|
|
Post by speedbump on Jul 2, 2008 15:43:51 GMT -5
They can't get married to someone else of the same sex, which is kind of the issue. "You gain +10 to nit picking" So there's no civil rights violations right? They can get married just like straight people, right? I think you're trying to make a point that isn't really valid. If you're saying that there is no civil rights issue because a man can marry a woman, and this also applies to gay men or women, then you are ignoring the civil rights issue that a man cannot marry another man. |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 2, 2008 15:46:09 GMT -5
I think you're trying to make a point that isn't really valid. If you're saying that there is no civil rights issue because a man can marry a woman, and this also applies to gay men or women, then you are ignoring the civil rights issue that a man cannot marry another man. No, they have the same rights as straight people. They can still get married. Your point is that they cannot marry another person of the same sex and claim that that is a civil rights violation. It's not. No matter how hard you wish for it to be a civil rights violation it really isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Jul 2, 2008 15:58:36 GMT -5
I think you're trying to make a point that isn't really valid. If you're saying that there is no civil rights issue because a man can marry a woman, and this also applies to gay men or women, then you are ignoring the civil rights issue that a man cannot marry another man. No, they have the same rights as straight people. They can still get married. Your point is that they cannot marry another person of the same sex and claim that that is a civil rights violation. It's not. No matter how hard you wish for it to be a civil rights violation it really isn't. So, the two states that legalized same sex marriage, did so for what reason? To change things up? Or did they do it because it was found unconstitutional to ban same sex marriages? Protip: It's the latter |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 2, 2008 16:01:34 GMT -5
If it becomes legal for a man to marry another man, then it should also be legal for a man to marry a horse, a tree, a house, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Jul 2, 2008 16:07:12 GMT -5
If it becomes legal for a man to marry another man, then it should also be legal for a man to marry a horse, a tree, a house, etc. Except the constitution doesn't guarantee rights to any of those things. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 2, 2008 16:15:30 GMT -5
If it becomes legal for a man to marry another man, then it should also be legal for a man to marry a horse, a tree, a house, etc. Except the constitution doesn't guarantee rights to any of those things. It's all in the definition. To me, a civil union between a man and a woman = marriage. A civil union between a man and man = a civil union. |
|
|
|
Post by internkylebusch on Jul 2, 2008 16:18:29 GMT -5
Moderate! I can to either side. There's things I'm liberal about and there's things I'm conservative about. I'm in the middle. I'm labling myself as Moderate for those reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Jul 2, 2008 16:21:03 GMT -5
Except the constitution doesn't guarantee rights to any of those things. It's all in the definition. To me, a civil union between a man and a woman = marriage. A civil union between a man and man = a civil union. Personal opinion is fine, I'm just saying what the courts decided. |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 2, 2008 16:47:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Jul 2, 2008 17:55:35 GMT -5
No, it's not. "On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled that excluding same-sex couples from marriage is unconstitutional, effectively creating same-sex marriage in California." |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 2, 2008 18:07:47 GMT -5
Based not on logic but on emotion.
Using the California Supreme Court as a litmus test of civil rights is like getting guitar playing advice from C.C. Deville.
There is no logical reason for same sex marriage. There are no civil rights being violated. It's another case of modern politicians usurping the will of the people by legislating from the bench rather than through the legislative branch as the founding fathers, who would be rolling in their graves, set up so perfectly.
*cue the overplayed and mis-used "the founding fathers had slaves" argument*
|
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 2, 2008 18:09:36 GMT -5
Californians have already voted once, in 2000, to reaffirm the 1977 state law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. The 2000 initiative, Proposition 22, was not a constitutional amendment.
|
|
oldsquid
Eric Zane's huge nose
Posts: 48
|
Post by oldsquid on Jul 2, 2008 18:12:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by providencecrow on Jul 2, 2008 18:31:47 GMT -5
Worst poll/quiz ever. Take this one for example: controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Government should do neither, which is not an option. Or how about this one: the rich are too highly taxed. How about EVERYONE is too highly taxed. Hell this country was founded on "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" and we existed for many years without an income tax, but our over inflated and bloated government now has made that completely not an option, so we screwed ourself. And here is a doozy of an example of tricky wording right here "a significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system." Of course that is an advantage of a one-party state, but its a disadvantage to society overall. I took the test and im absolutely near no-one. I'm way down on the southern portion of the graph, and slightly to the right, which has no people in that quadrant at all in the international chart, and only friedman in th eone chart and hes way right and not very south, im like the juxtaposition of him. Conclusion, this poll sucks, and i rule, apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Jul 2, 2008 18:33:10 GMT -5
Based not on logic but on emotion. Using the California Supreme Court as a litmus test of civil rights is like getting guitar playing advice from C.C. Deville. There is no logical reason for same sex marriage. There are no civil rights being violated. It's another case of modern politicians usurping the will of the people by legislating from the bench rather than through the legislative branch as the founding fathers, who would be rolling in their graves, set up so perfectly. *cue the overplayed and mis-used "the founding fathers had slaves" argument* How is their no logical reason? Should two people be denied a right to secular marriage just because they are of the same sex? It doesn't hurt YOU in any way, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. Almost all religions ban same sex marriages, and that is their right, but the first amendment of the constitution gives people the right to religious freedom, or the right to none at all. They shouldn't be held back by religious laws. |
|
|
|
Post by providencecrow on Jul 2, 2008 18:36:39 GMT -5
How is their no logical reason? Should two people be denied a right to secular marriage just because they are of the same sex? It doesn't hurt YOU in any way, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. Almost all religions ban same sex marriages, and that is their right, but the first amendment of the constitution gives people the right to religious freedom, or the right to none at all. They shouldn't be held back by religious laws. EXALT! Last time i checked you do not need a religious figure to get married, you can do it at the courthouse, have it done by the mayor, or even by elvis if you go to las vegas. Who cares if elvis is marrying two dudes together? It's all just a giant tax scam anyway. Edit: I apparently already used my exalt and totally forgot about it..damn short term mem....whats it called again? |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 2, 2008 18:43:26 GMT -5
[ How is their no logical reason? Should two people be denied a right to secular marriage just because they are of the same sex? It doesn't hurt YOU in any way, so I don't see why you have a problem with it. Almost all religions ban same sex marriages, and that is their right, but the first amendment of the constitution gives people the right to religious freedom, or the right to none at all. They shouldn't be held back by religious laws. So what you are saying is that it isn't fair that they can't marry who they want to marry, correct? |
|
|
|
Post by providencecrow on Jul 2, 2008 18:52:26 GMT -5
So what you are saying is that it isn't fair that they can't marry who they want to marry, correct? Even if he isn't saying it. I am. Age limits are one thing because that affects everyone. You say "You cant get married under age 18", that affects everyone regardless of religion, race, sexual preference, etc... and that is one thing. But to say "Hey jim, yo ucant marry joe because youre dudes, and even though you are in love with each other and are in a very very committed relationship, sorry cant do it. I know that there is no official religion in this country, but we still hold true to our laws based in Christianity and say you can't be married because the bible forbids it. No i don't care that we are singling you out as a group even though you contribute to society and what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is none of my business, but think about it, if we let men and men marry and women and women marry, then where do we stop, how long before a man marries a horse!!!!!11111oneoneoneone" It's stupid, regardless of orientation we all are the same species so how the hell is it even remotely okay for us to legislate that one group of people is "normal" and can do something and another group of people isnt, so they cant do the same thing even though on the genetic level they are the same. (yes i know a direct DNA compare would be different that wasnt my point you nitpickers) This is why government should do nothing other than take care of a voluntary, defensive only army, regulate the currency, and take care of criminals that actually directly cause harm to people. None of which our government is currently doing, so it looks like we are batting 1000 here. |
|
|
|
Post by speedbump on Jul 2, 2008 19:28:27 GMT -5
Obviously that's what you want me to be saying, I'm sure you have some very intelligent response waiting in the wings.
I think what providencecow said is more than sufficient of a response.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 3, 2008 6:39:17 GMT -5
Here is what it boils down to and why it is an emotional argument.
Homosexuality is a sexual act or a sexual desire. Homosexuals want to change fundamental societal laws that have been in place around the world for thousands of years because of a sexual act or desire. There is no logic in that.
Secondly, there are a lot of people who cannot marry who they want. Polygamists are a fine example. What if first cousins wanted to marry? Why should they be excluded? What if an 18 year old son wanted to marry his mother? What if a brother and sister wanted to marry each other?
Homosexuals CAN GET MARRIED! There are no civil rights being violated. Marriage was defined by the voters of California and, in what is now a far too common and disgusting practice, the courts are being manipulated.
You cannot sit there with a straight look on your face and tell me that civil rights are being violated. You want to think they are but that's just you using emotion rather than logic.
I'm sorry, you and the rest of the pro-same sex marriage crowd continue to be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by providencecrow on Jul 3, 2008 17:04:23 GMT -5
Secondly, there are a lot of people who cannot marry who they want. Polygamists are a fine example. What if first cousins wanted to marry? Why should they be excluded? What if an 18 year old son wanted to marry his mother? What if a brother and sister wanted to marry each other? Polygamy should be legal too, seriously, it does not affect anyone's life except those involved in any way what so ever, so why stop them? Why should the government step in and tell people how to live their lives? They aren't our parents. As for all the inbreeding you bring up, there actually is a medical reason that should not be done. Inbreeding increases chances of all sorts of genetic defects. I mean i don't care, if a brother and sister want to have some two headed babies, thats their business, but at least there is logic behind that particular law. There is no logic in saying it will change societal structure or anything like that. Hell, gay marriage is legal in a other countries, and they havn't crumbled to the ground and died out due to not enough of us "normies" procreating. Case in point, the fact that two hot lesbians are wife and wife as opposed to girlfriend and girlfriend doesn't affect anyone at all. If they want a marriage license and all of the tax changes that come along with being married, i say let them. They aren't bothering me one bit. |
|
|
|
Post by The Biff Lebowski on Jul 3, 2008 18:35:23 GMT -5
If medical reasons are logical, then what about all the health issue concerns with male to male sex?
|
|
|
|
Post by providencecrow on Jul 3, 2008 19:01:40 GMT -5
If medical reasons are logical, then what about all the health issue concerns with male to male sex? Self inflicted by consent. Having a crazy inbred retard baby is forcing the bad stuff on someone else (the child). See how this works? If it causes direct harm to a third party there is a problem. If it is self inflicted by consent, no problem. for example, I smoke, i did it by choice, and i know the consequences. It is self inflicted, and therefore i would be substantially pissed if they made tobacco illegal. I was mad when they outlawed smoking indoors here in jersey, but i didnt cause too much of a stink because in those situations i am directly affecting someone else. That was my point initially. Two gay people getting married does not directly affect third parties, so what is the problem? |
|
hotsauce
Bob and Tom's fake laughing
Posts: 39
|
Post by hotsauce on Jul 4, 2008 14:44:34 GMT -5
There is a problem because God made Adam and Eve and told them to go forth and multiply. Adam and Steve can not multiply. They have to borrow from someone else. So in effect it does affect the world.
|
|
boizalynne
Intern
Look at that effing tongue
Coolest-Person-EVER
Posts: 4
|
Post by boizalynne on Jul 4, 2008 21:16:42 GMT -5
I'm an independent. I refuse to label myself! Sorry but Robin Hood takes from the rich and gives to the poor.....that's a Democrat LOL!!! |
|
|
|
Post by providencecrow on Jul 5, 2008 10:56:54 GMT -5
There is a problem because God made Adam and Eve and told them to go forth and multiply. Adam and Steve can not multiply. They have to borrow from someone else. So in effect it does affect the world. Yeah because we don't have population concerns in parts of the world and we should all be pumping out as many kids as we possibly can. That's a great idea. |
|
hotsauce
Bob and Tom's fake laughing
Posts: 39
|
Post by hotsauce on Jul 6, 2008 16:07:03 GMT -5
I'm not saying have as many kids as possible. I'm just saying it isn't natural for two men or two women to be together because they cannot propagate the species as God mandated, We do have overcrowding issues in many parts of the world. Homosexuality is not a way to fix those issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by providencecrow on Jul 6, 2008 21:45:33 GMT -5
I'm not saying have as many kids as possible. I'm just saying it isn't natural for two men or two women to be together because they cannot propagate the species as God mandated, We do have overcrowding issues in many parts of the world. Homosexuality is not a way to fix those issues. So then you're saying that the only purpose of marriage is to have kids? Because really i'm lost on this whole argument. If a gay couple want to get the government involved in their relationship, i really don't see why there is any issue. So they can't reproduce? big deal, there are heterosexual married couples out there that also can't reproduce for one reason or another. Just let em be. I mean seriously, if all men are created equal as our famous documents so state, then why shouldnt gay couples get the liberty of having the government involved in their relationships and changing their taxes around like the rest of us? |
|
oldsquid
Eric Zane's huge nose
Posts: 48
|
Post by oldsquid on Jul 7, 2008 19:12:50 GMT -5
There is a problem because God made Adam and Eve and told them to go forth and multiply. Adam and Steve can not multiply. They have to borrow from someone else. So in effect it does affect the world. Which is the issue...separation of church and state. In a religion, two or more consenting adults should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation. |
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Jul 23, 2008 17:38:01 GMT -5
I guess I'm a liberal because I believe the market is a phenomenon that can be bent and twisted to benefit those in power, not an all-knowing, all-seeing deity who can solve all our problems.
|
|
