Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SMIDSY on September 07, 2005, 03:20:42 AM
-
yes folks, for those of you who havent heard, the california legislature has approved a bill that will allow homosexual marriage in this state. now it shall go to the governator's desk for his approval or veto.
PS
if you dont like my home state's decision, you may not use religion in any of your aurguments.
-
I've been raised with the ideology that a marriage is between man and woman, not between two of the same gender.
Otherwise I couldn't care less if someone wants to live with a person of same gender.
-
I've grown up thinking that a marriage is between man and woman, not between two of the same gender. In later years I have arrived at the conclusion that I really don't care if they get married or not and that should be up to them. They should have all the same rights as hetro married couples. I'm torn on the issue of gays beeing able to adopt tho, but im not looking for input on the matter... it won't help cause ive heard all the arguments before.
Thank cod you don't need a church to get married so that gays can get married whatever the church thinks about the matter.
-
Kalifornian gave DIVORCE to the gay ?
where is "Act Up" ?
-
All people should have equal rights, no special rights for married people. If they still want to "marry", it shouldn't be states business if some religious group wants to perform a wedding ceremony for them.
There shouldn't be any restrictions to adoption as long as the adopting person(s) are legally sane.
-
a collective sigh of releif is heard from the sheep. and in a related development woolite sales down 50%
-
If the state choses to acknowledge the fact that the 2 people involved are in a long term relationship, fine. If they want to give them the same rights & priviledges it gives married people, fine.
I just don't think they should call it marriage when its between 2 people of the same sex.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
I just don't think they should call it marriage when its between 2 people of the same sex.
agreed
-
If you want to call it marriage then it should be between a man and a woman.
I think the whole thing was cooked up by divorce lawyers looking for new gold mines.
It will probly cost the rest of us a bunch of money.
lazs
-
Nice to see California doing something reasonable once and a while. I don't see any problem with them marrying, nor do I see any problem with it being called marriage. It's a civil marriage, and no church needs to be involved, unless the church chooses to.
I think the no special rights for married folks, and the government not getting involved in it for anyone is a nice idea, but I doubt that'll ever happen.
-
Think of the children!
-
Let's try this on for size with other stuff:
"Why, I was raised knowing that land ownership is something that's limited to whites! These blackies, they can LIVE on the land, and they can maybe even lease it long term, but it's just not right to allow them to OWN it."
"I was raised knowing that womenfolk aren't allowed to vote. Now, they can try and convince their husbands on how to vote, nobody is stopping that, they just don't deserve the actual VOTE."
Heterosexuals get special rights, sounds like the gays just want to have equal access to those rights.
-
-
Originally posted by mora
All people should have equal rights, no special rights for married people. If they still want to "marry", it shouldn't be states business if some religious group wants to perform a wedding ceremony for them.
There shouldn't be any restrictions to adoption as long as the adopting person(s) are legally sane.
yea I love it when this is an equal rights issue. "People should be allowed to marry who they love" Gays have the same rights as anyone else, they want extra rights.
why were at it lets let NAMBLA have their special rights.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Heterosexuals get special rights, sounds like the gays just want to have equal access to those rights.
mind explaining what rights those are?
Last time I checked you can get extra prison time for a strait guy beating up a gay guy but not the other way around.
-
I don't understand why a married couple gets tax breaks. Then again, I don't understand why the government can take my money and decide to spend it on things that I would never want my money spent on.
Theiving bastards.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yea I love it when this is an equal rights issue. "People should be allowed to marry who they love" Gays have the same rights as anyone else, they want extra rights.
People in many countries do get special rights when they register their relationship, in tax benefits for example. All possible benefits should be of course abolished.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
why were at it lets let NAMBLA have their special rights.
Dunno what you're talking about here, but I'm quessing it's somekind of a slippery slope argument. "Soon they will be marrying sheeps and pigs and copulating with them on the streets!":rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by mora
People in many countries do get special rights when they register their relationship, in tax benefits for example. All possible benefits should be of course abolished.
Dunno what you're talking about here, but I'm quessing it's somekind of a slippery slope argument. "Soon they will be marrying sheeps and pigs and copulating with them on the streets!":rolleyes:
well in the land of the free and the home of the brave all men are created equal.
Slippery slope or not gays are making this an equal rights argument. Why couldn't any other degenerate do the same?
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Last time I checked you can get extra prison time for a strait guy beating up a gay guy but not the other way around.
If the gay guy beat the heterosexual up BECAUSE they were heterosexual, then it can be prosecuted as a hate crime. The straight guy beating up the gay is considered a hate crime only when it's BECAUSE they were gay. I'm not certain how well this will go over with you, because I think you've made up your mind not to let facts get in the way of your argument, but I may be wrong.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Slippery slope or not gays are making this an equal rights argument. Why couldn't any other degenerate do the same?
I've read this sentiment before, back in the 1960s. Back then, the person was usually a white male who was talking about "negroes", and "degenerates" referred to other non-whites. In a way, I can admire the force of conviction behind steadfast bigotry even as I am saddened by the sentiment expressed.
-
I beleive that the idea behind giving special breaks and tax breaks to married people is that they do a very important part in growing America and making it strong... they are our future and our heritage in that they raise up our citizens form birth.
this is hetrosexual marriage. that is why heterosexual couples should get breaks that homosexuals and single people don't get.
If you do not think that married couples raising children are an asset then that is one thing but.... to say that a homosexual union is the same so far as raising future generations.... that is ridiculous..
married people should get a break and homosexual couples should not qualify... calling something a marriage that is not between heterosexuals is just plain confusing and wrong..
other than that... they can call what they have anything they want.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I beleive that the idea behind giving special breaks and tax breaks to married people is that they do a very important part in growing America and making it strong... they are our future and our heritage in that they raise up our citizens form birth.
You don't have to be married to do that.
Also, If the goverment should encourage "positive" behaviour by taxation, then it should also discourage "negative" behaviour by taxation too, right? In that case you probably wouldn't have a problem with taxing the hell out of old and polluting automobiles for example? You sound like a good old socialist this time.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
If the gay guy beat the heterosexual up BECAUSE they were heterosexual, then it can be prosecuted as a hate crime. The straight guy beating up the gay is considered a hate crime only when it's BECAUSE they were gay. I'm not certain how well this will go over with you, because I think you've made up your mind not to let facts get in the way of your argument, but I may be wrong.
I've read this sentiment before, back in the 1960s. Back then, the person was usually a white male who was talking about "negroes", and "degenerates" referred to other non-whites. In a way, I can admire the force of conviction behind steadfast bigotry even as I am saddened by the sentiment expressed.
Jesse has spoken...
Jesse Jackson: Gay marriage rights are not civil rights (http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?date=2004/02/17/6)
Amazing this is the only time the extreme left will not listen to him....
-
Lazs, you will agree then that all tax benefits accorded to childless heterosexual married couples should be frozen? Additionally, any gay couples that adopt and raise children should immediately receive those benefits, right?
Soda72, waving the words of Jesse Jackson at me won't be quite like the 'holding a cross in front of a vampire' effect you were looking for, as I'm not a member of the extreme left. Best regards.
-
Who gives a rat's bellybutton if a gay couple is allowed to get married? A lot of the same arguments the bible thumpers use sound very similiar to the one they used to condone slavery and segregation.
ack-ack
-
Agreed.
-
ok heres my question: If they have kids and then divorce and assuming the state gives the kids to the mother like 80% of the time.....HOW to you figure out witch one is the "woman" to give the kids to??
-
With respect, that's asinine. The 'woman' shouldn't be the default person the kids go to. The person best suited/equipped to give them a good home should be. Same with heterosexual parents.
-
The earliest "marriage" the resembles modern marriaqe dates back to ancient egypt, and they allowed gay marriages.
Some of the attitudes remind me of those old victorian attitudes where a man and wife should not take pleasure in sex.
-
(http://wendyknits.net/images/dieter1.jpg)
Do you wish to touch my Monkey?
-
chair... no I do not. I believe that families of two heterosexual people do a lot in the raising of Americans. they may have children at any time and they may take over the duties of relatives who have died or are unable to raise children.
Unmarried people who raise children do get tax breaks... you simply get more of one if you are married.... it makes sense.. if you are married and have children then you are either doing it by one person supporting an entire family or two people working and having to pay extra expenses related to child rearing.
If you do not feel any obligation to those who raise Americas children then that is indeed a different matter. I believe that heterosexualmarried people are helping with making America stronger and are an asset or, at the very least, a potential asset in raising more Americans..
Homosexual marriages benifiet no one but the homosexuals involved. I feel no obligation to help subsidize them.
lazs
-
This isn't a gay/not gay thing but...
I'm sure you've seen the ghettos and the trailer parks Lazs, I fail to see any strengthening going on there.
-SW
-
I will agree that some of the trailer parks denizens and ghetto dwellers are no more useful to America than the gay leather bars or aids.
Still... given a ghetto say... the married families are more likely to be a benifiet than the single parent ones or the gay prostitutes...
given a trailer park... the married park families are more likely to be better for the children and America than the single moms living with a series of drunks in the same park...
not allways of course... but enough to generalize.
lazs
-
Who cares... To each their own.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I've read this sentiment before, back in the 1960s. Back then, the person was usually a white male who was talking about "negroes", and "degenerates" referred to other non-whites. In a way, I can admire the force of conviction behind steadfast bigotry even as I am saddened by the sentiment expressed.
again you keep bringing up rights.....bigotry. I still don't know one right that a strait man has that a gay man doesn't. Name one please?
-
The real question here is Will Arnold veto the bill?
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
If the state choses to acknowledge the fact that the 2 people involved are in a long term relationship, fine. If they want to give them the same rights & priviledges it gives married people, fine.
I just don't think they should call it marriage when its between 2 people of the same sex.
Thats pretty much my feelings about it.
Call it Gayriage, a Homoestic union. Jus dont call it "Marriage"
Personally I think they are foolish for wanting ALL of the rights.
With those benifits also come the consequences of Divorce,alimony etc.
They should be careful what they ask for.
they may just get it LOL
-
IMHO, there's nothing sacred about the word.
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
-
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
IMHO, there's nothing sacred about the word.
(2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
Which one of the last couple years was that added?
Or did you add that yourself?
I got this
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
- mar·riage·abil·i·ty /"mar-i-j&-'bi-l&-tE also "mer-/ noun
- mar·riage·able /'mar-i-j&-b&l also 'mer-/ adjective
Pronunciation Key
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy
To me the word is sacred
When man on man sex. or woman on woman sex can produce offspring through direct physical intercource and without outside help.
Then and only then will I condone it being called "Marriage"
" the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family"
Why do that HAVE to have it called "marriage" anyway So long as they get all the rights as any normal couple? And no matter what way you slice it. compaired to the rest of the world its not normal.
but so long as they get all these rights. Why should it matter to them. or you what its called?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Which one of the last couple years was that added?
Or did you add that yourself?
Take your pick.
Mirriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=0&y=0)
dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage)
Your Dictionary.com (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0120200.html)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
again you keep bringing up rights.....bigotry. I still don't know one right that a strait man has that a gay man doesn't. Name one please?
I am going to assume that you haven't been paying attention, otherwise I would be forced to conclude that you were somehow special, and that's certainly not something I would want you to think.
A straight man, in a relationship that develops into something special, can choose to marry that person.
A homosexual, in a relationship that develops into something special, cannot legally do the same thing.
I'm typing really slowly and carefully for you here, I hope you're on-board.
-
Burn the chi-chi
burn the bwotty
no tight pants crew
and good old arnuld just vetod this crap
thnk cod
as we voters in cali already VOTED NO on this buttpirate crap
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I am going to assume that you haven't been paying attention, otherwise I would be forced to conclude that you were somehow special, and that's certainly not something I would want you to think.
A straight man, in a relationship that develops into something special, can choose to marry that person.
A homosexual, in a relationship that develops into something special, cannot legally do the same thing.
I'm typing really slowly and carefully for you here, I hope you're on-board.
The above is incorrect it should read:
"A straight man, in a relationship that develops into something special, can choose to marry that WOMAN."
Gays have THAT RIGHT
topic is marriage and currently a marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays have that right. They arent being descriminated against because they are gay. This isn't about rights. All the talk of bringing up bigotry in the past is irelevent because they HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS and are not descriminated against BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY.
They want special rights. SO AGAIN. all people being equal. Gays want the special right to marry those that they love. Whouldn't this open the door for others that want special rights?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Take your pick.
Mirriam-Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage&x=0&y=0)
dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage)
Your Dictionary.com (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0120200.html)
Look at what I put up. I did use mirriam webster.
Thats whyI asked in which one of the last couple years that was added.
And if it was added it was added ONLY in the last couple of years
-
Btw, Arnold will veto the bill because the people did not directly vote for it. Also that past bills the people directly voted for showed anti-homosexual sentiment.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
A straight man, in a relationship that develops into something special, can choose to marry that person.
In order for me to be successful on football I need to follow the rules, otherwise any score I make will not be approved.
In order to be approved for a drivers licence I must pass a test. I must show knowledge and profeciency.
When two marry they ask society for approval of the relationship. In order to receive approval, they must meet certain rules. The rules are that we cannot marry first cousins, siblings, parents or children, we cannot marry if we are already married, or if our partner is someone of the same gender.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When two marry they ask society for approval of the relationship. In order to receive approval, they must meet certain rules. The rules are that we cannot marry first cousins, siblings, parents or children, we cannot marry if we are already married, or if our partner is someone of the same gender.
You can marry your first cousin in 26 states.
Likewise, same sex marriages should be a state by state issue.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In order for me to be successful on football I need to follow the rules, otherwise any score I make will not be approved.
In order to be approved for a drivers licence I must pass a test. I must show knowledge and profeciency.
When two marry they ask society for approval of the relationship. In order to receive approval, they must meet certain rules. The rules are that we cannot marry first cousins, siblings, parents or children, we cannot marry if we are already married, or if our partner is someone of the same gender.
Didn't/isn't oral sex illegal in some US states as well?
-
To argue that gay marriage thing without using religion..hmm..ok.
1.Males look silly in aprons.
2.The battered wife may kick yer butt.
3.Foreheads block the game on tv.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You can marry your first cousin in 26 states.
Likewise, same sex marriages should be a state by state issue.
Does California have rules you must follow to get a marraige approved?
Didn't the people of California pass a proposition confining marriage to two people of opposite gender?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Didn't/isn't oral sex illegal in some US states as well?
To get or to give?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Does California have rules you must follow to get a marraige approved?
Didn't the people of California pass a proposition confining marriage to two people of opposite gender?
Yes, and yes.
...but this doesn't mean that our representatives can't try to change it. The "rules" allow it. Laws are not static.
-
So your representatives do not represtent you?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Didn't/isn't oral sex illegal in some US states as well?
ROFL :D
you serious?
-
It is also illegal to build a fire under your mule to get him to pull a wagon in Maine. (IIRC) Many laws were passed in the past which are generally not enforced or enforcable, but have not been taken off the books.
Virginia IIRC is a state which has laws against certain generally accepted sexual behaviors. Their state advertising slogan? "Virginia is for lovers"
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
ROFL :D
you serious?
In which states is it still illegal for consenting adults of the same sex to have sex?
To see a map showing this, see
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/states/sodomy-map
These laws, referred to as "sodomy laws," vary from state to state regarding which acts are illegal. Speaking generally, though, there remain 13 states in the U.S. with such laws. (Nearly every state - maybe every single state? - used to have these laws, but GLBT activists have worked for many years to get them off the books.)
Currently, 9 states outlaw certain acts (usually oral and/or anal sex) between consenting adults, whether the people engaging in them are of the same sex or different sexes. But, of course, the laws are virtually never enforced against heterosexual couples.
Okay, those 9 are:
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Florida
Alabama
Mississippi
Louisiana
Utah
Idaho
However I do believe Louisiana just had one hell of a blow job ;)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
yea I love it when this is an equal rights issue. "People should be allowed to marry who they love" Gays have the same rights as anyone else, they want extra rights.
why were at it lets let NAMBLA have their special rights.
Gays don't presently have equal rights. They can't marry the one they love.
Two consenting adults should have the right to marry each other. Why we get all up in arms because of what others will do shouldn't have a bearing on how we act.
My wife and I will not think less of our marriage if some gays get married. What they do doesn't concern us.
Will anyone of us actually love our spouses less?
The sanctity of marriage wil not be jeopardized because homosexuals are given the same rights as heterosexuals.
BTW, try not to use that slippery slope of NAMBLA example.
1) Nambla members are mentally sick that want to prey on helpless kids.
2) This is hardly an arrangement of consenting adults.
3) NAMBLA men rarely admit to being homosexual. Those pedofiles that actually want/have sex with young boys rarely have sexual relations with other men.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Last time I checked you can get extra prison time for a strait guy beating up a gay guy but not the other way around.
I think it has to do because the Gay guy gets beaten up soley for the fact that he is gay. Rarely is it the other way around.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The above is incorrect it should read:
"A straight man, in a relationship that develops into something special, can choose to marry that WOMAN."
Gays have THAT RIGHT
topic is marriage and currently a marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays have that right. They arent being descriminated against because they are gay. This isn't about rights. All the talk of bringing up bigotry in the past is irelevent because they HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS and are not descriminated against BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY.
They want special rights. SO AGAIN. all people being equal. Gays want the special right to marry those that they love. Whouldn't this open the door for others that want special rights?
LMAO! That's not an argument, that's a petitio principii.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Gays don't presently have equal rights. They can't marry the one they love.
I don't have equal rights, as I can't marry Jennifer Connelly.
(http://physicsgeek.mu.nu/archives/jennifer_connelly%202.jpg)
-
dear sweet jesus, i have created a monster.
here are my opinions that i have held back untill the conversation had developed:
1. let gays marry
2. lesbian sex is hot
3. people wont marry animals or minors because of the fact that those people mentioned cannot be trusted to make their own decision, there is a reason you cant bone a retard
4. i think we can all agree that jennifer connelly is hot.
PS
i would like to thank you all for keeping religious beliefs out of the issue.
-
But is it fair that I am legally prohibited from marrying Jennifer?
I mean if we both agree, why not?
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
3. people wont marry animals or minors because of the fact that those people mentioned cannot be trusted to make their own decision, there is a reason you cant bone a retard
You just made this guy very unhappy
:)
(http://www.uky.edu/RGS/AppalCenter/new_jpgs/goode14.jpg)
-
Deleted.
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Gays don't presently have equal rights. They can't marry the one they love.
Two consenting adults should have the right to marry each other. Why we get all up in arms because of what others will do shouldn't have a bearing on how we act.
My wife and I will not think less of our marriage if some gays get married. What they do doesn't concern us.
Will anyone of us actually love our spouses less?
The sanctity of marriage wil not be jeopardized because homosexuals are given the same rights as heterosexuals.
BTW, try not to use that slippery slope of NAMBLA example.
1) Nambla members are mentally sick that want to prey on helpless kids.
2) This is hardly an arrangement of consenting adults.
3) NAMBLA men rarely admit to being homosexual. Those pedofiles that actually want/have sex with young boys rarely have sexual relations with other men.
I think it has to do because the Gay guy gets beaten up soley for the fact that he is gay. Rarely is it the other way around.
You guys are distorting facts again. No one has the RIGHT to marry the one they love unless the other person consents and is the opposite sex. GAYS HAVE THIS RIGHT.
Two consenting adults OF THE OPPOSITE SEX DO have the right to marry each other. Why we get all up in arms because of what others will do shouldn't have a bearing on how we act.
we get all up in arms because they are not demanding equal rights they are demanding special rights just for them because they are different.
EDIT:
SO again since we've established that gays have the same rights as everyone else and that NO ONE has the right to marry just anyone. Please tell me why this is a discrimination issue?
-
a gay man does have the right to marry a woman and have and raise a child by here.... it's done all the time. A gay woman can marry a man if she chooses... they have the same rights as everyone else.
marriage between two people of the same sex is intrinsicaly meaningless so far as a potential benifiet to society so it weakens marriage. Marriage should not be weakened.
I am not a fan of marriage for myself but see that it is logical to promote marriage between a man and a woman in a healthy society. I have nothing against gay relationships but feel that calling them a marriage and giving them the same benifiets weakens something we should be trying to strengthen.
I just feel that gay marriage is the wrong direction to go if you want to have healthy families through marriage. If marriage is meaningless to you and of no value other than a phrase or commitment that is non binding then it makes no difference.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Mighty1
Deleted.
7- Members should remember this board is aimed at a general audience. Posting pornographic or generally offensive text, images, links, etc. will not be tolerated. This includes attempts to bypass the profanity filter.
.............And the crowd goes wild chanting Mighty1, Mighty1, Mighty1.
Man that was beautifull!
-
It is really simple. Anyone who wishes to enter into a monogamous legal partnership recognized by the State should be allowed to do so. If the word "marriage" bothers you then you're just being petty.
Sounds like some of you were beaten up by a gay guy in grade school or something.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
SO again since we've established that gays have the same rights as everyone else and that NO ONE has the right to marry just anyone. Please tell me why this is a discrimination issue?
They do not have the right to marry the consenting adult who would also like to marry them. It's that simple. You can jump around that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact.
And before you get goofy and repeat yourself, I get it. We all get it. We're not retarded, and neither are you, so quit acting it. But just to make you feel better...were same-sex marriage legal, you'd have just as much right to marry a man as the next man would.