Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on June 18, 2005, 07:43:01 PM
-
OK before anyone thinks this is a troll, the title is just an attention grabber.
Q: Gunslinger, do you really think Euros are insensative?
A: No, I don't I just wanted to bring to light the indifferent stances on common issues in the US
Q: Gunslinger, isn't foxnews completly bigoted and biased.
A: Read the article yourself and think for yourself.
Q: Gunslinger, are you for or against this issue.
A: I like the answer that John Kerry gave at the presidential debate right before he brought up VP Dick Chenys daughter in that "we are all God's children". I would support laws and legislation to allow same sex couples to enjoy the same rights as married couples in respects to a common law union of sorts but I would not support re-defining mariage.
I hate the fact that when ANYONE has a stance or opinion that doesnt coinside with the gay/liberal agenda we are labled as bigots/facists/homophobes/ect. Our opinions should be respected just like anyone elses or no common grounds will ever be reached. ok there's my rant now for the article.
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,159978,00.html
Hundreds of Thousands Protest Gay Marriage Bill in Madrid
Saturday, June 18, 2005
MADRID, Spain — Hundreds of thousands of people led by 20 Roman Catholic bishops and conservative opposition leaders clogged downtown Madrid on Saturday in a demonstration against the Socialist government's bill to legalize gay marriage and permit gay couples to adopt children.
Chanting in favor of the family and children's rights, the demonstration, called by a lay Catholic group, the Spanish Forum for the Family, was held in a festive atmosphere with participants waving colorful balloons and Spanish and regional flags.
A half hour into the demonstration, organizers were claiming 1.5 million people had attended. But media eyewitnesses found the estimate difficult to believe, with most putting the crowd size at some 500,000. No police figure was immediately available.
Madrid's Cardinal Jose Antonio Maria Rouco Varela (search) was among 20 bishops at the head of the rally, along with the opposition Popular Party's leaders, Angel Acebes and Eduardo Zaplana.
Earlier Saturday, Deputy Socialist Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega (search) defended the law and accused protesters of discrimination, saying their actions meant they wanted the rights they enjoyed to be denied to others. The new law "does not oblige anyone to do anything they don't want to do," she said.
Although the protest was backed by Spain's Episcopal Conference (search) and the Popular Party, there appeared to be serious divisions over the issue within both groups. Neither the bishops' conference president, Ricardo Blazquez, nor Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy were present.
Also noticeable by their absence were the Popular Party's leaders in Madrid — regional government president Esperanza Aguirre and city mayor Alberto Ruiz Gallardon.
The gay marriage bill is expected to become law in a matter of weeks. It has been passed by the lower chamber of Parliament and will be voted on next week by the Senate.
Opinion polls indicate a majority of Spaniards support the bill.
But demonstrators were angry at what they called the degradation of the institution of marriage and the fact that gay couples may adopt.
"Marriage can only be between man and a woman," said Agustin Cruz, 41. "It's a divine and natural law. Marriage of homosexuals is a lie. You have to call things by their name. The first lie begins when you start calling queers 'gays.' They're queers, it's not an insult, it's the definition of that race of people."
Banners reading "FamilyMan+Woman" and "A mother and father for every child" could be seen up and down the demonstration, which was attended by families and individuals of all ages. Handfuls of priests and nuns mixed with lay protesters.
Chants for Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to resign resounded continuously.
"This demonstration is the people's response to the government's provocations," said Fr. Jose Ramon Velasco. We're not against homosexuals but allowing them to marry degrades matrimony.
"And they shouldn't have the right to adopt because if those children turn out to be homosexual, who will be to blame, the government?"
Velasco compared the bill to the beginnings of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
"Back then the majority of people also backed Hitler just like the majority back this law," he said. "I'm serious, give it time and it will destroy the moral fiber of Spain and the West."
The Bishops' Conference last week said the gay marriage bill was the biggest challenge to the church and its values in 2,000 years.
It was the first time the church has given such a display of anti-government activism in more than 20 years.
Some 500 buses transported people to the protest from around country while special flights brought people from the Canary Islands and Spain's enclaves in Morocco.
The gay marriage bill is one of several controversial measures introduced by Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government since it ousted the Popular Party from office in elections in March, 2004. Others included withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq, halting an education bill that would have made religion obligatory in schools and scrapping a national water plan that envisaged hundreds of dams and major water transfer construction projects.
The demonstration forced a complete halt to above-ground traffic in most of central Madrid
-
Just a question,
Does it realy matter what homosexuals choose to do as long as they don't do it to us?
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Just a question,
Does it realy matter what homosexuals choose to do as long as they don't do it to us?
well according to 100,000+ spaniards and I'd say close to 60% of Americans yes it does.
Just my opinion, when you start redifining stuff to fit your idealogical agenda you do more harm then good. The whole PC movement of the late 80s and 90s is as close to thaught control as you're going to get in todays day and age.
If we allow everything to be legal for the sake of "does it really bother us" what do we really do to society as a whole and future.
I may not accept what they (gays) do in their personal life but I don't try and stop them either. In that sense I beleive myself to be tolerent. When they want to redefine what I have with my wife that's when it does start to effect me.
like I said earlier these are just my opinions. It looks like they are shared with alot of spainish people as well.
-
MMM you have a point.
Though whether the two gay guys who live next door to me for example say, have some ceremony to say they are married actualy affects my wife and I's marriage I doubt.
The Spanish thing doesn't suprise me as its a Catholic country. I don't have a lot of affinity with Roman Catholicism myself.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
MMM you have a point.
Though whether the two gay guys who live next door to me for example say, have some ceremony to say they are married actualy affects my wife and I's marriage I doubt.
The Spanish thing doesn't suprise me as its a Catholic country. I don't have a lot of affinity with Roman Catholicism myself.
nore do I. Like I said I don't have a problem with gays having a comitment ceremony or haveing a Civil Union. To call it a marriage, at least to me, changes what a marraige is. No it does not directly effect my marriage but it does redefine it. Either way law makers shouldnt be devoting time to apease the fringe groups and make these kind of laws IMHO.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
nore do I. Like I said I don't have a problem with gays having a comitment ceremony or haveing a Civil Union. To call it a marriage, at least to me, changes what a marraige is. No it does not directly effect my marriage but it does redefine it. Either way law makers shouldnt be devoting time to apease the fringe groups and make these kind of laws IMHO.
It should be up to the religious group, not the goverment. All couples should have egual rights, no matter if "married" or not.
-
Originally posted by mora
It should be up to the religious group, not the goverment. All couples should have egual rights, no matter if "married" or not.
what couples don't have equal rights?
and what does religion have to do with any of this?
-
Mora,
Don't confuse civil law with criminal law concepts. Marriage is a legal contractual situation with civil law ramifications.
-
Originally posted by mora
All couples should have egual rights, no matter if "married" or not.
All couples should have the rights due them as individuals. Nothing more, nothing less.
-
What are "rights"?
-
Originally posted by Nash
What are "rights"?
That's kinda what I say. But not really.
-
That's kinda what I don't understand. But not really.
-
What would prevent a man from marrying a dog? a gerbil.....a goat?
I cant think of any reason why a man should be prevented from marrying anything he wants.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
What would prevent a man from marrying a dog? a gerbil.....a goat?
Sanity.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well according to 100,000+ spaniards and I'd say close to 60% of Americans yes it does.
Just my opinion, when you start redifining stuff to fit your idealogical agenda you do more harm then good. The whole PC movement of the late 80s and 90s is as close to thaught control as you're going to get in todays day and age.
If we allow everything to be legal for the sake of "does it really bother us" what do we really do to society as a whole and future.
I may not accept what they (gays) do in their personal life but I don't try and stop them either. In that sense I beleive myself to be tolerent. When they want to redefine what I have with my wife that's when it does start to effect me.
like I said earlier these are just my opinions. It looks like they are shared with alot of spainish people as well.
You know Guns sometimes the majority is just plain wrong.
-
Originally posted by Silat
You know Guns sometimes the majority is just plain wrong.
Amen.
-
Originally posted by Skydancer
Just a question,
Does it realy matter what homosexuals choose to do as long as they don't do it to us?
LLLOOOLLL :rofl
true
-
Meanwhile, on the other side of Madrid, 2x the people at the catholic demonstration were dancing to the music of Carlinhos Brown...
The real debate in Spain is if same-sex marriages should be called "matromonio" or not... not that many people are against the civil union of two gay people.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Yeager
What would prevent a man from marrying a dog? a gerbil.....a goat?
I cant think of any reason why a man should be prevented from marrying anything he wants.
you forgot the sexyest of them all a sheep... bahhhah :rofl
-
How dare they!! HERETICS!!!
There was a BIG demonstration here as well yesterday:
50 protesters
250 cops
I wonder why it hasn't made the news...
-
well... toad said that they should have the same rights.. that get's tricky.. Skyprancer says who cares so long as they don't do it to us..
All fine sentiment.. I would mostly agree.. Now then.. Is two guys having a make out session in public "doing it to us"?
Is holding hands? I dunno... everyone has a different tollerance level. One thing is sure tho...
We all are emathetic creatures... we all, to some extent, put our selves in the roles of what we see... it is why we watch movies or TV or.... feel good, bad or disgusted by what we see others do.
No matter what.. I is a "normal" reaction for someone who is 100% hetrosexual to be uncomfortable with displays of gay behavior in the same sex as themselves.
lazs
-
what about single people, they should have the same "rights" as couples. we need to repeal all anti-cohabitation laws.
-
Another instance of spotty rationality yeilding inconsistent ethics.
-
"Back then the majority of people also backed Hitler just like the majority back this law," he said. "I'm serious, give it time and it will destroy the moral fiber of Spain and the West."
LOL
and the next sentance
"The Bishops' Conference last week said the gay marriage bill was the biggest challenge to the church and its values in 2,000 years."
LOL
:rofl :rofl
-
"Marriage can only be between man and a woman," said Agustin Cruz, 41. "It's a divine and natural law. Marriage of homosexuals is a lie. You have to call things by their name. The first lie begins when you start calling queers 'gays.' They're queers, it's not an insult, it's the definition of that race of people."
"This demonstration is the people's response to the government's provocations," said Fr. Jose Ramon Velasco. We're not against homosexuals but allowing them to marry degrades matrimony.
"And they shouldn't have the right to adopt because if those children turn out to be homosexual, who will be to blame, the government?"
"Back then the majority of people also backed Hitler just like the majority back this law," he said. "I'm serious, give it time and it will destroy the moral fiber of Spain and the West."
Great quotes here.
Queer = race ? How is that ?
Parents make you gay or straight ? What about straight parents of all gay people ? JAIL THEM !!!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger well according to 100,000+ spaniards and I'd say close to 60% of Americans yes it does.
Didn't any of your teachers tell you that public opinion is not a valid argument since the earth wasn't any flatter 1000 years ago.
If it changes nothing in your life then you have no reason to be against it. Which means you should be for it.
If homosexuals took power in your country, would you want them to makes laws that limit heterosexuals' rights?
If you answer no then you should be for same sex mariage since what's good for you is also good for them.
This issue makes me wish everyone would just dump religion in favor of ethics.
-
imo, if gays/lesbians want to marry and do whatever they want with each other thats fine with me. They're 2 consenting adults in a relationship.
But adopt a kid?
Definite no.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Didn't any of your teachers tell you that public opinion is not a valid argument since the earth wasn't any flatter 1000 years ago.
If it changes nothing in your life then you have no reason to be against it. Which means you should be for it.
If homosexuals took power in your country, would you want them to makes laws that limit heterosexuals' rights?
This issue makes me wish everyone would just dump religion in favor of ethics.
well considering I live in a democracy or at least close ot one the majority opinion does count. Especially when I AGREE with it.
I still have yet to see anyone show me what law right now takes away from homosexual rights?????? last I checked they had the same rights as anyone else.
and again what does religion have to do with it?
-
Originally posted by OIO
imo, if gays/lesbians want to marry and do whatever they want with each other thats fine with me. They're 2 consenting adults in a relationship.
But adopt a kid?
Definite no.
it's not just that its our piliticions creating laws JUST for them. In addition they are redefining current establishments to fit the wants of a fringe minority.
-
I'm with Gunslinger on this.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger well considering I live in a democracy or at least close ot one the majority opinion does count. Especially when I AGREE with it.
I still have yet to see anyone show me what law right now takes away from homosexual rights?????? last I checked they had the same rights as anyone else.
and again what does religion have to do with it?
Because marriage is a religious ceremony. Some religions are willing to do SSM, not allowing them to do so violates their freedom which is anti-constitutionnal.
If you can tell them who they can marry then why can't they do the same to us ?
Majority opinion counts in a democracy but it doesn't mean that that position is right. People who believed the earth was flat were dead wrong for example. If they were wrong then maybe those spaniards also are.
Your position is as hard to defend as fort Alamo. ;)
-
Originally posted by fd ski
What about straight parents of all gay people ? JAIL THEM !!!
Yes. Someone is always to "blame".
lol
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Because marriage is a religious ceremony. Some religions are willing to do SSM, not allowing them to do so violates their freedom which is anti-constitutionnal.
If you can tell them who they can marry then why can't they do the same to us ?
Majority opinion counts in a democracy but it doesn't mean that that position is right. People who believed the earth was flat were dead wrong for example. If they were wrong then maybe those spaniards also are.
Your position is as hard to defend as fort Alamo. ;)
in the US our govt does not legislate religion. In fact when you get married it's through the GOVT that you get a marriage liscense not the church. it's the GOVT that sets the rules reguarding marriage. You don't have to be religious to get married.
No one's civil rights are being violated right now. A gay person has the same right as a strait person.
-
It's a great big semantic argument.
The church wants to hold on to the word, "marriage" and yet there are legal benefits to a legally recognized union.
What ever you call it... How about this... Marriages are done in churches and civil unions happen anywhere else, but legally they're the same thing.
Then, everyone can just quit worrying about it.
-
The problem isn't what two adults decide to do in their own home.
The problem is them going out into the public demanding that we see that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
and yet there are legal benefits to a legally recognized union.
My comment was along this line.
WHY should their be legal benefits to ANY "recognized union".
Two people are single. They pay a certain amount of tax.
These two people form a "legally recognized union". Why should they now pay any less or any more tax then they individually did before?
-
I think the reason the church looks down upon it is because they believe according the Bible that a family consists of a Man, a Woman, and a child(ren).
I personally am not for gay marriage, but thats my personal opinion. Although I'm not going to go out there and beat up all gays and lesbians that marry, I'm not going to support them having children. I don't believe it is right for the CHILD to be raised in a household with two men or women as their parents. The child is going to grow up to percieve that the right way for two people to reproduce is two of the same sex. If not messed up that way, then another. That kid might grow up to be attracted to the same sex or even be angry towards children who grew up with mother/dad families.
If gays and lesbians want to be wed then let them. If they want to raise a family then too bad. A normal family should be and always will be a Male Father and Female Mother and a Child(ren).
-
Originally posted by Toad
My comment was along this line.
WHY should their be legal benefits to ANY "recognized union".
Two people are single. They pay a certain amount of tax.
These two people form a "legally recognized union". Why should they now pay any less or any more tax then they individually did before?
Taxes are one thing... what about property?
-
Property should be handled like any partnership. Whether it be a marraige or "Ed and Joes Pizzaria"
-
Yep, property subject to the terms in the contract, whichever one they both agree on and sign.
How about why a company gives a single individual medical coverage on himself/herself alone but if two individuals in the same company choose to form a "legally recognized union" they get improved coverage (almost always in the deductibles area) AND they get coverage of any progeny. Why is that?
-
what you are all fortetting is that homosexuals are people too. gay marriage wont lead to people marrying sheep (regardless of how sexy the sheep are) because sheep cant say "i do." there is nothing wrong with people in same sex relationships. did you all know that castro street ("gay" district) in san francisco is one of the safest urban environments in the US? these human beings deserve the same rights as every other human being (exept those bastard irish!:mad:). this has nothing to do with politics, this has to do with the basic rights of humans.
-
Sorry for using a cliche', but should a married person be able to marry anyone they want? They are people too, if all three or five or whatever want to marry, who are we to say no?
Answer:
In a civil or religious context, marriage is a societal approval of a relationship. If you want approval of that society, you have to follow that society's rules.
-
but civil rights movement was greatly opposed (specially in the south). should we wait untill society grows up? or stand up for what is right.
PS
multiple spouses is something completely different. stay on topic. there are more gay people who want to get married than polygamists.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Answer:
In a civil or religious context, marriage is a societal approval of a relationship. If you want approval of that society, you have to follow that society's rules.
Do not mix marriage with religions. These 2 things are not related, depended on each other.
Few religion fanatics in europe still think so, but it doesnt matter.
Anyway there has been introduced new term, its called registred partnership. basicaly its same thing as marriage from legislativ point of view, but it has diferent name and its used for Gays, lesb.
Religion tards in europe are not that strong as they are in US, so when 20 bishops go to streets for riot, most of the people over here just laugh with finger pointed on history of europe.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
multiple spouses is something completely different. stay on topic. there are more gay people who want to get married than polygamists.
It is the same topic. The definition of marraige is what all the constranation is about.
Just because there are fewer folks who want it one way than another... is that a reason to ignore it? There are more straight than gays who want to be married, so lets ignore the gays.
The point is if you want official societal recognition of a relationship, there will always be rules the society sets forth to get that official recognition.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is the same topic. The definition of marraige is what all the constranation is about.
Just because there are fewer folks who want it one way than another... is that a reason to ignore it? There are more straight than gays who want to be married, so lets ignore the gays.
Your law already allow to be married with other person. So basicaly the only one thing whitch have to be allowed is marriage between people of same gender.
Polygamy is already excluded by that law, while gay,les marriage is not directly excluded.
But i agree..... these laws should be upgraded and Sharia would be good source :rofl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
Marriage is a relationship and bond, most commonly between a man and a woman, that plays a key role in the definition of many families.
Please note, that Bolt words doesnt mean only.
May be its time to fix education system :D
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
in the US our govt does not legislate religion. In fact when you get married it's through the GOVT that you get a marriage liscense not the church. it's the GOVT that sets the rules reguarding marriage. You don't have to be religious to get married.
No one's civil rights are being violated right now. A gay person has the same right as a strait person.
Why didn't you answer my question ?
If you can tell them who they can marry then why can't they do the same to us ?
If marriage benefits are good for you then why are they not good for them ?
Until you answer those questions, you ain't worth responding to.
-
Originally posted by lada
.... while gay marriage is not directly excluded....
It is in my state and many others. The only state that allows gay marraige is Mass.
Although I did not directly discuss statues regarding marraige, which vary by state, (I commend your knowledge of each states' statutes regarding this issue) only that a marraige is not just between a couple, but also a recognition by those outside the couple that the relationship has achieved a certain status.
If you wish that society recognize that you, for instance, have achieved a certain level of competance at practicing medicine, then you have to know the rules that define that level of competancy.
If you wish that society recognize your relationship as a marraige, then you must meet the standards society spells out.
Gays want to change the rules rather than work within them. If society is ready for that, so be it, but it appears that generally it is not, otherwise no controversy would exist.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If you wish that society recognize your relationship as a marraige, then you must meet the standards society spells out.
Gays want to change the rules rather than work within them. If society is ready for that, so be it, but it appears that generally it is not, otherwise no controversy would exist.
Ahhhaa.. so the only one problem is that word. You basicaly dont mind, that they could have same legal benefits, but you mind that they will describe those social benefits by the same word.
Is that correct ?
-
a rose by any other name....
This is not a semantics issue, it is an issue of fundamental societal change.
It is an issue of whether society accepts, as equal, relationships outside the traditional one-man-one-woman definition.
In western society, we have pretty much outlawed polygamy, but why? What is it about multiple marraige that is bad, but gay marraige is okay? Why can someone be sent to prizon for bigamy when all parties in the arrangement are satisfied?
Why is this different from the arguments in favor of gay marraige?
If you read carefully, you will note that nowhere in this thread have I indicated my opinion on whether I am opposed or in favor of gay marraige, I have just spelled out the issue.
-
wow...a hundred thousand catholics don't like gay marriage...theres a shock alright.....
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The problem isn't what two adults decide to do in their own home.
The problem is them going out into the public demanding that we see that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle.
Well it when would seem the "public" are quite content to tell them what they can or can't do in their own homes...would should they do?
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sorry for using a cliche', but should a married person be able to marry anyone they want? They are people too, if all three or five or whatever want to marry, who are we to say no?
Answer:
In a civil or religious context, marriage is a societal approval of a relationship. If you want approval of that society, you have to follow that society's rules.
True in most respects, but often "society" frowned on relationships in the past, which now seem completely normal...I personally believe this is the case with Gay marriage
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If you read carefully, you will note that nowhere in this thread have I indicated my opinion on whether I am opposed or in favor of gay marraige, I have just spelled out the issue.
Exactly why you just can't be trusted you conservative whackjob!
Just kidding! The above was a simple attempt at humor which may succeed or fail depending upon the reader. No offense should be taken by anyone. The statement is untrue and is meant as a comedic interlude.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Why didn't you answer my question ?
If you can tell them who they can marry then why can't they do the same to us ?
If marriage benefits are good for you then why are they not good for them ?
Until you answer those questions, you ain't worth responding to.
who is "they" and how do I tell them anything other than with my vote? The law stipulates what can and cannot be done. Right now both gay and strait people have the SAME civil rights.
If ever "they" were in the majority and started making laws to favor "they" then that would be that. I'd still disagree with it.
They can enjoy the same benifits if "they" married somone else of the oppisite sex, thus the definition of marriage.
-
" Just kidding! The above was a simple attempt at humor which may succeed or fail depending upon the reader. No offense should be taken by anyone. The statement is untrue and is meant as a comedic interlude."
:rofl
Thats what I should use as my sig
Nice one.