TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Big Surprise - Kansas passed anti-homosexual marriage law
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by zig Well why are they introduceing new laws against this particular group of people if the powers that be feel they are not being descriminated against allready...why do they feel the need for new laws to stop these people marrying.....and who are these people to define what marraige is in the first place....and on what moral grounds can they make such judgements...is it to support the idea that marraige is strictly a hetrosexual institution.

I think Opus has a link in one of his articles (good luck finding it in the vast of postage though!)
Basically to paraphrase the headline of it was that a California Judge has decided that the old norm/consensus (by norm/consensus I mean it wasn't written down, but it was as obvious as saying stealing means you can't take other peoples stuff), so anyway norm/consensus whereby it was understood that marriage is an institution only for a man and a women. Well the judge rule that even though such a norm agaist it is no longer applicable for some reason or another.

Therefore the people in Alabama and their legislatures decided to make the norm/conensus clear by making it a law. In case you are wondering what authorithy legislatures have, well they have the authorithy to make any law for the State that does not violate it's or the USA's constitution. They recieve this authorithy by being elected from the people as a repersentative of their voice and will.

quote:

And yes i know polygmists hetrosexuals and homosexuals are not allowed to marry if allready married....that part of your arguement is irrelevant...nobody is argueing for that to be allowed. And yes if people cant pass the driving test...they shouldnt be allowed to drive...but it doesnt make them stupid or discriminated against...because that test applies to everyone gay or straight....unlike the right to marraige which only applies to the 90% of people that consider themselves hetrosexual.

No, I am saying there are some people (think retards, blind people, handicapped etc) that will never ever be able to drive because they will never ever be able to pass the driving test. Whether the person is born handicap, natrually blind from birth, or retarded because of the environment he grew up in, the end result is the same - they can not pass the test and will never be able to drive. You can say all these people would amount to at least 10% of the population...

In the same way you must meet certain criteria to get married, Alabama has decided one of these criteria is that you must be a man marrying a women or a women marrying a man. Now if this conflicts with gay-people's lifestyles, I'm sorry, but a blindman will never get his driver's license either.

pssst Opus, take note how me and Zig here are having a fair, civilized debate, where none of us post-whore the other

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I think Opus has a link in one of his articles (good luck finding it in the vast of postage though!) Basically to paraphrase the headline of it was that a California Judge has decided that the old norm/consensus (by norm/consensus I mean it wasn't written down, but it was as obvious as saying stealing means you can't take other peoples stuff), so anyway norm/consensus whereby it was understood that marriage is an institution only for a man and a women. Well the judge rule that even though such a norm agaist it is no longer applicable for some reason or another. Therefore the people in Alabama and their legislatures decided to make the norm/conensus clear by making it a law. In case you are wondering what authorithy legislatures have, well they have the authorithy to make any law for the State that does not violate it's or the USA's constitution. They recieve this authorithy by being elected from the people as a repersentative of their voice and will. No, I am saying there are some people (think retards, blind people, handicapped etc) that will never ever be able to drive because they will never ever be able to pass the driving test. Whether the person is born handicap, natrually blind from birth, or retarded because of the environment he grew up in, the end result is the same - they can not pass the test and will never be able to drive. You can say all these people would amount to at least 10% of the population... In the same way you must meet certain criteria to get married, Alabama has decided one of these criteria is that you must be a man marrying a women or a women marrying a man. Now if this conflicts with gay-people's lifestyles, I'm sorry, but a blindman will never get his driver's license either.

I understand all of this.....but does it seem fair that this group of people,because of their sexual orientation are denied the right to marry?...even though they have all the other civil and legal rights.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus pssst Opus, take note how me and Zig here are having a fair, civilized debate, where none of us post-whore the other

Im sure he would dismiss my arguements as not post whoreing enough!!!.................

quote:

Originally posted by zig I understand all of this.....but does it seem fair that this group of people,because of their sexual orientation are denied the right to marry?...even though they have all the other civil and legal rights.

Yea, thats where the whole issue stems from.

Legally, its 100% for the State to say, yes you can have a gay marraige (be redefining marraige) or not you can't have a gay marriage (again by defining marriage).

I for instance think its fair while you think its unfair. Right now its not consistant in the USA as there is no federal law. This is because the US constitution prevents the USA (federally) to define marriage.

Now because of a "loop-hole" in the constitution if one State say's California or Massachuttes allows people to have gay marriages, Alabama which forbids people to have gay marriage in the state has to recongize these people as married. Therefore any gays can simply get married by going to a different state for the marriage and returning.

To prevent such a thing from happening, you'd have to ammend the constitution to give the US government the right to define marriage.

I am still ambigious however how the process is today - I think Massachutes voted in their state for gay-marriage, but I do not know how those same homosexuals are then treated by the federal government for purposes of taxes and legal. .. you know say I'm gay and I marry a guy from I dunno, China, is that Chinese guy then granted the same greencard process as if I would marry a chinese women?

OMFG GAY MARRIAGE?!?! EWWWW!!!! WHAT KIND OF INSANITY IS NEXT? BLACKS AND WHITES DRINKING FROM THE SAME FOUNTAIN?!?!?!





excuse all caps... making a point.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt OMFG GAY MARRIAGE?!?! EWWWW!!!! WHAT KIND OF INSANITY IS NEXT? BLACKS AND WHITES DRINKING FROM THE SAME FOUNTAIN?!?!?! excuse all caps... making a point.

You need to be more tolerant of the intolerant.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus No, I am saying there are some people (think retards, blind people, handicapped etc) that will never ever be able to drive because they will never ever be able to pass the driving test. Whether the person is born handicap, natrually blind from birth, or retarded because of the environment he grew up in, the end result is the same - they can not pass the test and will never be able to drive. You can say all these people would amount to at least 10% of the population...

There is a big difference here tho, these people that fail the test, ARE A DANGER TO THE REST OF THE POPULATION, gays getting married, are not!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Geez Opus your crazy. I'm not gonna reply to all that. If your strategy is to win an debate by typing so much your opponent gives up, then by-God (yes big-G himself), you are winning! Really try and keep your posts to say, 2, 3 pages max and just several topics. That way I can reply in turn and we might actually get somwhere I mean you already got 2 others helping you out. Then you write 3 times as much as both of them combined. Despite the fact that I support religion, I am merely a mere mortal.

Oh, you are such a chicken!

You too, Shakka!

This habit of counter-pointing everything written is an unfortunate carryover from debating creationists/IDers in other forums and email correspondence. If I ever left out a sentence or point of theirs to refute, often times they�d consider this as a weakness in my rebuttal and turn around with �You didn�t mention anything about my point X � so I�m right!!!�, often times not mentioning the 30 other points I rebutted.

So I apologize if I give long posts � I just try to see the courtesy of being as intellectually honest as possible. But I do sometimes forget that I�m not up for tenure here, so I�ll try to be a bit more concise in the future.

One thing I did catch about my post, however, that I need to correct. I had mistakenly stated that both the 14th Amendment (i.e. Equal Protection and Due Process) and the Civil Rights Act were being invoked to press the case for homosexual marriage by these recent court cases. I was completely in error to state the Civil Rights Act was being used � this Act does not apply in any way to sexual preference. What I should have said, however, is that advocates for homosexual marriage are trying to have this included in this Act, but so far have been using Due Process and Equal Protection only.

Anyways, we�re having some serious Exchange Server issues today, so I�m in the fucking weeds pretty badly right now. I�ll try to answer your points as soon as I can.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew There is a big difference here tho, these people that fail the test, ARE A DANGER TO THE REST OF THE POPULATION, gays getting married, are not!

Are you trying to tell me that people who can't pass the drive test are a danger to society? Well I know quiet a few, very stupid, but very competent drivers who failed the drive test (the written) yet wouldn't have run over anyone...

But thats beside the point.

The argument I'm making is who says gays getting marriage isn't a danger to society, i.e. the rest of the population?

I think that this, in addition to many other events in our current culture will destory the family unit and will create a population crisis much like we see in Europe if it is allowed to go to far...

I'm not against trying to preserve the family unit, I grew up in a family, you grew up in a family, my kids will grow up in a family when I'll have some kids. The norm today however, and many of my peers are no longer interest in having kids, they see life as only the enjoyment for themselves - the individual. I think gay marriage celebrates that, not marriage and the sacrafise one makes from the individual to give to others and society.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Oh, you are such a chicken!

Hey! Don't think just because I have a big yellow jar of mustard in my signature I'm yellow!

You hear me calling you a pussy because you have a pussycat in your signature do you?! (well you do now!)

quote:

You too, Shakka! [quote] OHHH he be dissed you! [quote] This habit of counter-pointing everything written is an unfortunate carryover from debating creationists/IDers in other forums and email correspondence. If I ever left out a sentence or point of theirs to refute, often times they�d consider this as a weakness in my rebuttal and turn around with �You didn�t mention anything about my point X � so I�m right!!!�, often times not mentioning the 30 other points I rebutted.

I feel your pain. Debating 6 year olds if no fun.

quote:

So I apologize if I give long posts � I just try to see the courtesy of being as intellectually honest as possible. But I do sometimes forget that I�m not up for tenure here, so I�ll try to be a bit more concise in the future.

Considering this was a fairly well sized post (try to make post like this size your goal. Its about as much as us short-attention span, internet-reading PDDs can take these days), apology accepted.

quote:

One thing I did catch about my post, however, that I need to correct. I had mistakenly stated that both the 14th Amendment (i.e. Equal Protection and Due Process) and the Civil Rights Act were being invoked to press the case for homosexual marriage by these recent court cases. I was completely in error to state the Civil Rights Act was being used � this Act does not apply in any way to sexual preference. What I should have said, however, is that advocates for homosexual marriage are trying to have this included in this Act, but so far have been using Due Process and Equal Protection only.

What is this?? A Newspapper? A fucking magazine?? We don't issue correction here on TA!!! You pussy!

quote:

Anyways, we�re having some serious Exchange Server issues today, so I�m in the fucking weeds pretty badly right now. I�ll try to answer your points as soon as I can.

http://www.novell.com/linux/windows.../publicservice/

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Are you trying to tell me that people who can't pass the drive test are a danger to society? Well I know quiet a few, very stupid, but very competent drivers who failed the drive test (the written) yet wouldn't have run over anyone...

There is a reason for the written test, and that is to see so that the drivers know how to behaive in traffic. If you dont know, then you are a potential danger to society. I dont care how competent they might seem, I think that if you really were that competent that you knew how to drive safe, then you would have no problems passing a test about it.

If the test was way to hard and didnt have any real link to reality, then yes i would say it would be discriminating against those people who failed the test but still are good drivers.

quote:

But thats beside the point. The argument I'm making is who says gays getting marriage isn't a danger to society, i.e. the rest of the population? I think that this, in addition to many other events in our current culture will destory the family unit and will create a population crisis much like we see in Europe if it is allowed to go to far... I'm not against trying to preserve the family unit, I grew up in a family, you grew up in a family, my kids will grow up in a family when I'll have some kids. The norm today however, and many of my peers are no longer interest in having kids, they see life as only the enjoyment for themselves - the individual. I think gay marriage celebrates that, not marriage and the sacrafise one makes from the individual to give to others and society.

So you are blaming the failing population growths in europe on things like gay marriage? Shouldnt marriages that doesnt end up in a kid also be banned then? And do you think that it really would be a big difference between the amount of gays in a country, depending on if gay marriages are allowed or not? I really dont think so, but if you can prove me wrong, show me.

The way of life should be up to the individual to decide, if they want to live a life without having children let it be like that. I would be okay with people trying to get ppl to get children, since it is really needed, but i dont think banning gay marriages would help any. The thing till remains tho, a gay couple that have been together for 30 years doesnt have the same rights, as a straigh couple who have been married for 2 days. They suffer thanks to these laws, which to me is totally insane!

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew There is a reason for the written test, and that is to see so that the drivers know how to behaive in traffic. If you dont know, then you are a potential danger to society. I dont care how competent they might seem, I think that if you really were that competent that you knew how to drive safe, then you would have no problems passing a test about it.

A written test is still discriminate against people who can't read or write or are well educated, people that are slow and dumb, people that have dyslexia, etc...

quote:

So you are blaming the failing population growths in europe on things like gay marriage?

Yes, in part.

quote:

Shouldnt marriages that doesnt end up in a kid also be banned then?

Ideally. But it won't be, I'm not naive enough to think it will. But that's still no argument against gay marriage. Just because one think is bad, doesn't excuse another.

But yes, I'd be for mandatory divorce for all couples married 5 years without children (who aren't impotent).

quote:

And do you think that it really would be a big difference between the amount of gays in a country, depending on if gay marriages are allowed or not? I really dont think so, but if you can prove me wrong, show me.

I don't think the amount of gays matters. There is TV to distort the importance of numbers, it doesn't matter that I personally know a gay couple that is married, so long as I know of one on TV.

But yes, basically I see gay marriage having some effect on the destruction of the family unit, primarly through its embrace of the individual culture and the disregard of tradition.

quote:

The way of life should be up to the individual to decide, if they want to live a life without having children let it be like that.

Right, fair enough. I'd rather not have somebody who doesn't want children raise them, I think that'd be just worse off to the children.
But it doesn't mean we should not stop trying to encourage a society where people want to have children and feel that life is not just about themselves.

quote:

I would be okay with people trying to get ppl to get children, since it is really needed, but i dont think banning gay marriages would help any.

Gays when it comes down to it, if they have no children, want no children, live a pretty selfish lifestyle (just like many single people). Rewarding this lifestyle with a ceremony that has been traditionally reserved to reward a lifestyle whereby a husband slaves all day to make enough money to allow his wife to stay home and raise their nagging children to the betterment of society is just a plain insult to the husband and wife.

quote:

The thing till remains tho, a gay couple that have been together for 30 years doesnt have the same rights, as a straigh couple who have been married for 2 days. They suffer thanks to these laws, which to me is totally insane!

You just triumphed individual choice. Well gays have individual choice. They can chose to either live their lifestyle and be limited to that choice or they can chose to be married and recieve the privileges entitled to marriage. Not that you have that many privileges with marriage.... you can file a joint tax form and that's about it

quote:

But yes, I'd be for mandatory divorce for all couples married 5 years without children (who aren't impotent).

Yoepus....what drugs are you on........

quote:

Gays when it comes down to it, if they have no children, want no children, live a pretty selfish lifestyle (just like many single people). Rewarding this lifestyle with a ceremony that has been traditionally reserved to reward a lifestyle whereby a husband slaves all day to make enough money to allow his wife to stay home and raise their nagging children to the betterment of society is just a plain insult to the husband and wife.

Strong drugs whatever they are.......

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus First, I didn't equate INTEREST GROUP to FUNDIE INTEREST GROUP. If you are saying that all interest groups are indeed fanatics, well, damn...

Didn't know I was, but in this particular case of note I think such a parallel is warranted.

quote:

You say you are scared of the "christian fundies in power", well they already are, and they still seem to be losing historical privileges they would have enjoyed.

As I mentioned before (without the profanity (trying to cut back a little):

quote:

Name me ONE time when Christian rights have been successfully taken away when there has been an irrational means to do so. Just one will do.

I hardly think your commentary to my list qualifies under this category, but I'll try to tackle them regardless...

quote:

-Continual attempts to wipe out evolution because it does not adhere to Christian principles failed

I strongly disagree. Oh sure it has run up on speedbumps thanks much in part to rational science and teachers standing up for scientific principles, but this hardly has stopped the anti-evolutionists from making some serious leaps into our classrooms. My state of Kansas, which I'm more than happy to discuss either in another thread or PM is a prime example.

quote:

-Promoting abstinence education only while withholding and/or distorting known facts about abstinence programs and their resultsfailed

Really?:

http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/hea...cout523876.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7351405/

Well if it's failed so badly, why does our president continue to give it so much fucking money, and promote it so heavily on government websites? Why did he refuse to give money to the UN for their cause to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa because they promoted safe-sex in combination with abstinence programs, as opposed to abstinence-only?

quote:

-Continuing attempts to incorporate school prayer, undermining separation of church and statefailed

Quite true, but this hasn't stopped them from continuing to try over and over...

quote:

-Keeping �Under God� into the Pledge, even though its origin was the reaction against Communist, atheist Russia back in the 50�sfailed

This failed? Where was I? As far as I know, schools must still state "Under God".

quote:

-Moving a 10 Commandments statue into a secular government building in the middle of the night, claiming it is a part of our founding principles of law (last I checked only 2, maybe 3 Commandments are actually used in our law), without consideration of any other religion�s notable monuments as well failed

For now, perhaps, but an appeal has gotten to the U.S. SC:

www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.ten.commandments/

A good healthy portion of political analysts believe this may pass.

quote:

-Texas anti-sodomy laws which thankfully got struck down failed

Well, yeah, that's why I mentioned that they got struck down. But why the fuck were they there in the first place? They had to be some of the creepiest laws created. And it continues to fit my bill:

quote:

Name me ONE time when Christian rights have been successfully taken away when there has been an irrational means to do so. Just one will do.

quote:

-Anti-abortion laws are slowly but surely creeping into our government, even at the behest of a woman�s health (which thankfully a number of courts have recently struck down). This is not to say that such laws are the result of Christian fundamentalists, but their role and influence also cannot be denied by any stretch. failed

The partial-birth abortion ban was passed BY our GOP run Legislature, signed BY our GOP fundie President, only to have been temporarily dislodged by at least 3 different courts, primarily because the ban superceded the life of the woman. That was unbelievable, IMO, and the courts rightly deemed it unconstitutional. Hasn't reached the SC yet, but I imagine it will soon. Regardless, my point here as well as my point on most of these arguments is that despite the unconstitutionality and/or irrationality of these attempts by fundies, it hasn't stopped them from trying and in many cases, succeeding.

quote:

You can get morning after pills at your local pharmacy, I fail to see the triump for the fundies.

Yeah, I guess it takes a DEMOCRATIC governor to issue such orders for them to do so:

quote:

CHICAGO, April 1 -- Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) issued an emergency rule Friday that requires pharmacies to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay, after a growing number of complaints nationwide that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills and the "morning-after" pill. He also established a toll-free number that residents can call to report refusals by pharmacies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...3-2005Apr1.html

My bad.

quote:

But taking in their previous track record... I wouldn't but my bets too high the fundies will triump, you think they'll get lucky this time Opus?

As I mentioned, it certainly doesn't stop them from trying, and in many cases succeeding despite it being unconstitutional and/or irrational. And the more you have in office, the more often you see them push their agenda through, which is clearly what we're seeing more today. And that is my problem here - even if and when their agenda does get struck down (which thankfully happens more often that not), it is the continual push of their Christian beliefs in our government that I abhor, or actually their perversion of Christian beliefs rather. Why have the courts take the time, man hours, and taxpayer money to eventually strike down such laws and bills that these fundies KNOW are unconstitutional and/or irrational?

quote:

All I know is that if it was 1500-1990, no one would have gave a shit if their was a statue of the ten commandments in a church. So there you have it, the Chrisitans are giving up more and more of the symbols of their religion and the philosophy of the culture of this nation to a new religion and a new culture, one that divereges from the founding fathers.

Oh please. Again you are coming out with the notion that our founding fathers would have somehow allowed such behaviors to reign. Perhaps they would, perhaps they wouldn't. The problem with constructionist interpreters of the Constitution is they fail to comprehend our society does, in fact, change, and that our laws and interpretations of laws are NOT interpreted in 18th Century language when the Constitution was originally written. Part of the beauty of the Constitution is it does give way to future interpretation as times change. Hence we have SC rulings that stand quite firm such as the Lemon Test for Separation of Church and State on the First Amendment, for example.

But even if I were to go with the premise that a new religion and new culture diverges from our founding fathers, why would they have such a beef with it in the first place? There's been plenty of discussion here about our founding fathers whom a good healthy portion were, in fact, NOT Christians but deists in their own right. So why would they have a beef with those who state that putting monuments of one religion in a government building without giving due respect to other religions is promoting that given religion? Seems to me that Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and Franklin would certainly see it appropriate for the Alabama SC and the U.S. Supreme Court to have that monument removed.

Damnit, did it again. Sorry.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus The argument I'm making is who says gays getting marriage isn't a danger to society, i.e. the rest of the population?

Oh I don't know, perhaps research?

quote:

I think that this, in addition to many other events in our current culture will destory the family unit and will create a population crisis much like we see in Europe if it is allowed to go to far...

And your supporting evidence to this assertion is where?

I OTOH have evidence to dispel such notions:

Evidence suggests gay marriages are as stable as straight marriages:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...MNG1H59R5Q1.DTL

The state with the lowest divorce rate per capita just happens to be Massachusetts, which happens to allow gay marriages (what a coincidence, huh?). And those with the highest divorce rates? Why they tend to be the reddest of the red states:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed..._family_values/

And how do gay couples fare with children? Well the evidence suggests they do quite well, actually. Research suggests that the children are quite healthy, well-rounded, do not have a propensity to become gay themselves (no more than heterosexual kids), and are even more tolerant and understanding of minority groups, though admittedly no sound conclusions can be drawn just yet:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar13.htm

More information can be found here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint2.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint4.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint5.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marint6.htm

quote:

I'm not against trying to preserve the family unit, I grew up in a family, you grew up in a family, my kids will grow up in a family when I'll have some kids. The norm today however, and many of my peers are no longer interest in having kids, they see life as only the enjoyment for themselves - the individual.

Hey, I'm with you on that, but to make a leap that this is the result of gay marriages is fallacious and a bit insulting to them. I think heterosexual marriages have quite a few problems of their own that are very unrelated to homosexual marriage or homosexual behavior for that matter, and there has been no evidence to suggest any link between the two.

quote:

I think gay marriage celebrates that, not marriage and the sacrafise one makes from the individual to give to others and society.

I'm afraid you know very little about homosexual couples' desires to be married if you honestly think such a notion.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus But yes, I'd be for mandatory divorce for all couples married 5 years without children (who aren't impotent).

Are you serious?!?!?! So now the poor and a lot of middle class couples, who might even want to have kids should not be allowed to get married? A big reason people don't have kids right away is because they can't afford it at the time. They should be forced to get divorced because they're being responsible and trying to not have kids until they can fully provide for them? At the same time, people should abstain from sex until marriage, right?

quote:

You just triumphed individual choice. Well gays have individual choice. They can chose to either live their lifestyle and be limited to that choice or they can chose to be married and recieve the privileges entitled to marriage. Not that you have that many privileges with marriage.... you can file a joint tax form and that's about it

That's like saying African-Americans had individual choice during segregation because they could either live in unequal conditions and be persecuted because they could always move to another country.

Gay marriage, or civil unions, or whatever you want to call it is about rights regarding inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc., not just wanting to file joint tax returns. If someone were in Terry Schiavo's condition and were gay, they want the right to have their partner be their guardian, for example. This is why there is civil marriage, which is totally separate from religious marriage. No one is saying that your religion should be forced to tolerate recognizing those civil unions.

The divorce rate has been over 50% for years, so I don't know where the correlation is with gay people. I'll agree with you that it can be very beneficial for kids to grow up in a loving household with 2 parents, as I grew up that way and I hope to raise my future kids the same way, but I don't think that gay people being able to have equal rights is going to have any bearing on the way I raise my family, nor does it mean that children can't be raised properly in an alternative setting.

Wolverine, I honestly thought Yoepus was joking when he wrote that. I really hope he was.

Christ, me and the Mrs. are hitting our 5 year anniversary here in June, and as far as I know we don't have any rugrats.

At least that I know of.

I didn't realize the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Somebody better tell those folks in those heavily overpopulated areas of the world to keep on keepin' on then.

I mean, hell, what was I thinking with me and the Mrs. wanting to share our lives and love together first, then MAYBE if we're ready both financially AND mentally ready enough to have a youngin'? I guess having a youngin� is more important these days than being financially stable. And these are the same people who get upset when us taxpayers have to foot the bill for such irresponsibility.

Like I said, I really hope he's kidding.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus A written test is still discriminate against people who can't read or write or are well educated, people that are slow and dumb, people that have dyslexia, etc...

Cant "ppl" do the test orally in the US if they have problems with that?

quote:

Ideally. But it won't be, I'm not naive enough to think it will. But that's still no argument against gay marriage. Just because one think is bad, doesn't excuse another. But yes, I'd be for mandatory divorce for all couples married 5 years without children (who aren't impotent).

Well, the thing is that if you are married, you get benefits, those benefits are mostly things that has nothing to do with children!

If you want to stimulate population growth, give benefits to ppl with children! Such as subsidies, tax breaks etc, do not restrict the freedoms for a couple that wants to be together but not have children.
in this way it would be no difference from a married hetro couple without children, and a homo couple without children. Which would make it totally fair and still support your population growth theories.

quote:

I don't think the amount of gays matters. There is TV to distort the importance of numbers, it doesn't matter that I personally know a gay couple that is married, so long as I know of one on TV.

I dont get what you are trying to say here, please explain a bit further

quote:

But yes, basically I see gay marriage having some effect on the destruction of the family unit, primarly through its embrace of the individual culture and the disregard of tradition.

Hmm i dont get why you couldnt grow up in a loving family without having two married parents?

My parents have been divorced since i was 10 or so, and i dont think that has done me any bad, quite the opposite actually! only did me good! Traditional family isnt necisairly the one and only sulotion!

quote:

Gays when it comes down to it, if they have no children, want no children, live a pretty selfish lifestyle (just like many single people). Rewarding this lifestyle with a ceremony that has been traditionally reserved to reward a lifestyle whereby a husband slaves all day to make enough money to allow his wife to stay home and raise their nagging children to the betterment of society is just a plain insult to the husband and wife.

Marriage isnt supposed to be some kind of reward, its supposed to be something for two ppl loveing each other, wanting to take a step further in their relationship and also to make it easier for their daily life!

quote:

You just triumphed individual choice. Well gays have individual choice. They can chose to either live their lifestyle and be limited to that choice or they can chose to be married and recieve the privileges entitled to marriage. Not that you have that many privileges with marriage.... you can file a joint tax form and that's about it

No, problem is they CANT choose to get married, since they cant get married with the one they love! That is such a stupid argument, really, it is by no mean just to dump that guy that you love over everything else, and then get some new wife, that you have no interest for :S

Geez, so many replies.

Makes me remember why I tend to avoid these threads....

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Didn't know I was, but in this particular case of note I think such a parallel is warranted.

I forgot to add a smiley face at the end of it - it should have read:

"First, I didn't equate INTEREST GROUP to FUNDIE INTEREST GROUP. If you are saying that all interest groups are indeed fanatics, well, damn... You're right! "

quote:

I hardly think your commentary to my list qualifies under this category, but I'll try to tackle them regardless...

Ok, I'll use your new examples then.

(thanks for doing my research for me by the way)


From:

quote:

For now, perhaps, but an appeal has gotten to the U.S. SC: www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.ten.commandments/

"In the Kentucky case, two county executives separately posted copies of the King James version of the Ten Commandments on the walls of their courthouses.

They were displayed among 11 frames of privately donated historical documents and symbols that helped form the basis of American law and government, including the Declaration of Independence. All but the Ten Commandments were secular in nature.

The American Civil Liberties Union objected and won at the federal appeals level. The counties then asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

In Texas, Thomas Van Orden, a self-described "religious pluralist," filed suit against the placement, with private funds, of a 6-foot-tall monument on the grounds of Austin's Capitol Building in 1961. It bears the words "Ten Commandments," a star of David, a symbol representing Christ and the words "I am the Lord thy God."

Van Orden says that, in allowing the monument, Texas crossed the line separating church and state by promoting "personal religious beliefs."




Can I get an irrational hell yea up in here!!??

quote:

Yeah, I guess it takes a DEMOCRATIC governor to issue such orders for them to do so:

You realize he is infringing on one set of civil liberties for another.
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro-abortion, err choice, but your taking the right from a pharamsict to discriminate. Maybe we should just get rid of the pharamsict completely and just put in a machine that accepts perscriptions like vouchers?

Anyway that OT...

quote:

As I mentioned, it certainly doesn't stop them from trying, and in many cases succeeding despite it being unconstitutional and/or irrational. And the more you have in office, the more often you see them push their agenda through, which is clearly what we're seeing more today. And that is my problem here - even if and when their agenda does get struck down (which thankfully happens more often that not), it is the continual push of their Christian beliefs in our government that I abhor, or actually their perversion of Christian beliefs rather. Why have the courts take the time, man hours, and taxpayer money to eventually strike down such laws and bills that these fundies KNOW are unconstitutional and/or irrational?

All I am saying is that, if you'd just shut up they wouldn't be so invegorated. All I'm saying is that if the liberals would just shut up (because its pretty much going their way) I don't think the conservatives would be so fundie paristan as they are.

quote:

Part of the beauty of the Constitution is it does give way to future interpretation as times change. Hence we have SC rulings that stand quite firm such as the Lemon Test for Separation of Church and State on the First Amendment, for example.

True, another part of the beauty of the constitution is the spirit it was written in. I don't think we are honoring that spirit as much anymore. It is more of a memory then the heartbeat of America by every passing day...

quote:

Damnit, did it again. Sorry.

You just can't help yourself! You have a problem a real, real problem!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Christ, me and the Mrs. are hitting our 5 year anniversary here in June, and as far as I know we don't have any rugrats.

DIVORCE! DIVORCE BE UPON YOU! THOU SHALTH DIVORETH!
IMMEDITATLEY!

OR HAVE KIDS!

Thouth have no shame in thyself?!


Good one Opus, now you've gone and made me into a Christian fundie. I tell you, its this type of attitude exactly. I could of cared less, hell I was joking before, but now that you are prodding the issue, I'm thinking actually this might be a good idea....

quote:

I didn't realize the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Somebody better tell those folks in those heavily overpopulated areas of the world to keep on keepin' on then.

Hey?! This coming from the same guy that gave me the history of gay marriage some pages back? You know marriage wasn't what it always was today. Back in the day, people had arranged marriages. Often times husband and wife never loved each other. Yup, basically the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. It has gone away from that, you now chose who you marry, and you marry who you love... but in the end its still designed to be there for you to have kids.

quote:

I mean, hell, what was I thinking with me and the Mrs. wanting to share our lives and love together first, then MAYBE if we're ready both financially AND mentally ready enough to have a youngin'? I guess having a youngin� is more important these days than being financially stable. And these are the same people who get upset when us taxpayers have to foot the bill for such irresponsibility.

No its ok, if you become irresponsible you can send the Mrs. to a pharamacy in Michigan.

quote:

Like I said, I really hope he's kidding.

Who will ever know, MUAHAHAHAHAH MUAHMAMAHAHAH

Last time I checked, us folks here in Georgia defeated gay rights by putting the anti-gay resolution into our constition to keep the pole smokers in line. I see we're not alone in our resolve with Kansas and others coming out in force to just say no to the gays.
I have no issue in particular against gays except when they demand the same rights that I do, like marriage, when their union with their lovers are fundamently wrong in the Bible and all but the most austere of religious thinking and views of the world. Personally, I am offended to the point of burning their damn house down, so there you have it.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Last time I checked, us folks here in Georgia defeated gay rights by putting the anti-gay resolution into our constition to keep the pole smokers in line. I see we're not alone in our resolve with Kansas and others coming out in force to just say no to the gays. I have no issue in particular against gays except when they demand the same rights that I do, like marriage, when their union with their lovers are fundamently wrong in the Bible and all but the most austere of religious thinking and views of the world. Personally, I am offended to the point of burning their damn house down, so there you have it. [[[smoke]]]

Some classic replies in this thread......

From this.....

quote:

I have no issue in particular against gays except when they demand the same rights that I do,

To this.....

quote:

Personally, I am offended to the point of burning their damn house down, so there you have it.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew Cant "ppl" do the test orally in the US if they have problems with that?

Its a state thing, so maybe in some states. But what if he's deaf and mute?

quote:

Well, the thing is that if you are married, you get benefits, those benefits are mostly things that has nothing to do with children!

What benifits exactly?

quote:

If you want to stimulate population growth, give benefits to ppl with children! Such as subsidies, tax breaks etc,

The USA does, basically the only way the government supports children is allowing you to take deductibles for dependents from your income tax. IRS doesn't care whether you are married or not.

quote:

do not restrict the freedoms for a couple that wants to be together but not have children.

Your just saying that because you want to be together one day with your friend Billy. Billy Goat.

quote:

in this way it would be no difference from a married hetro couple without children, and a homo couple without children. Which would make it totally fair and still support your population growth theories.

Its not the financial impact I am against in gay marriage. I don't think the gays will "steal" money meant to go to children. I am against the social ramifications of their choice of action.

quote:

I dont get what you are trying to say here, please explain a bit further

If you don't get it, it probably doesn't matter

quote:

Hmm i dont get why you couldnt grow up in a loving family without having two married parents?

You can, you are just less likely to come out "normal" as if you would have live in a family with two married parents. There have actually been many studies to prove this, typically how it relates to poverty though.

You can Opus it yourself if you want.

quote:

Marriage isnt supposed to be some kind of reward, its supposed to be something for two ppl loveing each other, wanting to take a step further in their relationship and also to make it easier for their daily life!

Actually marriage is supposed to be the stable structure in which to raise children. Thats how it was formed. The only reason we allowed it to be something where two people loved each other is because society through its own darwinism discovered its better for the children when the parents actually love each other than when they do not.

Now people are forgetting why marriage is there in the first place.

Plus, I never heard anybody said "Marriage made my life a whole lot easier!"

quote:

No, problem is they CANT choose to get married, since they cant get married with the one they love! That is such a stupid argument, really, it is by no mean just to dump that guy that you love over everything else, and then get some new wife, that you have no interest for :S

Sure. If they can't chose, then they are qualified for marriage. They don't passy the "marriage" test. Historically the gayest of the societies, i.e. the Greeks would always take on a women wife despite having butt-sex all day with the guys. This is how all gay societies have been historically, you would never marry your male-lover. That'd just be something to do to get your wife made at you.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.