|
Calif. Top Court Annuls San Francisco Gay Marriages (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Matt |
gay marriages aren't legal yet?
wtf is taking so damn long... sheesh, I thought we already determined gay marriage isn't a big ing deal. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
gay marriage isn't
the institution of marriage is. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cyrus King
wow.. im even more surprised at how much ignorance is spewed here
I cant believe people still preach relgious bull in this day and age.. for s sake
religion is truly a disease of the mind |
why do you remind us all the time you have no moral fiber? we get it. |
|
|
| mongeone |
| why do people care if gay people are married? How does it directly affect them? |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by torontotrance
but I'll never recognize it. |
That's the beuty of it, you don't have to regognise it. If your religion states that their marriage is invalid that's fine -- you don't have to view it as valid; just don't try and stop them from doing it in the first place.
| quote: | Originally posted by mongeone
why do people care if gay people are married? How does it directly affect them? |
They usually end up being Christians who want to impose their religion on everyone else, people who hate gays because they're gay, or individuals who seem a little bit too interested in the sex lives of others. :p
Now and then you'll get someone who actually puts forward a serious arugment (Yoepus and Diginut are two examples), but it's a rarity.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
the institution of marriage is. |
Please explain what you mean by 'the instution of marriage'. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
why? your not stupid. you know exactly what it is. ask your parents to explain what the institution of marriage is.
why is this a big deal now? weren't there gay people back in, say 1985? was never an issue then. they had the same opportunities that ALL people have now, insurance, head of household, power of attorney, living wills ect.
what i'm getting at is they found a cause and that cause is based soley on the idea that they are being discriminated against. that is what i disagree with. changing the definition of marriage to suit that need is wrong IMO. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
And with that, the governer of New Jersey just had a coming party on TV to announce that he was gay, had had a gay affair behind his wife's back, and is therefore resigning effective November 15th. |
Makes a lot of sense. After all the sexual orientation and sexual encounters of a government official are what dictates his ability at doing his job. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Makes a lot of sense. After all the sexual orientation and sexual encounters of a government official are what dictates his ability at doing his job. |
i ge the impression that your being fecitious.
you have no idea whats going on here and what is about to unfold. it's not your fault, a lot of people don't.
sit back, follow the story and check your sarcasm for now. just some friendly advice:) |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Makes a lot of sense. After all the sexual orientation and sexual encounters of a government official are what dictates his ability at doing his job. |
Exactly my thoughts.
Q5echo please explain for us who don't understand what's going on then :rolleyes:
Everytime i see a thread like this, i'm supriced by how anti gay people are in america... |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
why? your not stupid. you know exactly what it is. ask your parents to explain what the institution of marriage is. |
No, I don't know exactly what it is. Do you mean marriage as it is now in some US states, or are you referring to other forms of marriage that have been in place in the past? Are you perhaps referring to a specific religion's understanding of what marriage is, or even the 'institutions' in place in countries that do allow gay marriages?
| quote: | | why is this a big deal now? |
Because social justice takes time. You could have leveled the same criticism when African Americans were fighting for their civil rights -- it doesn't make the cause at hand any less valid.
| quote: | | weren't there gay people back in, say 1985? was never an issue then. |
Just to add to what I said above, they no doubt had other obstacles to overcome. Keep in mind that prejudice towards gays was worse back then -- marriage may not have seemed like an achievable aim, but who knows -- maybe it was an issue back then, but simply failed to get any media attention.
| quote: | | they had the same opportunities that ALL people have now, insurance, head of household, power of attorney, living wills ect. |
Not really, There are still numerous benefits that they are denied. Religioustolerance .org has a good page on it if you’ve got time to look.
| quote: | | what i'm getting at is they found a cause and that cause is based soley on the idea that they are being discriminated against. |
Yes, and the problem with that is? They certainly do appear to be suffering discrimination.
| quote: | | that is what i disagree with. |
Okay, why? Why shouldn't we fight discrimination?
| quote: | | changing the definition of marriage to suit that need is wrong IMO. |
I take it that you support making inter-racial marriage illegal again then? After all, after we 'changed the definition of marriage' to allow white people to marry black people, the moral fiber of the world has all-but collapsed! Likewise when we radically changed the definition of marriage to mean that women weren't property of their husbands. After we changed the institution, we had these women who had the audacity to suggest that if their husband was beating them, they should be allowed to divorce him! We've been re-defining marriage ever since the word 'marriage' first appeared, so don't act as if it's something new.
FYI, you might want to pick up a recent dictionary, as same-sex marriages are in fact listed as a valid definition under the word 'marriage'. You're going to have to do better than an 'argument from the dictionary' I’m afraid. |
|
|
| arctic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
you have no idea whats going on here and what is about to unfold. it's not your fault, a lot of people don't. |
Then perhaps you could enlighten us, instead of simply asserting that we have 'no idea what's going on'. Explain why we apparently have no idea what’s going on.
| quote: | | sit back, follow the story and check your sarcasm for now. just some friendly advice:) |
He's no doubt already following the story, but why should he check the sarcasm? it was bitingly accurate if you ask me -- his sexual relationships don't have anything to do with how well he performs his job. If you disagree, great -- actually argue the point instead of dishing out unhelpful 'friendly advice'. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
so you know, Mcgreedy's situation is not about being gay. thats a total front.
quick
Mcgreedy is the subject of federal investigations that involve extortion, campaign finance fraud, money laundering not including his relationship with an Israeli intel officer (lover) that he put on the payroll illegaly to the tune of $110,000 a year at the expence of the taxpayers of New Jersey.
my appologies for ruffling some feathers about having "no idea", but honestly, you didn't. shame on me for calling out your shortsided quips about him being gay, but in truth, this isn't about his sexuality. although, thats was the reason he gave for pre-emption:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
