|
California's top court legalizes gay marriage (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MR STROKE |
WOW, some people are so closed minded. Had an argument with everyone at work and of course everyone gives the same damn response?
"its not right"
"should we legalize people getting married to there pets now too"
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by MR STROKE
WOW, some people are so closed minded. Had an argument with everyone at work and of course everyone gives the same damn response?
"its not right"
"should we legalize people getting married to there pets now too"
:rolleyes: |
Yes, gay marriage will inevitably lead to the demise of marriage, just as inter-class, and inter-racial marriages did. In fact, once gays are allowed to marry, dinosaurs and Nazis will roam the Earth.
Who the hell are your coworkers? They belong on an island so they can slowly kill each other. I bet they're ugly too. |
|
|
| mobius9 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
Yes, gay marriage will inevitably lead to the demise of marriage, just as inter-class, and inter-racial marriages did. In fact, once gays are allowed to marry, dinosaurs and Nazis will roam the Earth.
Who the hell are your coworkers? They belong on an island so they can slowly kill each other. I bet they're ugly too. |
Jake Benson, you're extremely angry about this subject. What if three people are all in love with each other? Like gays, they all get fulfillment from a relationship like this and aren't hurting anyone.
The issue of gay marriage is as much of a moral stimulus for them as it is a moral decline for the pro hetero people. I don't think you'll find that the majority of them are doing it for legal or occupational benefits. If you're going to legalize gay marriage, how can you discriminate against everyone else? Why would something like this be wrong? If your answer is because it is between "2" people, then that is just as discriminative as between a "man" and a "woman".
Maybe its just me, but I think the gay community as a whole is looking to elevate their social acceptance on a level with heterosexuals and then slam the door on everyone else. Just my opinion. |
|
|
| naeblis |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
Jake Benson, you're extremely angry about this subject. What if three people are all in love with each other? Like gays, they all get fulfillment from a relationship like this and aren't hurting anyone.
The issue of gay marriage is as much of a moral stimulus for them as it is a moral decline for the pro hetero people. I don't think you'll find that the majority of them are doing it for legal or occupational benefits. If you're going to legalize gay marriage, how can you discriminate against everyone else? Why would something like this be wrong? If your answer is because it is between "2" people, then that is just as discriminative as between a "man" and a "woman".
Maybe its just me, but I think the gay community as a whole is looking to elevate their social acceptance on a level with heterosexuals and then slam the door on everyone else. Just my opinion. |
agreed. If that is the case, why even have a marriage. One way or another you are discriminating against some sort of group.
I think it's also a sham that anyone who would like to keep a traditional view of marriage, is looked at as discriminative, heartless, blind, and close minded. It sucks. |
|
|
| nerdgrl416 |
| quote: | Originally posted by naeblis
agreed. If that is the case, why even have a marriage. One way or another you are discriminating against some sort of group.
I think it's also a sham that anyone who would like to keep a traditional view of marriage, is looked at as discriminative, heartless, blind, and close minded. It sucks. |
Why would one want to keep marriage traditional in the first place? Does gay marriage affect a heterosexual?
Although I agree not to discriminate, how would gay marriage be discriminative? Someone enlighten me. |
|
|
| |Thrax| |
| quote: | Originally posted by naeblis
agreed. If that is the case, why even have a marriage. One way or another you are discriminating against some sort of group.
I think it's also a sham that anyone who would like to keep a traditional view of marriage, is looked at as discriminative, heartless, blind, and close minded. It sucks. |
"you mean I can only sleep with ONE PERSON for my ENTIRE life?"
-old school (paraphrased) |
|
|
| Ronald Ravin' |
| It's about time. I'll have so much fun voting no on the amendment. Everyone get out there on election day! |
|
|
| diggerz |
| quote: | Originally posted by R!CH
there are a lot of laws and institutions in this country that are blatantly unconstitutional. drug laws are amongst the worst. the history of every drug law in this country is grounded in racism and discrimination and has nothing to do with public health and safety. the marihuana tax act was designed to push mexican migrant workers out of the south and protect tobacco. the controlled substances act basically took the power to regulate drugs out of the hands of congress and into the hands of an illegal institution known as the dea. the dea has the power to ban any drug for any reason whether it's true or not. |
:thepirate True
...Not to mention the incredible loss pharmaceutical companies would face because people have "discovered" a better, more efficient, and natural substitute.
...As for gay marriage, I could care less. |
|
|
| mobius9 |
| quote: | Originally posted by nerdgrl416
Why would one want to keep marriage traditional in the first place? Does gay marriage affect a heterosexual?
Although I agree not to discriminate, how would gay marriage be discriminative? Someone enlighten me. |
The issue of discrimination I'm presenting is that it alters the current definition of marriage, based on child birth and reproduction, and changes it to be focused on satisfaction in a relationship (among any sex combination). My point is that, if you are going to classify marriage based on happiness, and throw out the requirement of gender, how can you keep the limitation on the number of people involved in a marriage without that being classified as discrimination.
Don't overlook the population of swingers and group sex oriented people. This article estimates that there are over 3 million in the United States: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ow/1797746.cms. (simply the quickest reference I could find. There are a LOT of people in the category. Possibly even more than the gay community.) This is in relation to the current representation of about 1-2% of average national population that represents themself as gay, from multiple print sources I've read who repost their data around the internet.
Here is something out of the Seattle Times that can show why this issue is so prevalent in California, and why it is so highly supported in California. California is VERY gay friendly.
Back in relation to the swingers - whats to say they they won't sound the battle cry if the gay legislation passes? This could later turn into a nightmare for US customs and immigration having to deal with birthright or existing citizens marrying obscene amounts of foreigners. I don't have any sort of problem with gay people, and I don't think I need to defend myself in relation to that. The fact that the supreme court is letting this happen is going to lead to a legal nightmare. |
|
|
| nerdgrl416 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
The issue of discrimination I'm presenting is that it alters the current definition of marriage, based on child birth and reproduction, and changes it to be focused on satisfaction in a relationship (among any sex combination). My point is that, if you are going to classify marriage based on happiness, and throw out the requirement of gender, how can you keep the limitation on the number of people involved in a marriage without that being classified as discrimination.
Don't overlook the population of swingers and group sex oriented people. This article estimates that there are over 3 million in the United States: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ow/1797746.cms. (simply the quickest reference I could find. There are a LOT of people in the category. Possibly even more than the gay community.) This is in relation to the current representation of about 1-2% of average national population that represents themself as gay, from multiple print sources I've read who repost their data around the internet.
Here is something out of the Seattle Times that can show why this issue is so prevalent in California, and why it is so highly supported in California. California is VERY gay friendly.
Back in relation to the swingers - whats to say they they won't sound the battle cry if the gay legislation passes? This could later turn into a nightmare for US customs and immigration having to deal with birthright or existing citizens marrying obscene amounts of foreigners. I don't have any sort of problem with gay people, and I don't think I need to defend myself in relation to that. The fact that the supreme court is letting this happen is going to lead to a legal nightmare. |
Swingers? Now that is a bit out there. I really don't think that gay marriage will lead to swingers/polygamist demanding the right to marry. Marriage has always been between two people. No doubt about that. Gay marriage will just make it gender neutral at the clerk recorder's office. I suppose it is a far fetched possibility that people with alternative lifestyles other than LGBT will demand the right to marry more than one person, but that will never fly imo. Being a swinger is considered more of a lifestyle as opposed to being gay which imo is not. You're born with it. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
The issue of discrimination I'm presenting is that it alters the current definition of marriage, based on child birth and reproduction, and changes it to be focused on satisfaction in a relationship (among any sex combination). My point is that, if you are going to classify marriage based on happiness, and throw out the requirement of gender, how can you keep the limitation on the number of people involved in a marriage without that being classified as discrimination.
Don't overlook the population of swingers and group sex oriented people. This article estimates that there are over 3 million in the United States: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ow/1797746.cms. (simply the quickest reference I could find. There are a LOT of people in the category. Possibly even more than the gay community.) This is in relation to the current representation of about 1-2% of average national population that represents themself as gay, from multiple print sources I've read who repost their data around the internet.
Here is something out of the Seattle Times that can show why this issue is so prevalent in California, and why it is so highly supported in California. California is VERY gay friendly.
Back in relation to the swingers - whats to say they they won't sound the battle cry if the gay legislation passes? This could later turn into a nightmare for US customs and immigration having to deal with birthright or existing citizens marrying obscene amounts of foreigners. I don't have any sort of problem with gay people, and I don't think I need to defend myself in relation to that. The fact that the supreme court is letting this happen is going to lead to a legal nightmare. |
Wow... i knew atlanta had alot of gays but not that many since they are only usually in a couple of sections in Atlanta. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
Jake Benson, you're extremely angry about this subject. |
Of course not. I just think that anyone who thinks 2 gays can't married should be locked up in prison or sent out to sea on a raft. What is wrong with that?
| quote: | | What if three people are all in love with each other? Like gays, they all get fulfillment from a relationship like this and aren't hurting anyone. |
Honestly, if it doesn't create a great enough tax break to the point where it seems unequal to the rest of the community, then I would be all for it. What relationship you are in is none of my business.
However gays getting married still adheres to the "two people" marriage, as two inter-racial couples and two-inter-class couples do. So your comparison is flawed. Don't try to compare gays to 3-ways because they're not under the same umbrella. Try again.
| quote: | | The issue of gay marriage is as much of a moral stimulus for them as it is a moral decline for the pro hetero people. I don't think you'll find that the majority of them are doing it for legal or occupational benefits. If you're going to legalize gay marriage, how can you discriminate against everyone else? Why would something like this be wrong? If your answer is because it is between "2" people, then that is just as discriminative as between a "man" and a "woman". |
So according to your argument, gay marriage is as valid as straight marriage. So either legalize them both, or decriminalize them both. Take your pick. I am not here to argue about polygamy, and neither was the topic of the thread. So if you want to discuss the slippery-slope-tangent "if gays, then why not 3-ways, animals, inanimate objects, etc." then create your own thread.
| quote: | | Maybe its just me, but I think the gay community as a whole is looking to elevate their social acceptance on a level with heterosexuals and then slam the door on everyone else. Just my opinion. |
-Gays are focused on their rights, not polygamy. And if anything, they would be more accepting of a 3-way than hetersexuals.
-Do you except black people to look out for Asians, Mexicans to look out for cripples, and Indians to look out for the left handed too?
-When women gained the right to vote, did you complain that they slammed the door on everyone else because they were too selfish to also focus on other civil rights that were "taboo" to varying degrees at the exact same time?
-Gay people push what is the most prominent on their agenda because it's rediculous that they live in a society where they are oppressed from doing certain things for no logical reason.
-And to reiterate, start your own polygamy thread if you are so for it.
Mobius9, maybe it's me, but I think you as a whole are looking to elevate your retardedness. Just my opinion. Actually no I think it's just true. |
|
|
|
|
