be a core belief.
The majority of Americans realize that homosexuality, even though it is a deviant behavior, hurts no one. Therefore, the regulations surrounding it are being universally lifted in spite of the "yuck" factor.
When you put homosexuality on equal footing as heterosexuality, you are no longer teaching tolerance. You are forcing the community to accept a deviant behavior as normal. Again, this goes against some people's core beliefs.
-
Originally posted by Thud
It isn't deviant behavior, it just isn't the same as heterosexuality. What would you like to teach them exactly?
And I mean exactly...
I hold the exact opposite viewpoint.
Exactly what should be taught about homosexuality? Absolutely nothing. Just as our society does not allow the values of religion to be taught in public schools, so should it be with homosexuality.
-
The reason why we keep asking the same question is due to the fact that the so called answer you give really isnt an answer. It has no content. The idea that 'im against it because its deviant from what the bible says' is not a logical arguement. What we are asking is a logical reason why you are against it. Prove to us how society will crumble, and how everyone will turn gay. Give examples in history( since it is circular and we do continue to repeat ourselves). Something other then 'cause i think its wrong but cant tell you why'.
-
Who said anything about the bible?
Because you you don't agree with my answer, doesn't make it any less relevant.
-
No it does martlet, you still havnt told us any negitive outcomes of gays getting married. How will it affect your life so poorly?
-
I have answered that question 3 times. I'm sorry you don't understand it.
-
Well I could point to the illogical argument about it not affecting me, therefore it's none of my business. Does that mean that anything that doesn't directly impact me should be legal? Really? Careful how you answer... ;)
-
So schools will probably be teaching the homosexuality is normal or natural soon enough (just like they do evolution), whether or no homosexuals are allowed to get married. Because that's what the science indicates.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I hold the exact opposite viewpoint.
Exactly what should be taught about homosexuality? Absolutely nothing. Just as our society does not allow the values of religion to be taught in public schools, so should it be with homosexuality.
Why, is homosexuality now an equivalent to religion?
However, I don't think it's necessary to elaborate on homosexuality very much. However, questions will come up anyhow. How should a question about homosexuality be answered by educators? You just can't keep using the 'go ask your parents' escape indefinitely.
It exists, children will find out about its existence, I think they should be told that it is something everyone has to decide for him/herself eventually.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
So schools will probably be teaching the homosexuality is normal or natural soon enough (just like they do evolution), whether or no homosexuals are allowed to get married. Because that's what the science indicates.
You fight the battles where you can, Thrawn. You win some, you lose some. You don't give up your beliefs because the outcome is ordained.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Does that mean that anything that doesn't directly impact me should be legal? Really? Careful how you answer... ;)
Obviously not, it seems though that you're retracing your steps on the 'gay marriages do affect me and my family' issue. Finally began thinking rationally?
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Does that mean that anything that doesn't directly impact me should be legal? Really? Careful how you answer... ;)
IMHO the state should only regulate activities which affect others negatively. A couple of homos getting "married" does not affect anyone but the two consenting adults involved, and it's therefore not the business of the state. Of course I'm a libertarian, not a nanny-state busybody, so YMMV. If you want to live in theocracy, there are several to choose from, and I suggest emigration. :)
-
Originally posted by Thud
Why, is homosexuality now an equivalent to religion?
However, I don't think it's necessary to elaborate on homosexuality very much. However, questions will come up anyhow. How should a question about homosexuality be answered by educators? You just can't keep using the 'go ask your parents' escape indefinitely.
It exists, children will find out about its existence, I think they should be told that it is something everyone has to decide for him/herself eventually.
Both are part of a belief system. Respecting one and not another would be discriminatory.
By your logic, we'd better teach religion in school- after all, kids will hear about it sooner or later, might as well be told the "truth".
Beastiality ought to be taught, too, because after all, sooner or later kids will hear about it. They'll ultimately have to decide for themselves.
Wheee! Can't wait for the first "OMG, you compared homosexuality to beastiality" comment. C'mon Frogman, don't let me down!
-
Originally posted by Thud
Obviously not, it seems though that you're retracing your steps on the 'gay marriages do affect me and my family' issue. Finally began thinking rationally?
How about you answer the question directly and spare me the condescension?
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
IMHO the state should only regulate activities which affects others negatively.
You mean like calling people "homos"?
Sorry Funk couldn't resist.:D
-
Noone is asking anyone to teach buttsex. We are just asking how to people getting married affects your life.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Noone is asking anyone to teach buttsex. We are just asking how to people getting married affects your life.
Again, start at the beginning of the thread and read through. It's been explained several times by several people. I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but asking the same question over and over again isn't going to result in a different answer. At least not by me.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
How about you answer the question directly and spare me the condescension?
The direct answer was in the same sentence, please read again.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Again, start at the beginning of the thread and read through. It's been explained several times by several people. I'm sorry you don't like the answer, but asking the same question over and over again isn't going to result in a different answer. At least not by me.
Quote your answer. You have not once stated how 2 gays getting married will affect your life.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Noone is asking anyone to teach buttsex. We are just asking how to people getting married affects your life.
I am a teacher. Suppose you tell me how I am going to explain homosexuality without mentioning the sexual aspect?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
First, anything that happens in the community affects the children. If there is a liquor store in the common, it affects the children. If there is a church downtown, it affects the children. A community is a melting pot of all the local influences.
Second, let's assume for the sake of this discussion that I am against same sex marriage. The reason why doesn't matter. My children go to school. If they go to school with the children of a SSM couple, they are affected.
Regardless of whether or not you agree with SSM or homosexuality, it is a deviant behavior. As Americans, we accept many deviant behaviors. What happens in the bedroom, stays in the bedroom. When you legalize SSM, it's no longer staying in the bedroom. It's now in the community.
Originally posted by Martlet
I just did.
By teaching my children that what goes on in your bedroom is your business teaches them tolerance.
By teaching my children that homosexuality isn't deviant behavior, but is the same as heterosexuality, goes against some people belief systems.
Originally posted by Martlet
Kieran was right. It doesn't matter how many times you answer the question, you ignore it and ask the same question over again. I'll answer it one last time.
Through legalization of SSM, your are inferring that a homosexual relationship is on the same footing as a heterosexual relationship. Most people don't hold this to be a core belief.
The majority of Americans realize that homosexuality, even though it is a deviant behavior, hurts no one. Therefore, the regulations surrounding it are being universally lifted in spite of the "yuck" factor.
When you put homosexuality on equal footing as heterosexuality, you are no longer teaching tolerance. You are forcing the community to accept a deviant behavior as normal. Again, this goes against some people's core beliefs.
-
Wow martlet, you really havnt posted a real answer. Noone is going to stop you from teaching your children what you deam is right and wrong.
How does gay marriage affect your community? Any gays that are in it now are already living together so its not like more will move in just because they can get married.
And your right, if you keep using these very flimsy arguements as your core belief you will never change our minds. If you give me a stat that links homosexuals getting married causes straights to become gay, hell i would be against it, but there really is no logical reason to be against it other then cause.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I am a teacher. Suppose you tell me how I am going to explain homosexuality without mentioning the sexual aspect?
Why would anyone ask you to teach about homosexuality.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Wow martlet, you really havnt posted a real answer. Noone is going to stop you from teaching your children what you deam is right and wrong.
How does gay marriage affect your community? Any gays that are in it now are already living together so its not like more will move in just because they can get married.
And your right, if you keep using these very flimsy arguements as your core belief you will never change our minds. If you give me a stat that links homosexuals getting married causes straights to become gay, hell i would be against it, but there really is no logical reason to be against it other then cause.
I don't want my children to grow up in a community that accepts homosexuality as normal behavior. Leagalizing SSM does just that.
I could care less if you find my belief to be flimsy. It only appears so because you disagree. I feel your belief is based on a lack of morality. Who cares?
I'm not trying to convince you or change your mind. I'm not trying to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. I'm trying to ensure the community I raise my children in is up to my standards.
If I sat by and didn't promote the value system I want ingrained in my community, I wouldn't be doing my job as a citizen or a parent.
-
Thats finally a reason martlet. A flimsy one at that, but at least its not so ambiguous anymore.
I have morals just different values then you. Does not mean i lack any by any means.
-
Originally posted by Torque
You mean like calling people "homos"?
Sorry Funk couldn't resist.:D
Shuddup butt pirate. :)
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Not to split hairs too much, but visitation in a hospital is hospital policy, not a "right".
Of course, and the definition of their policy is spouse and immediate family - children and parents.
A "gay" lover... doesn't fall into that category... neither does a boyfriend/girlfriend....
However, someone who really is a "spouse"... who is recognized by law as a legal spouse able to exercise power of attorney... etc... they would be allowed to visit.
the real issue is that there are gay couples already living in a manner that is "husband" and eh... "husband" ... "wife and wife"
They want the same legal rights afforded to people who are husband and wife. Nothing more... nothing less.
That includes the same privileges that private organizations afford married couples with in the same defines of the laws, state constitutions and federal law that forbids discrimination. For example, private establishments that are open to the public can't be exclude blacks, women, jews, the elderly, and homosexuals regardless of their services... ok may be a gynecologist might not perform a pelvic exame on a man who thinks he's a woman.
The question I have what does it matter to the conservative Christians what the gays do?
If two guys want to get married... it does no harm to any one... I know... homosexuality may be contageous.
Just like blood from black people will cause white people to turn black - don't want any of that darky blood!
The real agenda for Christians is that they think homosexuality is a sin, and if they could they would ban it and punish all the gays.
Which they have, sodomy laws, etc... and those have been repealed and declared unconstitutional - because well when you put on the unbiased hat - those laws were based on bigotry and hate, which is after all the foundation of judeo- Christianity. The Bible is full of hateful stories... it talks more about evil than it does about good things. it talks more of how to punish for failing to be good than rewards for trying to be good.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I'm trying to ensure the community I raise my children in is up to my standards.
If I sat by and didn't promote the value system I want ingrained in my community, I wouldn't be doing my job as a citizen or a parent.
yet you live in a society which glorifies violence to other human beings.
In nearly every story, movie, and TV show violence in America is glorified and celebrated.
The last 10 minutes of nearly every movie that comes out of Hollywood has the hero killing the bad guy - the message to children... it's ok to kill if you are the good guy... it's ok to solve problems by hurting other people.
to me that is horriblely immoral and not christian at all. Love thy neighbor doesn't mean send him to hell in a rain of bullets.
Horror movies in my opinion should be banned... come on! cutting someone up with a chain aw... showing their agonizing face as their limbs are sawn off... blood splattering everywhere... and imagines of their flesh twitching and writhing as they die.
that's evil.
And those movies only get PG-13.. but if there's a naked boob - it's an R.
At the same time National Geographic can show black women parading around with their boobs all akimbo as long as they have a bone through their nose and they speak with clicks and chirps.
America is morrally twisted and no wonder erectile disfunction ads are all over the radio and TV.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
I don't want my children to grow up in a community that accepts homosexuality as normal behavior. Leagalizing SSM does just that.
I'm not trying to convince you or change your mind. I'm not trying to change homosexuals into heterosexuals. I'm trying to ensure the community I raise my children in is up to my standards.
If I sat by and didn't promote the value system I want ingrained in my community, I wouldn't be doing my job as a citizen or a parent.
Then where do you put the line, because in order to meet above objectives you ideally would have to remove homosexuality from your community entirely. Are you prepared to do that too or you're just going to make their life miserable by preventing them from marrying?
Again, you might deceive yourself into believing that SSM's do corrupt your children in some far-fetched sort of way, they still don't affect them or yourself, just your misplaced and dangerously fanatic sense of christian pride.
-
Ahh yes, its the old "where would you draw the line" argument.
As if having "No Line" is better.
HINT: You live in a world full of lines.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
yet you live in a society which glorifies violence to other human beings.
In nearly every story, movie, and TV show violence in America is glorified and celebrated.
The last 10 minutes of nearly every movie that comes out of Hollywood has the hero killing the bad guy - the message to children... it's ok to kill if you are the good guy... it's ok to solve problems by hurting other people.
to me that is horriblely immoral and not christian at all. Love thy neighbor doesn't mean send him to hell in a rain of bullets.
Horror movies in my opinion should be banned... come on! cutting someone up with a chain aw... showing their agonizing face as their limbs are sawn off... blood splattering everywhere... and imagines of their flesh twitching and writhing as they die.
that's evil.
And those movies only get PG-13.. but if there's a naked boob - it's an R.
At the same time National Geographic can show black women parading around with their boobs all akimbo as long as they have a bone through their nose and they speak with clicks and chirps.
America is morrally twisted and no wonder erectile disfunction ads are all over the radio and TV.
I can't help the society in which I live. I can only do my best to add my influence to it, and hope i can make it better.
Oh, I'm sorry, you didn't expect a response. You just wanted another reason to take another satirical crap on America.
Originally posted by Thud
Then where do you put the line, because in order to meet above objectives you ideally would have to remove homosexuality from your community entirely. Are you prepared to do that too or you're just going to make their life miserable by preventing them from marrying?
Again, you might deceive yourself into believing that SSM's do corrupt your children in some far-fetched sort of way, they still don't affect them or yourself, just your misplaced and dangerously fanatic sense of christian pride.
I don't have an answer for that. I take each case as it comes. I don't really have a "line", just a fuzzy grey area.
You keep bringing up "christian pride". Could you stop putting words in my mouth? Or better yet, point out where I said any of my beliefs are based on christianity.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Ahh yes, its the old "where would you draw the line" argument.
As if having "No Line" is better.
HINT: You live in a world full of lines.
Might be old, is still valid though. And sometimes no line is indeed better, who are you people to judge over other people's lives?
This thread clearly indicates that some, i repeat some, christians are dangerous and agressive. Christianity is this form is malicious, are gays trying to stop christians from being just that? Answer is no. Are christians trying to hinder gays in being who they are, yes by all means available.
Move into the mountains and start a cult, leave the civilized people alone, I'd say...
-
Originally posted by Martlet
You keep bringing up "christian pride". Could you stop putting words in my mouth? Or better yet, point out where I said any of my beliefs are based on christianity.
General bigotry, moral superiority, whatever suits you...
-
Originally posted by Thud
General bigotry, moral superiority, whatever suits you...
That's funny, I was thinking the same about you.
-
*shrug* some of us think that there are greater values and more important things to do in life than to live out whatever sexual perversion one may have.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Why would anyone ask you to teach about homosexuality.
You gotta be kidding me. Seriously, you don't have a clue how school systems work.
-
*insert catholic priest joke*
-
This thread clearly indicates that some, i repeat some, christians are dangerous and agressive. Christianity is this form is malicious, are gays trying to stop christians from being just that? Answer is no. Are christians trying to hinder gays in being who they are, yes by all means available.
*Ahem*
Some gays are indeed seeking to force the approval of their lifestyle on the religious community, and indeed do seek to force an endorsement of their lifestyle as well.
I make no bones about my stance- I think the lifestyle is wrong and I don't support it. I can live with the gay disapproval of that viewpoint. It would appear some gays cannot live with the disapproval of their lifestyle, ergo the fight to bypass civil unions and go straight for marriage. And don't give me the legal rights argument, 'cause those can be changed; it's the fight to break into the traditional institution of marriage that is the real goal.
What's gonna be REAL funny is once the gays are satisfied their lifestyle is accepted, how many "made for TV" dramas we'll see depicting the poor misunderstood homosexual seeking his sexual orientation, and how the nasty bad people disapprove. Then we'll probably see calls for "Gay Reparations" and other such nonsense. ;)
Of course that's tongue-in-cheek, but remember, you heard it here first!
-
BTW Thud, since you either cannot understand the question or choose to ignore it...
"You mean to suggest that things that don't directly impact me personally should be legal?"
I mean, this is the crux of the pro-gay marriage argument in many cases, right? Well, lessee...
1. Child labor has no chance to impact me- well, except positively by giving me cheaper shirts. That should be legal.
2. Drilling in the protected areas of Alaska- no chance of impacting my life except for the better. Let's get to it.
3. Smoking in restaurants- if I don't want to be in a restaurant that allows smoking, I can eat somewhere else. Let's let restaurant owners decide for themselves if smoking is allowed.
Think you can get it now?
-
Christians have 1600 years of being one of the most intollerant religions to ever exsist. The foundation that there is only one true god and that all others are wrong helps it achieve this. If you have different views, morals or God, they required to be intollerant and look down upon you. Yet their religions foundations are opposite of this.
Let us never forget the 20k saxons that refused to convert and forsake their God Odin and became martrys at the hands of the christians.
-
Yup Frogman, it isn't a morning until I get up and roast a few pagans.
-
Frogtard that's basically ad hominem crap, get a grip. This pigpile is bad enough as it is, don't make it worse.
-
yea but its getting us closer to that ever wonderfull 7th page!
-
But Funked, Frogman doesn't have to make logical arguments, he just has to demand them from others. :lol
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Christians have 1600 years of being one of the most intollerant religions to ever exsist.
So. What's your point?
Let us never forget the 20k saxons that refused to convert and forsake their God Odin and became martrys at the hands of the christians.
So. What's your point?
Do you have a actual conclusion you wish to present, or are you just posting statements without giving context to them. That's not an arguement, heck it's bearly even discourse.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Let us never forget the 20k saxons that refused to convert and forsake their God Odin and became martrys at the hands of the christians.
What the hell are you talking about?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
What the hell are you talking about?
What you are witnessing is the frantic straw grasp of an attempted argument/flame fest gone sour.
-
Actually Im thinking we are witnessing the creation of another mrblack.
20 000 "Saxons" worshipping the "god Odin" (Which was the Swedish viking-age god) who became martyrs (something unheard of in the Viking mythology, there were no martyrs in that religion) at the hands of Christians.
I smell a rat. Frankly I think he is making stuff up. But it will be interesting to see his sources.
-
If you have trouble with the 20K saxon I can provide easily 20K citizen of the town of Toulouse as a substitute :)
-
Did they worship the "god Odin"?
-
Well no ...
but we can pretend they were about too ?
-
We can save your Tolousians for later straffo :)
Now I want to hear about the 20 000 Odin worshipping englishmen who were mercilessly slaughtered by the Christians...
-
I forget. Is this thread about Homophobes or what?
-
"I think that if you feel homosexuality is wrong, it is not a phobia, its an opinion"
-
Kinda like those folks who are really opinionated about heights or small spaces.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Kinda like those folks who are really opinionated about heights or small spaces.
If we outlaw small spaces, only criminals will have small spaces.
I dunno MT, I actually thought you knew the meaning of the word "phobia", maybe you could look it up or something.
-
Oh thanks Stevie!
It's been months since I've had even a taste of condecension from you. I thought you stopped caring.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Now I want to hear about the 20 000 Odin worshipping englishmen who were mercilessly slaughtered by the Christians...
Was over a soccer game? :confused:
-
saxons are not englishmen.
-
Now I want to hear about the 20 000 Odin worshipping SAXONS who were mercilessly slaughtered by the Christians...
-
I'll bow out of this one with the simple thought; I'll seek the America I wish to see, others can seek the America they wish to see. No hard feelings.
-
From your posts on this topic once can surmise that to get to the America you wish to see, you seek to revise the Constitution to enforce Christian law on all citizens, regardless of their individual beliefs. In short, a theocracy. In that case there will be plenty of hard feelings, and many (most?) will fight you tooth and nail. And if you lose, you can expect the same treatment in return - state persecution of Christian believers. So be careful what you wish for.
This is not to say that Christian beliefs are not worthy. It's just that a belief system forced on a person by state coercion has little value. You will end up with people whose acts in this world conform to Jesus' teachings, but whose inner beliefs do not. In fact it is an American trait to rebel against this kind of coercion, and in the long run you will create many more people who hate Jesus than love Him.
-
From your posts on this topic once can surmise that to get to the America you wish to see, you seek to revise the Constitution to enforce Christian law on all citizens, regardless of their individual beliefs. In short, a theocracy. In that case there will be plenty of hard feelings, and many (most?) will fight you tooth and nail. And if you lose, you can expect the same treatment in return - state persecution of Christian believers. So be careful what you wish for.
Hold on, Charlie.
Most Americans favor anti-gay marriage legislation; that's a fact. I don't necessarily seek to revise the Constitution, but I feel the hand is being forced by folks who make no other option really possible. It's not something I desire or like to see, but I totally understand why it is necessary.
You guys just.... don't.... get it. If I think homosexuality is immoral I would be pretty morally vacant to vote in favor of it, or to support any legislation that would encourage it. It is my country too, after all. I am not seeking to make people angry or hurt feelings over it, but if that's what happens, it happens.
Religious persecution... har, har, har. If I made half the studmuffin jokes some folks here make about religion your hair would stand on end. That's the truth, too.
-
Well Said.....:) What religieon are you if I may ask?
-
American Baptist. You?
-
I am in the process of joining a Non-Denominational church. However it would very close to Assembly of God / Baptist. I am a new christian you could say. I have a brother that is a minister and grew up with 2 granfathers that were both ministers for many many years. Religion is not new to me by any means , however I have just given my life to God recently.
Just enjoy reading your posts to some of these folks. Wanted to know what you practiced. I do see that there are a few more christians on here and in Aces High than I originally thought.
Thanks
-
Kieran maybe I misunderstood your posts. If I built a straw man with your name on it I apologize. This thread was specifically about a Constitutional amendment to legally define marriage to conform with Christian teachings. Are you for or against the amendment?
-
I am in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between bad options.
I don't like Constitutional amendments for frivolous causes. OTOH, I cannot support something I feel is immoral. Happy about it? No. But when push comes to shove, I have to lean towards supporting the amendment. I freely admit it's for religious purposes. I freely admit that sounds bigoted. I don't blame anyone for objecting to my viewpoint. But I won't apologize for it, either.
-
Hey Frogtard...what about those 20 000 Odin-worshipping-saxons?
-
Boy, I can just picture a traditional gay polish wedding. Polka till dawn... steaming bowls of kielbasa, kraut and potatos, without the kraut and potatos... tossing the boquet to all the young unmarried gay male hopefulls... pinning dollars on the bride's suit jacket during the dollar dance... drunken gay fistfights outside the rented Knights of Columbus Hall ... removing the garter from the bride's hairy leg... banging knives and forks on the table untill to newlyweds tongue kiss - over and over... drunken homosexual testimonial toasts given at the microphone ... the teary eyed father giving away his son's hand in marraige to a leather bull butch ....
-
It remind me a film with de Niro but I'm not sure of the English tittle was it : deer hunter ?
french tittle was : Voyage au bout de l'enfer
-
I don't think that a law preventing SSM would be constitutional.
Some religion don't have a problem with SSM.
Making a law that prevents them would go against their freedom of religion.
They have the right to believe anything they want, including SSM.
Forcing religions to accept SSM would also be unconstitutionnal.
This issue as a two edged blade.
Best thing you can do is allow religions to do it if they want to.
-
It remind me a film with de Niro but I'm not sure of the English tittle was it : deer hunter ?
Yes! :) That scene in the Deer Hunter shows exactly what a Polish/German wedding is like in the USA!
Lots of fun... but I'm not sure how the gay wedding reception would be :rolleyes:
-
what about them, Charlemagne killed them. Do you even know where saxony is on a map?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
what about them, Charlemagne killed them.
So some guy had a bunch bunch of people killed well over a millenium ago, what's your point. Gengis Khan, Shaka of the Zulu, etc, etc. had a bunch of people killed as well. Are you actually giong to make an arguement with your statement?
"The sky is blue."
Now I have you trembling in the might grip of reason. :rolleyes:
Do you even know where saxony is on a map?
What does that have to do with anything. I lived in Germany for 5 years, you figure it out.
-
Steve Bell's take on the issue:
(http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2004/02/26/bell512.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
yet you live in a society which glorifies violence to other human beings.
In nearly every story, movie, and TV show violence in America is glorified and celebrated.
The last 10 minutes of nearly every movie that comes out of Hollywood has the hero killing the bad guy - the message to children... it's ok to kill if you are the good guy... it's ok to solve problems by hurting other people.
to me that is horriblely immoral and not christian at all. Love thy neighbor doesn't mean send him to hell in a rain of bullets.
Horror movies in my opinion should be banned... come on! cutting someone up with a chain aw... showing their agonizing face as their limbs are sawn off... blood splattering everywhere... and imagines of their flesh twitching and writhing as they die.
that's evil.
And those movies only get PG-13.. but if there's a naked boob - it's an R.
At the same time National Geographic can show black women parading around with their boobs all akimbo as long as they have a bone through their nose and they speak with clicks and chirps.
America is morrally twisted and no wonder erectile disfunction ads are all over the radio and TV.
Amen! Meet your new best friend :aok
(and if any of you clowns want to make some sexually suggestive reference to my last comment bring it on..I have weapons and I watch Hollywood movies, too ) :lol
Yeah I still haven't seen JJ's pierced nipple, but damn I sure saw that chaingun footage of three people being torn to pieces...go figure.
-
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I am a teacher. Suppose you tell me how I am going to explain homosexuality without mentioning the sexual aspect?
Well, how do you explain heterosexuality when it comes up ?
You might get a homosexuality question regardless of SSM issue being approved or disapproved. How do you answer ?
We're discussing marriage and it's influence here. If asked about gay couple married I'd imagine any answer you would give for straight marriage would suffice. Two people who love each other ?
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Well, how do you explain heterosexuality when it comes up ?
You might get a homosexuality question regardless of SSM issue being approved or disapproved. How do you answer ?
We're discussing marriage and it's influence here. If asked about gay couple married I'd imagine any answer you would give for straight marriage would suffice. Two people who love each other ?
Hey, I am not pleased to have had to teach sex ed to 5th graders (when I taught elementary). That to me is pushing things quite a bit, but it isn't immoral according to my religion. OTOH, if I have to discuss homosexuality in the same way, and have to give a thumbs up for it, that DOES go against my belief system strongly. Let me be straight- I shouldn't be teaching anyone's morals to kids- mine, yours, or the state's. But I will. I'll be forced to. You have to see that coming as an end result of sanctifying this behavior. You have to understand that is the next logical step in the progression to "normalize" homosexuality. Education is always a target of social engineering.