View Full Version : California Prop 8 Overturned By Openly Gay Judge
Isn't that nice when the will of the people, by a majority public vote, is overturned by one openly gay judge who disagrees? I'm so very sick of homosexuality being passed as something so huge when less that 3% of the population claims to be one. Let's say that it's 15% (yea, they wish), it's great that the 85% majority is overruled by the 15% minority.
While I personally find homosexuality despicable, I'm a live and let live kind of guy, but when they start getting special rights for BEING gay, that just steams me.
This ranks right up there with "Black Entertainment Television" - why can't we have "White Entertainment Television"? WET, that's an awesome call sign, but it's never going to happen. What's good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander it would seem in all facets, including homosexuality.
[Bang]
[Rant1]
[Rant2]
[M2]
I don't think there should be any laws about it either way.
Eh, to each his own. Its not the fed's place to say who you can and can't marry. If one chooses to take it in the dumper for the rest of his life...that's his problem.
Fuck "tolerance". I'm tired of my sons being told at school that it's okay to take it in the ass. It's not. People are sick. If fags want to be together, we should put them all in california and put a fence around it. Get that freak show crap out of the law books and focus on real problems.
ok, I'm done.
SA Friday
08-04-2010, 21:03
CA prop 8 passed with a 52% against and a 48% for. Hardly a screaming majority.
The ruling will more than likely be appealed to District, and then again to the SC. We will see.
I personally like the idea of the govt staying out of personal affairs like marriage. The less the govt's in everyone's private life, the better.
Troublco
08-04-2010, 21:03
I don't have any problem with what somebody wants to do in the privacy of their own home. However, I go with the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" school of thought. I won't go into all the reasons I feel this way, but I disagree with the whole gay marriage/civil union thing. And I disagree with activist Judges imposing their will over that of the voters, especially one that HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME. Part of me wants to rant like MX'R, but I'll restrain myself.
Once again, the scales of Justice were strapped down before they had a chance to function. The minority goes another step toward getting exactly what they want by any means they can, while spitting in everyone else's face. Different sets of rules for different groups.
[Rant1]
nogaroheli
08-04-2010, 21:14
Isn't that nice when the will of the people, by a majority public vote, is overturned by one openly gay judge who disagrees? I'm so very sick of homosexuality being passed as something so huge when less that 3% of the population claims to be one. Let's say that it's 15% (yea, they wish), it's great that the 85% majority is overruled by the 15% minority.
While I personally find homosexuality despicable, I'm a live and let live kind of guy, but when they start getting special rights for BEING gay, that just steams me.
This ranks right up there with "Black Entertainment Television" - why can't we have "White Entertainment Television"? WET, that's an awesome call sign, but it's never going to happen. What's good for the goose IS NOT good for the gander it would seem in all facets, including homosexuality.
I don't go around flaunting the fact that I like girls, I think they're fantastic, but I don't sing it from the highest mountains. It drives me nuts that every other (or more) TV show has a gay dude on it. I'm tired of having it forced on me in the news, in movies, on TV, etc, that being gay is soo popular and everybody's doing it. Now, since they're being portrayed as having such a great presence, this logical next step of homosexuals having a (overly) powerful political voice just irks me that much more, why can such a small section of society can get stuff passed against the willl of the majority, WTF? I guess that's a growing trend in the US right now, the majority dooesn't want healthcare or half the other crap being forced on us. I guess being a white male I'm just expected to bend over and take it, but I'm starting to get tired of having my voice not listened to while smaller groups get doted on like they're made of gold.
W.E.T.? Not a chance in hell, that's racist
CA prop 8 passed with a 52% against and a 48% for. Hardly a screaming majority.
I didn't say screaming majority, I said it was a majority and if the majority is 1% more than opposition it's still a majority and should stand.
brokenscout
08-04-2010, 21:24
Maybe they'll buy my PT111? This is why I bought land in the mountains.
I don't go around flaunting the fact that I like girls, I think they're fantastic, but I don't sing it from the highest mountains. It drives me nuts that every other (or more) TV show has a gay dude on it. I'm tired of having it forced on me in the news, in movies, on TV, etc, that being gay is soo popular and everybody's doing it. Now, since they're being portrayed as having such a great presence, this logical next step of homosexuals having a (overly) powerful political voice just irks me that much more, why can such a small section of society can get stuff passed against the willl of the majority, WTF? I guess that's a growing trend in the US right now, the majority dooesn't want healthcare or half the other crap being forced on us. I guess being a white male I'm just expected to bend over and take it, but I'm starting to get tired of having my voice not listened to while smaller groups get doted on like they're made of gold.
W.E.T.? Not a chance in hell, that's racist
Amen, brotherman, A-M-E-N! [Mad]
This reminds me so much of don't ask, don't tell, the Army knew that a queer would come under "accidental friendly fire" if the team knew. I'm glad I didn't know, I wouldn't doubt that some I served with were gay but they kept it themselves, kept it in their pants and didn't act like a queen and that's all I could ask for and would happily lay down my life for any one of them.
You know what, I'll lay down my life for the right for some queen to take it in the caboose today too, that's FREEDOM baby, but don't rub my nose in it like being straight is abnormal.
Hitman 6
08-04-2010, 21:41
Haha, "Openly Gay Judge"
Speaking of the brotherhood of Cali Fudge Packers, I'm heading to San Francisco over the weekend, Hopefully won't get raped and murdered by all those sissy lala GAY people. [Flower][BooHoo][Love4][Golf]
(those were they gayest picture things I could find)
What does any of this gay hate have to do with whether there should be a law or not?
I could care less. If it doesn't involve me why should I have any say in the matter? Two dudes want to get married, doesn't hurt me in the slightest, go for it. This should be a non-issue, just more govt regulation on whatever they can attach themselves to.
If it brings a couple of bigoted douchebags a few heartbeats closer to an aneurysm, I'm all for it. Other than that, TS12000 summed it up.
Bailey Guns
08-05-2010, 05:29
We've let the country slide too far over the brink. I don't think it can be saved from liberalism and the future looks bleak for conservative types.
I don't really care about the whole gay marriage thing...but I do care about the activism in the courts. It's about to get worse today with Elena Kagan being confirmed by the senate.
Once again the states-rights premise is weakened by an out-of-control federal government.
Damn Bailey, ya beat me to it. The greater issue isn't how some right winged fuck nut feels he/she has to define "marriage" as spoken in the book their imaginary friend inspired and supposedly wrote, because the uptight jackhats need to keep their pie holes shut just as much as overly vocal libartards (especially either side presiding over a court).. Justice isn't blind any more, hasn't been for far too long.
We desperately need to get back to greater self responsibility and bring on direct democracy.. Mr. Gore's Internet should be letting the people vote and allow us to do some gratuitous culling of the DC herd!
I don't really care about the whole gay marriage thing...but I do care about the activism in the courts.
This.
However, if the majority of Californians voted to ban firearms, and some NRA member judge over turned the ruling, he'd be called an activist judge by the other side. Of course I realize that 2nd Amendment is a right protected by the Constitution, so it isn't a perfect comparison, but the judge would still be demonized like that.
You know, this was more of a rant post than anything else and it's not about gay marriage - I have my objections to it but I respect the will of the people if that's what they want. This is not MY state, so it doesn't affect me directly (although sets a precedent for other states). My problem with this isn't with gays, what they do is their business, it's with the majority vote of the people getting overruled, and overruled by a judge that probably should have removed himself from the case if there was any possibility of bias towards one party or the other.
To be perfectly honest, most of the gay people I know (and in my job I end up knowing quite a few) are some of the nicest and most compassionate people in the world who participate in a lifestyle that doesn't appeal to me. I just get tired of it being so trendy as to appear to be the "in" lifestyle choice and constantly rubbed in everyone's faces.
StagLefty
08-05-2010, 08:04
being gay is soo popular and everybody's doing it.
Whoa Whoa there cowboy !!! (John Wayne voice) [ROFL1]
being gay is soo popular and everybody's doing it.... I guess being a white male I'm just expected to bend over and take it
I see what you did there.... [Beer]
I'm kidding, tasteful edits.
*Stoner voice*: Dude, this thread is so gay.... lol
I was listening to a report about this on NPR this morning. Something someone said bothered me. They were basically saying that they didn't think this would make it passed the supreme court with its current make up. Then some guy said that he didn't think the supreme court would swing that far from public opinion. It kind of disturbed me that people think that is how the supreme court does/should work.
Legislate from the bench...
Whenever I volunteer with Habitat For Humanity, I like when lesbians show up. They are twice the worker than any of the high school kids or other groups that show up to volunteer and just mess around all day. heh
My problem with this isn't with gays, what they do is their business, it's with the majority vote of the people getting overruled, and overruled by a judge that probably should have removed himself from the case if there was any possibility of bias towards one party or the other.
What possibility for bias was there? That he is gay? Wouldn't that also mean a straight judge would have to remove himself from the case? Everyone has bias, the best we can hope for is that the guy tries to look at it objectively. If you read the decision (I didn't read the whole thing, admittedly) he's not really saying "OMG you breeders are such brutes! We're gay and proud, let us marry!"
What possibility for bias was there? That he is gay? Wouldn't that also mean a straight judge would have to remove himself from the case?
The bias IS that, yes, he is gay. And I see your point about if he were straight then that's a bias as well. However, you have to weigh this in with what is "average" (I was going to say normal but that would be mis-interpreted). On average marriage is between a man and a woman, but in this case they are trying to change the average, and he is on the "activist" side of the case.
The same would ring true if a Hispanic judge were to sit in ruling of a case where Hispanics gain some significant new right. If it were a black judge, there's no pony in the race. If it's a white judge then there is a high likelihood there is no pony in the race, but perhaps there might be.
I completely understand your point but I believe there is a difference in THIS case if a gay judge ruled on an appeal from the community that he is a part of. Who is to say that he wasn't for prop 8 to start with? Nobody, but any chance of impropriety has to be brought into question. In my experience, at least, it is more likely a gay person will be PRO gay than it is that a straight person will be ANTI gay.
All of this being said, he did the right thing by postponing his ruling pending the appeal. Perhaps he knew that there was possibility for bias in this case and by postponing the ruling he was appeasing both sides to some degree.
Whenever I volunteer with Habitat For Humanity, I like when lesbians show up. They are twice the worker than any of the high school kids or other groups that show up to volunteer and just mess around all day. heh
unfortunately, I find a lot of truth in this statement. I also notice this.
What's unfortunate about a woman that can effectively swing a hammer?
Unfortunate in the fact that out of the thousands of people that partake, only a select few actually do the work.
Not all the people are bad. It's just that when you get a bunch of high school kids together, they tend to take breaks together, every 20 minutes. heh.
DeusExMachina
08-05-2010, 10:34
While I personally find homosexuality despicable, I'm a live and let live kind of guy, but when they start getting special rights for BEING gay, that just steams me.
I WISH that only gays could marry. Then women wouldn't bug me about it.
I WISH that only gays could marry. Then women wouldn't bug me about it.
Is this a big problem for you, far too many women chasing you with marriage goggles on? :)
Byte Stryke
08-05-2010, 10:50
I'm not even going to get into the hate.
I'm only going to say that I Defend everyone's right to their opinion and their freedom of speech.
Regardless of how fucked up, narrow minded and ignorant it might be.
You folks have a great day!
Hitman6:
Since when is Golf Gay?
I'm Hurt :(
Yeah, I want to know why Roger thinks that jogging is girly (from another thread).
SA Friday
08-05-2010, 10:57
The bias IS that, yes, he is gay. And I see your point about if he were straight then that's a bias as well. However, you have to weigh this in with what is "average" (I was going to say normal but that would be mis-interpreted). On average marriage is between a man and a woman, but in this case they are trying to change the average, and he is on the "activist" side of the case.
The same would ring true if a Hispanic judge were to sit in ruling of a case where Hispanics gain some significant new right. If it were a black judge, there's no pony in the race. If it's a white judge then there is a high likelihood there is no pony in the race, but perhaps there might be.
I completely understand your point but I believe there is a difference in THIS case if a gay judge ruled on an appeal from the community that he is a part of. Who is to say that he wasn't for prop 8 to start with? Nobody, but any chance of impropriety has to be brought into question. In my experience, at least, it is more likely a gay person will be PRO gay than it is that a straight person will be ANTI gay.
All of this being said, he did the right thing by postponing his ruling pending the appeal. Perhaps he knew that there was possibility for bias in this case and by postponing the ruling he was appeasing both sides to some degree.
I've really been trying hard to stay out of this thread, but damn... Seriously, Ranger? By your premise, no judge should ever be allowed to make a ruling on anthing, ever. If I was a judge, I'm pretty sure I would have to recuse myself from any criminal case for sure, because I'm anti-murder, anti-rape, anti-robbery... If a gay judge can't rule against prop 8, then a straight judge can't rule for it. So, a judge can only rule against their actual perceived bias to appear non bias.
This is not a democracy. This is a federalist government. Sometimes doing the right thing means the majority is wrong. If we did everything the majority wanted, we would still have white schools and black schools and white bathrooms and black bathrooms. At one point, the 2nd ammendment could have been repealed with that kind of thinking.
He's postponing the ruling because both sides have voiced appeal desires. This is standard practice. Ever wonder why after CU lost their recent conceal carry case CU student's still couldn't carry. The process for CU to appeal hadn't been determined yet. Same thing.
Byte Stryke
08-05-2010, 10:59
Awww Jees...
Anyone want to buy my right handed, Pink, Calloways?
Matching Nike "Tiger's Bitch" Bag
FTF only ;)
/joke
Seriously, Ranger?
Yes, seriously. You have your opinion on the matter and I have mine.
nogaroheli
08-05-2010, 11:39
[quote=SA Friday;227845]Sometimes doing the right thing means the majority is wrong.
quote]
I'm having a tough time with this in this instance. The long lived definition of marriage was "wrong"?
Marriage has up until now meant a union between a man and woman. Nothing wrong with that right? Now this appointed judge wants to change the meaning of that word to include homosexual unions. Now, why does that meaning have to change? I really don't care what two dudes do, why they do it, what they call it, but why is it so important to call it marriage? Call it a Civil Union, call it Vuvuzela Spectacular or whatever you want, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of the govenment feeling they need to redefine the meening of the word. It's a slippery slope.
As long as the state has control of marriage, then they will be involved in who's allowed to do it. As someone else said already, the state being involved in marriage is bullshit to begin with.
call it Vuvuzela Spectacular or whatever you want,
+5 for the musical reference.
My thoughts (go ahead and flame away, I can take it.)
IMO:
1. being homosexual is perverse, wrong, and unnatural
HOWEVER:
2. I will hate the sin but love the sinner. I have a gay friend and he knows how I feel about his lifestyle but also that I'll do anything I can to show him the mercy and grace of God.
THIS IS WHERE IT GETS GREY:
3. I believe the defiinition of marriage is between one man and one woman as laid out in my Bible, upon which I believe is the fundamental truth of everything.
3a. If they (gay people) want to get married, then let them. I personally won't recognize their marriage but if the government does, then let them be able to get teh same benefits and pay the same taxes.
4. I just think in 50 years when this is the norm, that marriage/monogomus relationships/etc will be on the verge of extinction as almost everyone succumbs to popular culture whether in thought or actions.
ChunkyMonkey
08-05-2010, 11:49
the state being involved in marriage is bullshit to begin with.
THIS + stop state/fed fundings to shit like abortion, biased education programs, and any other private citizens' circumstances.
Fed needs to stick to foreign affair and nation security.
THIS + stop state/fed fundings to shit like abortion, biased education programs, and any other private citizens' circumstances.
Fed needs to stick to foreign affair and nation security.
Hold thread! Question about that.
Why DOES the state/fed fund abortion? They don't fund sperm banks or whatever do they? Isn't this what health coverage is for?
It's the individual's problem that they got pregnant, they should get themselves out of it.... Rape victims, etc excluded.
I just never understood that. Can anyone explain?
The problem I have with gays, and more generally liberals is their hypocritical point of view. Their notion of tolerance does not "swing both ways"
If the overturn stands, I predict that within a few years there will be a suit brought in CA against the LDS church.
They will claim that the church is violating the law by not allowing gay marriage in it's buildings, and demand the church's tax free status be revoked.
In this aspect gays are a lot like illegal immigrants.
They claim they just want to live the american dream and be happy like everyone else.
In reality they want everyone to conform to their own minority viewpoint, or else.
SA Friday
08-05-2010, 11:56
[quote=SA Friday;227845]Sometimes doing the right thing means the majority is wrong.
quote]
I'm having a tough time with this in this instance. The long lived definition of marriage was "wrong"?
Marriage has up until now meant a union between a man and woman. Nothing wrong with that right? Now this appointed judge wants to change the meaning of that word to include homosexual unions. Now, why does that meaning have to change? I really don't care what two dudes do, why they do it, what they call it, but why is it so important to call it marriage? Call it a Civil Union, call it Vuvuzela Spectacular or whatever you want, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of the govenment feeling they need to redefine the meening of the word. It's a slippery slope.
I have to agree. Marriage has been a hetrogeneous union historically. I also agree allowing for a secondary category, civil union, would be appropriate. I don't think this issue requires redefining the word marriage in any way.
I do think taking a stance that the majority should rule, always, is just as slippery a slope. This is what I was addressing in my previous comments, not advocating for redefinition.
Marriage has up until now meant a union between a man and woman. ...Now, why does that meaning have to change? I really don't care what two dudes do, why they do it, what they call it, but why is it so important to call it marriage? Call it a Civil Union, call it Vuvuzela Spectacular or whatever you want, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of the govenment feeling they need to redefine the meening of the word. It's a slippery slope.
Bottom line from all the arguements I've heard: They feel that anything less than a gay "marriage" is subpar and they are not recognized as equal citizens with straight people... or something like that.
SA Friday
08-05-2010, 12:18
Bottom line from all the arguements I've heard: They feel that anything less than a gay "marriage" is subpar and they are not recognized as equal citizens with straight people... or something like that.
I think they just want the same legal abilities moreso than the word itself.
HBARleatherneck
08-05-2010, 12:28
ok, i will be the ahole.
first if they had the internet 20 years ago, i cant imagine a bunch of "men"
American, gun, outdoors, men, defending gays. now it is ok. they have pushed their adjenda to every part of American culture. I dont know if any of you are gay, but a lot of you are defending them. This is a new thing. I am not saying its right or wrong. But, this is a new thing. 20 years ago gays were in the shadows.
Now to be the alarmist... Why is poking your buddy in the hole shit comes out ok? But being a polygamist is wrong, illegal, bad? Why? I sure dont get it. Historically polygamy, has been accepted until rather recently in this particular culture.
Now, it used to be gays, then gays, lesbians, then gays, lesbians, transgendered and whatever else. We are required respect this lifestyle choice. or it is shoved down our throats anyway. So where does it stop? this inclusion? beastiality? NAMBLA? Pedophlia? where?
Just askin. Fortunately, For me I dont come into contact with many people. So, I dont have to deal with anybody hardly straight or crooked.
Just like how we are forced to accept the choices of people with down syndrome because of the Special Olympics.
ok, i will be the ahole.
first if they had the internet 20 years ago, i cant imagine a bunch of "men"
American, gun, outdoors, men, defending gays. now it is ok. they have pushed their adjenda to every part of American culture. I dont know if any of you are gay, but a lot of you are defending them. This is a new thing. I am not saying its right or wrong. But, this is a new thing. 20 years ago gays were in the shadows.
Now to be the alarmist... Why is poking your buddy in the hole shit comes out ok? But being a polygamist is wrong, illegal, bad? Why? I sure dont get it. Historically polygamy, has been accepted until rather recently in this particular culture.
Now, it used to be gays, then gays, lesbians, then gays, lesbians, transgendered and whatever else. We are required respect this lifestyle choice. or it is shoved down our throats anyway. So where does it stop? this inclusion? beastiality? NAMBLA? Pedophlia? where?
Just askin. Fortunately, For me I dont come into contact with many people. So, I dont have to deal with anybody hardly straight or crooked.
You forgot incest.[Beer]
nogaroheli
08-05-2010, 12:46
I see what you did there.... [Beer]
I'm kidding, tasteful edits.
ROFL, well played Bear, funny stuff!
nogaroheli
08-05-2010, 12:53
[quote=nogaroheli;227861]
I have to agree. Marriage has been a hetrogeneous union historically. I also agree allowing for a secondary category, civil union, would be appropriate. I don't think this issue requires redefining the word marriage in any way.
I do think taking a stance that the majority should rule, always, is just as slippery a slope. This is what I was addressing in my previous comments, not advocating for redefinition.
Cool [Beer]
Do you think that activist judges going against the will of the majority being acceptable is a slippery slope? Not to derail, just for an example (if possible)- Look at AZ, the majority of the country wants the existing border laws upheld but our activist judges are giving the majority the finger and saying no to that. Just for thought...
I think there are too many laws being made and changed so legislators can justify their existance and appease their special interest contributors.
CrufflerSteve
08-05-2010, 13:10
I'm more libertarian about this and don't care what consenting adults do with each other - as long I don't have to see pictures of it. Personally, I don't think there should be such a thing as state sponsored marriage, only civil unions. To me, marriage is a church thing.
This is more than a slippery slope. It's well greased. If this stands I cannot see how any arguments against polygamy or polyandry could stand. It will get real interesting at city hall. How many signature spaces will there be on marriage licenses?
Steve
I'm so sick of all the reality shows about midgets and dwarfs. If there was a show about persons of average height, the ACLU and other activists would poop themselves with anger!
Why should I have to see them in public and tell my kid that they are "normal"? I mean look around, hardly anyone is shorter than 4 feet. Between the shows about them, and the trend of celebrities hanging out with them, it seems like that's the cool thing to do. Am I supposed to lower my counter tops to 3 feet high and install an elevator in my house just because some midgets choose not to walk up and down stairs like a normal person? Just the other day I had some woman tell me that I should get my daughter into gymnastics as soon as possible so she doesn't grow too tall.
If we keep celebrating midgets, dwarfs, and other "freaks," pretty soon everyone is going to be crammed into smaller work and living spaces, and in 50 years the whole population is going to average only 5 feet tall. If I wanted to go backwards in physical evolution, I'd move to China!
SA Friday
08-05-2010, 13:51
[quote=SA Friday;227874]
Cool [Beer]
Do you think that activist judges going against the will of the majority being acceptable is a slippery slope? Not to derail, just for an example (if possible)- Look at AZ, the majority of the country wants the existing border laws upheld but our activist judges are giving the majority the finger and saying no to that. Just for thought...
I think there are too many laws being made and changed so legislators can justify their existance and appease their special interest contributors.
What if the majority's desire contradicts a constitutional right? The 14th ammendment was written in the 1860's and has picked up a lot of definition since its inception. It's a powerful and yet potentially destructive ammendment. It's interesting that both this and the immigration issue seem to lead back to the 14th ammendment so often. It's equal protection clause seems to be the underlying issue with gay marriage. The 14th does allow for 'separate but equal' destinction. It allows for equality legally without redefining what a marriage is. The immigration issue and the 14th also utilizes the equal protection clause of the ammendment and also a 4th ammendment issue. IMO, the immigration issue is a much bigger issue/problem/conundrum than gay marriage.
Laws and legal rulings are two very different animals. Laws are written by politicians, and some have been found over the years to be flawed, illegal, violations of constitutional rights, etc. Some have been pretty good. Legal rulings are a judges weighing and measuring of the laws. In both of these cases, some judges are finding issues with the laws and are addressing it. There will be appeals in both cases as is appropriate, IMO, in both cases. I suspect both will be addressed and possibly further defined at the SC level sooner or later.
I agree there is way too little restraint shown in the modern day politician when it comes to writing 'new laws'. They seem to be cropping up everywhere, when standing back and addressing what's already there is the most logical and clean way to resolve issues. The federal government could have avoided the current problem in AZ and the rest of the country by addressing the problem with the current laws on the books 10 years ago. They didn't, and now AZ and many other citizens are mad as hell and going to do something about it. So, they wrote a new state law. It's forcing the issue to the front where it should have been. It's also a flawed new law and forcing constitutional right to the forefront; unintended consenquences. We reap what we sew. We bitch about why we should have to show an ID card to any cop that asks for it (without cause), and then expect this to be acceptable for others. Not so black and white is it, but the majority want it. Be careful what you want.
The bias IS that, yes, he is gay. And I see your point about if he were straight then that's a bias as well. However, you have to weigh this in with what is "average" (I was going to say normal but that would be mis-interpreted). On average marriage is between a man and a woman, but in this case they are trying to change the average, and he is on the "activist" side of the case.
The same would ring true if a Hispanic judge were to sit in ruling of a case where Hispanics gain some significant new right. If it were a black judge, there's no pony in the race. If it's a white judge then there is a high likelihood there is no pony in the race, but perhaps there might be.
I completely understand your point but I believe there is a difference in THIS case if a gay judge ruled on an appeal from the community that he is a part of. Who is to say that he wasn't for prop 8 to start with? Nobody, but any chance of impropriety has to be brought into question. In my experience, at least, it is more likely a gay person will be PRO gay than it is that a straight person will be ANTI gay.
Of course, he should have excused himself from making the ruling on the grounds that he's a conservative which is the traditional home of the idea that marriage = man + woman, but he didn't do that either.
Of course, he should have excused himself from making the ruling on the grounds that he's a conservative which is the traditional home of the idea that marriage = man + woman, but he didn't do that either.
Ah, spoken like a true liberal.
Ah, spoken like a true liberal.
Good comeback!
All joking aside, Judge Walker is a conservative. Opposition to gay 'marriage' is usually the domain of conservatives, isn't it?
I'm so sick of all the reality shows about midgets and dwarfs. If there was a show about persons of average height, the ACLU and other activists would poop themselves with anger!
Why should I have to see them in public and tell my kid that they are "normal"? I mean look around, hardly anyone is shorter than 4 feet. Between the shows about them, and the trend of celebrities hanging out with them, it seems like that's the cool thing to do. Am I supposed to lower my counter tops to 3 feet high and install an elevator in my house just because some midgets choose not to walk up and down stairs like a normal person? Just the other day I had some woman tell me that I should get my daughter into gymnastics as soon as possible so she doesn't grow too tall.
If we keep celebrating midgets, dwarfs, and other "freaks," pretty soon evveryone is going to be crammed into smaller work and living spaces, and in 50 years the whole population is going to average only 5 feet tall. If I wanted to go backwards in physical evolution, I'd move to China!
you should not even be allowed to think that
you should not even be allowed to think that
Quit trying to reduce me down to your level with your midget loving rhetoric. Go eat dinner at your coffee table-height kitchen table, you pinko commie.
Quit trying to reduce me down to your level with your midget loving rhetoric. Go eat dinner at your coffee table-height kitchen table, you pinko commie.
hehe [ROFL3]
StagLefty
08-06-2010, 07:24
Just like how we are forced to accept the choices of people with down syndrome because of the Special Olympics.
??????????????????????????????????
Given my obsession with midgets (if someone were to invent a midget with Tourette's I might just explode), I find it amazing that I only learned about this movie last week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukRdEVthmWM
Guys, this issue is about more than sex- it's about money.
If gay marriage is condoned by a state, then those couples are entitled to full benefits that only married couples traditionally enjoy. And this will drive the costs up for the rest of society.
Another nasty can of worms is parenting- that's a entirely separate discussion.
I for one am against both.
You're the second person to say that this is about money. Please explain to me how this is supposed to cost anyone else money.
Even without gay marriage being approved, the corp that I work for allows for "domestic partners" to be covered on the employee's medical insurance.
My premiums doubled instantly.
This is but one simple example.
Like most crimes and political motivations, ya just gotta "Follow the money".
That doesn't make sense. How can 1% of the population being married (when they could be married anyway) double your premiums?
SA Friday
08-06-2010, 14:16
That doesn't make sense. How can 1% of the population being married (when they could be married anyway) double your premiums?
Agreed, even the original poster (who is clearly against) stated that gays are approximately 3% of the total population. That's not even a blip on the radar for a medium sized companies policy much less a major health insurance's overall totals. This is not about money. If your rates doubled from domestic partners, you must have a huge percentage of gays in your company.
First and for most, I'm happily married.
That said, I don't think the .gov should be involved in any of it. Marriage should be between a person, their spouse, and maybe their God, I don't see why the fed has to get involved one iota (other than they love to get involved in everything). I would rather the .gov stay out of stuff they don't need to be in, and if I want my wife to receive medical, insurance, death, etc. benefits, that contractual stuff can be handled without the .gov defining marriage, just existing laws regarding contracts and an afternoon with an attorney.
I dislike how some people can be all for small government, and freedoms, unless they disagree with those freedoms, regardless of their effect on them. I am for liberties, I don't care whose, but if you aren't hurting someone else, I plan to leave you the hell alone, and expect you to pay me the same respect. Leave my guns and my money alone, and you can sleep with whoever you want.
Guys, this issue is about more than sex- it's about money.
If gay marriage is condoned by a state, then those couples are entitled to full benefits that only married couples traditionally enjoy. And this will drive the costs up for the rest of society.
Another nasty can of worms is parenting- that's a entirely separate discussion.
I for one am against both.
Explain to me why I deserve monetary benefits for tricking a woman into marrying me?
StagLefty
08-06-2010, 15:57
Explain to me why I deserve monetary benefits for a woman marrying me?
Fixed it for ya-Apparently you haven't been married a long time [Bang]
I could see the argument that health insurance companies could be concerned about HIV costs or something, except I'd think that a married couple would be less at risk because you would assume that they are monogamous. Not to mention that there is probably not much difference between two single policies and one double policy. Further, with Obamacare taking effect, everyone in the US is supposed to be able to get coverage now anyway, so I can hardly see how that matters. Perhaps this is a recent change in policy due to upcoming Obamacare and the timing made it look like it had something to do with same sex couples.
Did no one consider that perhaps hip55 works at the YMCA?
Did no one consider that perhaps hip55 works at the YMCA?
Not even close.
But there are a lot of gay folks that work for my company, and it did have a large impact.
If you don't think being married has no financial effects, try filing separately at tax time & see what happens.
What does that have to do with other people though?
I just got engaged. Should we not get married so we don't cost you extra money?
What does that have to do with other people though?
I just got engaged. Should we not get married so we don't cost you extra money?
How it effects me personally is minuscule compared to the financial implications it will cost society.
Do some research on it Stuart, you seem like a smart guy.
For me, I'm done with this thread -
ok, i will be the ahole.
first if they had the internet 20 years ago, i cant imagine a bunch of "men"
American, gun, outdoors, men, defending gays. now it is ok. they have pushed their adjenda to every part of American culture. I dont know if any of you are gay, but a lot of you are defending them. This is a new thing. I am not saying its right or wrong. But, this is a new thing. 20 years ago gays were in the shadows.
I think you miss the point of what most of us on the other side are saying.
I have no opinion on gay, good bad other, for this debate I don't care.
Here is why I feel people feel the way I do. 20, more like 40 years ago, people trusted the government a lot more than we do now. I grew up in post-Nixon/Vietnam America. I barely trust the government more than I trust, AT&T, Bank of America, or GE.
My go to stance politically is "leave me alone" and I try to look at my political views threw a filter of "does this leave us as alone as possible?"
Gay marriage fails the "does this leave us as alone as possible?" test badly. It's that simple, the government doesn't need to do this, so why are they doing this? And the classic slippery slope of if they can ban this cause a bunch of people feel it is wrong, what else can they ban, can they ban something that effects me? It wouldn't take much to imagine ARs being on the chopping block, the constitution didn't lay out what specific type of arms, and if you are telling me that Jo Blow Civilian can't protect his home with an 870 darn near as well as John Blow Civilian with an AR you are fooling yourself. (just for example, I bet we can rattle off a ton of things the government would love to take)
comparing gay to beastiality, pedifilia etc. fails badly too, there is one BIG old piece missing, the other consenting adult! If you allow straight heterosexual sex, are you gonna be ok with rape next? Of course not, that's foolish.
You are confused why we are defending gays, I'm confused why the other side trusts the .gov to get involved in their morals, which is according to many here controlled by a giant liberal agenda run by Obama.
DeusExMachina
08-07-2010, 10:51
I don't see why gays should have less freedoms than straights. Gay marriage doesn't affect me in any way. But then again, I believe in the seperation of church and state.
Byte Stryke
08-08-2010, 20:24
Does someone else riding without a helmet affect me? Yes...
does that have anything to do with this argument?.. not really
Imagine if you will your Non-white or non Christian wife being thrown from their home after you die because they aren't afforded protection under state sanctioned marriage laws.
circa 1700-1800s this was the case in allot of the colonies and territories.
Now personally, There is nothing about a guys hairy ass that does anything for me.
Hetero, Love my wife, Love the Vagoo.
BUT, whose to dictate my religious or personal beliefs? or the Practices of (whatever) between two consenting adults? that whole Polygamy thing is common practice in allot of non-christian countries. SO... do we make polygamy legal? If Gays get their right to Civil union I believe everyone should.
and I completely agree. if you don't think that Gays/Lesbians have fewer rights than straights you are deluding yourselves.
Hospital visitation
Insurances
Rental and Home ownership
Civil liabilities and rights (Wills, Grants, Taxes)
I Do not believe that any church should be forced to allow or perform Gay Marriages as that imposes on the freedom of religion.
HOWEVER I Also do not believe that the state has a right to tell me that I cannot marry someone based on age, sex, religion, race, creed or ethnic heritage.
Next thing you know we'd be condemning interracial marriages.
When the gay marriage thing first starting getting big a few years ago, a buddy was saying that he ran across a bunch of news papers from the 1950's in his grandparent's attic that had a ton of articles about interracial marriages that sounded exactly like all of today's arguments against gay marriages.
Jumpstart
08-08-2010, 21:30
When the gay marriage thing first starting getting big a few years ago, a buddy was saying that he ran across a bunch of news papers from the 1950's in his grandparent's attic that had a ton of articles about interracial marriages that sounded exactly like all of today's arguments against gay marriages.
lol. That's quite an urban legend. I find the comparsion like apples to bananas.
Marriage is for building families,
Families for building nations.
Homosexuality is for what now?
Talk about an urban legend. You speak like marriage was invented specifically as a tool to build nations.
This is America by the way. No one should have to justify a damn thing that they want. You want a machine gun? Get it. You want a 750 whp Corvette to drive to work everyday? Build it. You're attracted to men and want to marry one? Do it, and fuck anyone who questions your motives or reasons. You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Jumpstart
08-08-2010, 21:43
I don't see why gays should have less freedoms than straights. .
They don't. They have the SAME rights and freedoms as heterosexuals.
DeusExMachina
08-08-2010, 21:44
Marriage is also about freedom to marry who you wish.
DeusExMachina
08-08-2010, 21:45
They don't. They have the SAME rights and freedoms as heterosexuals.
Except for marriage...?
Homosexual "marriage" would certainly limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, whatever one's moral feelings on the issue.
Jumpstart
08-08-2010, 21:52
Except for marriage...?
No. Gays can get married.
Just not to each other. It's against the law. Just like polygamy.
DeusExMachina
08-08-2010, 22:19
No. Gays can get married.
Just not to each other. It's against the law. Just like polygamy.
Are you serious? [ROFL3]
Is your next argument going to be "Okay, gays can get married, as long as I can marry a baker's dozen of 14 year olds."?
Talk about apples and oranges.
Jumpstart
08-08-2010, 22:21
Are you serious? [ROFL3]
Is your next argument going to be "Okay, gays can get married, as long as I can marry a baker's dozen of 14 year olds."?
Talk about apples and oranges.
Your post smells of desperation.
DeusExMachina
08-08-2010, 22:25
Your post smells of desperation.
I know the term window licker, but are you attempting to coin "monitor sniffer"?
Byte Stryke
08-09-2010, 00:12
funny thing is that the same arguments I hear against gays getting married are the same panic-farming fear-monger type arguments I hear against guns.
If we let gays get Married, they will rape your children!
what in the hell?
if you sit down and think about it, Consenting ADULTS getting married to each other is no ones business except those two adults. One Might even go further and say that ANY number of adults getting married is no ones business except them as Monogamy has its roots as a religious practice!
So if a woman wanted to have two Husbands and none of them cared, who is to say its wrong?
If a White woman wants to marry an Asian man, Why in the hell should any of us care?
If two Women want to live together as wives or whatever naming convention they choose, who cares?
They consent, it's their lives, their business. It's not like keeping the lipstick Lesbians from marrying each other will improve any of your odds of getting Laid :)
DeusExMachina
08-09-2010, 00:27
I agree with Stuart and Byte, obviously.
Furthermore, the only real reason I see to be against gay marriage is religion. I see no other actual reason to be against it. Some people seem to forget that the amendment that came before our beloved 2nd calls for freedom of religion, and defining a seperation of church and state.
There is no logical reason gay marriage is not allowed. I also hate how the Republican party has become so focused on religion. It makes me sick.
Homosexual "marriage" would certainly limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, whatever one's moral feelings on the issue.
I'm not sure I really agree with this statement. Of course there is the possibility, but what would the difference be between a committed couple versus a married one? I've know plenty of guys that cheat on their wives. It seems to me that I recently read that the largest outbreak of STD's are by married men.
Jumpstart
08-09-2010, 07:04
There is no logical reason gay marriage is not allowed. I also hate how the Republican party has become so focused on religion. It makes me sick.
1. Gay marriage serves no purpose to society.
2. A whole group of people make you "sick" because an element of their culture is religion? But your are good with homosexual activity and the homosexual agenda?
Wow..... and some wonder why the USA is on the downswing.
There is no logical reason gay marriage is not allowed. I also hate how the Republican party has become so focused on religion. It makes me sick.
I believe the term 'marriage' should not be used in the context of same sex unions. Civil union would be a better term as marriage is generally considered a religious sacrament.
I'm sorry you are pissed at the party's stand on religion, Deus, but I'm for it. If our party didn't stand for religion then the liberals would tear it down to the point of forcing religion into hiding just as it once was. I believe that on the whole, religious people try to hold themselves to a higher moral standard and I see nothing wrong with that. That's not to say there are "religious" people who don't do that, but being a religious person myself I can say that my fellow religious friends are good people.
No matter what your view of religion is, it's hard to debate that the core teachings of most religions are generally a good "owners manual" in practice. Do not lie, do not kill, do not commit incest - these are not bad things. I'm sure you will argue otherwise, but nobody is infallible and of course religion can cause bad as well, as history has shown us.
I'm not sure I really agree with this statement. Of course there is the possibility, but what would the difference be between a committed couple versus a married one? I've know plenty of guys that cheat on their wives. It seems to me that I recently read that the largest outbreak of STD's are by married men. I was politely alluding to the fact that the culture of promiscuity in homosexual circles, along with basic physiological reasons, is responsible for homosexual males comprising 53% of all new HIV/AIDS infections*. But you're right, I suppose allowing homosexual marriage would probably not impact that. *http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#incidence
1. Gay marriage serves no purpose to society.
If you took a week off of work and put in 8 solid hours a day, I don't think you could be a bigger hypocrite.
What blows my mind is that the middle class is slowly disappearing yet the big issue is 2 people of the same gender getting married. Yes America is really going down the shitter. [Bang]
DeusExMachina
08-09-2010, 09:45
1. Gay marriage serves no purpose to society.
2. A whole group of people make you "sick" because an element of their culture is religion? But your are good with homosexual activity and the homosexual agenda?
Wow..... and some wonder why the USA is on the downswing.
The homosexual agenda. [ROFL1] Watch your cornhole, bud! If you're wondering why the USA is on the downswing, you just have to look in the mirror. You're a hypocrite in the most literal of definitions.
I believe the term 'marriage' should not be used in the context of same sex unions. Civil union would be a better term as marriage is generally considered a religious sacrament.
I don't know how gays would feel about this, but it makes sense. I'm sure there would be issues with it from some activists. Hell, I think in terms of government all marriages should be called civil unions. Marriages happen in church. Its really semantics, but would be a good division. But saying "we got civil union'd last fall" makes me cringe. [Tooth]
I'm sorry you are pissed at the party's stand on religion, Deus, but I'm for it. If our party didn't stand for religion then the liberals would tear it down to the point of forcing religion into hiding just as it once was. I believe that on the whole, religious people try to hold themselves to a higher moral standard and I see nothing wrong with that. That's not to say there are "religious" people who don't do that, but being a religious person myself I can say that my fellow religious friends are good people.
No matter what your view of religion is, it's hard to debate that the core teachings of most religions are generally a good "owners manual" in practice. Do not lie, do not kill, do not commit incest - these are not bad things. I'm sure you will argue otherwise, but nobody is infallible and of course religion can cause bad as well, as history has shown us.
I agree with this, but I feel like we should be beyond the "owners manual" portion of it. If the only reason people do not do evil is because of their religion, then that is a pretty weak set of morals. It certainly served the purpose a long time ago, but I think those teachings are ingrained in our society by now. Religion is for expanding one's spirituality, and I see no need for that in government. I don't think any government issue should be influenced by religion, and I think its more used as a "scapegoat" or a way to convince people to support a cause. "Hey, you're a Christian right? Well, any GOOD Christian would be for this. You want to be a GOOD Christian right?"
I think we are starting to get human nature and standards/morals mixed up a bit under teh guise of religon...
Morals and standards are not "ingrained" in a society. They are learned attributes to a persons character. Religon is used to try to teach "goodness". Soceity left to their own devices would not be "good" due to human nature.
Byte Stryke
08-09-2010, 10:35
I believe the term 'marriage' should not be used in the context of same sex unions. Civil union would be a better term as marriage is generally considered a religious sacrament.
I'm sorry you are pissed at the party's stand on religion, Deus, but I'm for it. If our party didn't stand for religion then the liberals would tear it down to the point of forcing religion into hiding just as it once was. I believe that on the whole, religious people try to hold themselves to a higher moral standard and I see nothing wrong with that. That's not to say there are "religious" people who don't do that, but being a religious person myself I can say that my fellow religious friends are good people.
No matter what your view of religion is, it's hard to debate that the core teachings of most religions are generally a good "owners manual" in practice. Do not lie, do not kill, do not commit incest - these are not bad things. I'm sure you will argue otherwise, but nobody is infallible and of course religion can cause bad as well, as history has shown us.
I Agree. However, in the context of government rights and responsibilities I believe there should be no differences between civil unions and marriages.
I have no problems with any religions being affirmed in their identity, morals or goals. I do have a problem with the elitists of those groups demeaning and persecuting those not "In Line with Party Doctrine!" which leads to the scary places...
I Agree with the whole right and wrong thing... we need rules. I just don't feel that the abstract rules established by religion for no other reason than the sake of a different interpretation of a book (Regardless of books name) have any validity in our government.
If the only reason people do not do evil is because of their religion, then that is a pretty weak set of morals.
Ahh, but I would disagree with you there. Morals come from SOMEWHERE, we didn't wake up and think "It's wrong to kill someone", society through religion can help us build those morals. A good example would be in Muslim society where hand for a hand is still practiced, while we see it as barbaric in the west. I think religion has done a lot to build societal norms.
Religion is for expanding one's spirituality, and I see no need for that in government.
I agree. Government should not dictate religion in any way at all.
I think its more used as a "scapegoat" or a way to convince people to support a cause. "Hey, you're a Christian right? Well, any GOOD Christian would be for this. You want to be a GOOD Christian right?"
Being a good Catholic I understand Catholic guilt :). However, while this can be used poorly it can also be used in a good way as well. "God says you'll burn in hell for murder" is a good societal scare, "God says you'll burn in hell for eating chocolate" maybe not so much.
So, I believe in God and I believe in Christianity and my beliefs teach me quite clearly that homosexuality is against His will - that is why I am against it. However, it also teaches me that we should forgive others for their transgressions, thus I believe that what they do is their business and since we were given free will then that choice is theirs to make.
Plus, whether your burn in hell or not is none of the government's or anyone's business. Let the government put a "sin tax" on gay marriage and those fuckers will be all for the idea.
Byte Stryke
08-09-2010, 10:51
A good example would be in Muslim society where hand for a hand is still practiced, while we see it as barbaric in the west. I think religion has done a lot to build societal norms.
I must apologize, but I find it ironic that a "Good Catholic" calls one of a differing faith Barbaric, considering the amount of blood that has been shed in the name of God and Church. I'm Not trying to bust your balls for it or anything I just found it ironic.
I am not Muslim, or Catholic or Christian or anything. My Faith is mine alone and I refuse to tie it to a church doctrine that will change with the wind.
A Good example would be Some churches policies on Gays in Religion.... Ive seen Pancakes that flip less.
my 2cents
Government has zero business defining what "marriage" is. Everyone should be able to enter into a legally binding contract with someone else, and expect the government to enforce it. If people want to enter a contract and label it "marriage", more power to them. As long as they are legally consenting adults, and are not causing material harm to anyone else, who cares? Remember the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
H.
http://cagle.com/working/100807/plante.jpg
Jumpstart
08-09-2010, 16:04
If you took a week off of work and put in 8 solid hours a day, I don't think you could be a bigger hypocrite.
So I'm a hypocrite because my opinion differs from yours? That's pretty gay Stuart.
So I'm a hypocrite because my opinion differs from yours? That's pretty gay Stuart.
lol at the gay comment. [Beer]
No, you're a hypocrite because 90% of your existence (and everyone else alive) doesn't have a direct correlation to being a "benefit to society."
DeusExMachina
08-09-2010, 16:14
Government has zero business defining what "marriage" is. Everyone should be able to enter into a legally binding contract with someone else, and expect the government to enforce it. If people want to enter a contract and label it "marriage", more power to them. As long as they are legally consenting adults, and are not causing material harm to anyone else, who cares? Remember the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
H.
http://cagle.com/working/100807/plante.jpg
Aaaaand I think we're done here. [ROFL1]
Jumpstart
08-09-2010, 16:16
lol at the gay comment. [Beer]
No, you're a hypocrite because 90% of your existence (and everyone else alive) doesn't have a direct correlation to being a "benefit to society."
Well, being a hypocrite is part of the human experience. Except for me of course.
I must apologize, but I find it ironic that a "Good Catholic" calls one of a differing faith Barbaric, considering the amount of blood that has been shed in the name of God and Church. I'm Not trying to bust your balls for it or anything I just found it ironic.
I am not Muslim, or Catholic or Christian or anything. My Faith is mine alone and I refuse to tie it to a church doctrine that will change with the wind.
A Good example would be Some churches policies on Gays in Religion.... Ive seen Pancakes that flip less.
my 2cents
And that happened when? Versus when Muslims took a hand, when? I didn't say or even elude to the fact that religion hasn't had it's fair share of problems, but that the GOOD of the religion is many times what has driven societal norm. I am no denier, I know full well what the Catholic church has done in it's past.
It's funny how the past is "ancient history and irrelevant" when it doesn't support a view one has, but is "completely relevant" when it DOES. Case in point, so many people I know will talk about how sick they are of blacks crying slavery or jews crying holocaust, both of which are far more recent history than the inquisition or Queen Mary.
While priests have been guilty of grave sins in recent history (less than 1% of all priests get 100% of the bad press by the way), I don't think we burned someone at the stake for witchcraft or racked someone for opposing views in some time (and never of either in America - that would be the Quakers).
And yes, SOME churches (Episcopalians) have "changed with the wind" but the Catholic church is far less flexibile in it's doctrines than some other churches are and I can rest assured they will not recognize gay marriage any day soon.
If I'm a bit defensive about my beliefs then I apologize in advance, but it's what I believe in and one shoe most certainly does not fit all and I'm not trying to convince others to believe what I believe, I just simply state my opinion.
Aaaaand I think we're done here. [ROFL1]
I think that happened a LONG time ago :).
Mr President
08-09-2010, 22:31
Fuck "tolerance". I'm tired of my sons being told at school that it's okay to take it in the ass. It's not. People are sick. If fags want to be together, we should put them all in california and put a fence around it. Get that freak show crap out of the law books and focus on real problems.
ok, I'm done.
Amen! Finally someone who has the cojones to say that! It's not "right" or "okay" from any standpoint. Physiologically it's impossible for gays to procreate (thank God), from a moral standpoint it's atrocious, and titties are just too much fun! However, I do have to agree the government should stay COMPLETELY out of it. The more the government gets it hands into ANYTHING the more freedom we lose. Now, *sits down at table, lifts up serving spoon from cauldron* AIDS anyone? [Rant1]
P.S.
Mx'r your opening line is my new signature I liked it so much!
Byte Stryke
08-10-2010, 17:15
And that happened when? Versus when Muslims took a hand, when? I didn't say or even elude to the fact that religion hasn't had it's fair share of problems, but that the GOOD of the religion is many times what has driven societal norm. I am no denier, I know full well what the Catholic church has done in it's past.
It's funny how the past is "ancient history and irrelevant" when it doesn't support a view one has, but is "completely relevant" when it DOES. Case in point, so many people I know will talk about how sick they are of blacks crying slavery or jews crying holocaust, both of which are far more recent history than the inquisition or Queen Mary.
While priests have been guilty of grave sins in recent history (less than 1% of all priests get 100% of the bad press by the way), I don't think we burned someone at the stake for witchcraft or racked someone for opposing views in some time (and never of either in America - that would be the Quakers).
And yes, SOME churches (Episcopalians) have "changed with the wind" but the Catholic church is far less flexibile in it's doctrines than some other churches are and I can rest assured they will not recognize gay marriage any day soon.
If I'm a bit defensive about my beliefs then I apologize in advance, but it's what I believe in and one shoe most certainly does not fit all and I'm not trying to convince others to believe what I believe, I just simply state my opinion.
Please do not take any of that as a personal attack... it was intended to point out the flaws in labeling.
and as far as a "ancient history and irrelevant".
have ya seen the news lately? Yeah the Muslims are still a tad pissed about it and they are blaming Jews and Christians.
Germany? Still illegal to be a national socialist (Nazi) or to bear any emblem, mark or symbolism of that party.
So while I Can completely understand your position in regards to your faith, I find a few things extremely offensive.
The US Cavalry, The Washington Redskins, Cleveland Indians, Jeep Cherokees, etc on and on.
Because, while it might be Ancient history to some, Genocide is still Genocide and it's wrong.
sarcasm ahead....
Can you imagine the outrage there would be if we had a team called the Atlanta ******s? or how about the California slopes? Boston Paddys?
My Personal favorite would have to be the New York Kikes. :(
Can you imagine the outrage there would be if we had a team called the Atlanta ******s?
Is that a basketball team? [Coffee]
sarcasm ahead....
Can you imagine the outrage there would be if we had a team called the Atlanta ******s? or how about the California slopes? Boston Paddys?
My Personal favorite would have to be the New York Kikes. :(
I don't think these would work. Nor would the San Francisco Queers.
I agree with Stuart and Byte, obviously.
Furthermore, the only real reason I see to be against gay marriage is religion. I see no other actual reason to be against it. Some people seem to forget that the amendment that came before our beloved 2nd calls for freedom of religion, and defining a seperation of church and state.
There is no logical reason gay marriage is not allowed. I also hate how the Republican party has become so focused on religion. It makes me sick.
Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights that defines a clear separation of church and state. Some of our founders were very religious and used their particular religion to influence them while writing our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights. Also I don't get why you are so against religion, yet all for gay "marriage". I'm not a very religious person, but I do have respect for the church and a persons religious beliefs. I also believe that homosexuality is completely wrong. My opinion, If they want to call their relationship a "civil union" fine. Don't call it a marriage. As stated earlier, marriage is a religious experience. Most churches do not support gays.
DeusExMachina
08-13-2010, 20:38
Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights that defines a clear separation of church and state. Some of our founders were very religious and used their particular religion to influence them while writing our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights. Also I don't get why you are so against religion, yet all for gay "marriage". I'm not a very religious person, but I do have respect for the church and a persons religious beliefs. I also believe that homosexuality is completely wrong. My opinion, If they want to call their relationship a "civil union" fine. Don't call it a marriage. As stated earlier, marriage is a religious experience. Most churches do not support gays.
The 1st Amendment. A term originally used by Thomas Jefferson, and defined by the Supreme Court. Have fun reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
I don't see anyone's sexuality as right or wrong, especially based upon Christianity's definition of right and wrong. Homosexuality doesn't affect me in any way, and neither does gay marriage. I think its wrong to condemn someone for being the way they are, or for doing what makes them happy (as long as it does not affect anyone else).
Maybe its because I'm not religious, but I don't see any difference between "civil union" and "marriage".
I also see no issue with someone being gay and religious. Plenty of people are gay and religious, some of them hide the former for the sake of the latter. Is that more right than being openly (I don't mean flaming, that shit is irritating) gay and religious?
I'm not a very religious person, but I do have respect for the church and a persons religious beliefs. I also believe that homosexuality is completely wrong.
If you're not religious, why do you think that it's wrong? Or when you say 'wrong,' do you mean 'a bit gross'?
Jumpstart
08-13-2010, 21:43
Please show me where in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights that defines a clear separation of church and state. Some of our founders were very religious and used their particular religion to influence them while writing our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights. Also I don't get why you are so against religion, yet all for gay "marriage". I'm not a very religious person, but I do have respect for the church and a persons religious beliefs. I also believe that homosexuality is completely wrong. My opinion, If they want to call their relationship a "civil union" fine. Don't call it a marriage. As stated earlier, marriage is a religious experience. Most churches do not support gays.
I concur.
Byte Stryke
08-13-2010, 21:53
OK.
I had told myself that I wasn't going to feed the scary place and freak out the religious right, but here goes.
I was a Divorced (thus Excommunicated) disgruntled Catholic graduate of "Our Lady of the Broken Hand".
My First Marriage was to a nice German Protestant Girl that had already had a child out of wedlock! (I am Soooo Going to hell at this point)
Then after that fell over She switched teams! (There were a few guys after me, so its not all my fault :D )
I Met and Married a Catholic Woman that had already had a child out of wedlock again!
We were married In the ISLAMIC State of KUWAIT!
We were married By a MUSLIM! (Express ticket, First Class to hell)
There were 2 MUSLIM Witnesses!Forget the Tinfoil Hats, I Need some Fireproof pants because Im Headin ta Hell!
Now, all bullshit aside. I believe in God I just don't believe that God hates us as much as the Dictators and Fear-Mongers in the various churches of the world would have you believe.
If I am going to hell, at least I can sit next to Ann Rice on the way there.
:D
Byte Stryke
08-13-2010, 22:20
I'm not a very religious person, but I do have respect for the church and a persons religious beliefs. I also believe that homosexuality is completely wrong.
First, you do know the difference between religious beliefs and a Church, correct? and Which Church exactly is it you are referring to in Regards to respecting
So if a Person has no religious Beliefs or believes that Homosexuality or lesbianism is right for them, isn't that their belief in absentia of a religion?
Secondly, Since Christianity is one of the few religions that prohibits Polygamy, do you think its OK that (Some) Pagans, (Orthodox)Mormons and Muslims have more than one WIFE, Since its part of their Belief systems or church?
Just wondering
Personally, two Consenting Adults, Closed door, I Dont care... Just dont force the dog to watch.
theGinsue
08-14-2010, 00:21
I've stayed out of this discussion for all of it's first 6 pages. I can no longer resist sharing my position on this issue.
If you're not religious, why do you think that it's wrong? Or when you say 'wrong,' do you mean 'a bit gross'?
Religion doesn't hold a monopoly on morality. Many individuals who don't possess a faith in the existance of a supreme deity still have morals.
Of course, with that said, MOST of what we identify as morally right and proper comes to us from religious teachings.
My faith not only gives me hope but it also provides me with a moral compass.
Next, my opinion......
Calling a motorcycle a car doesn't make it a car - it's still a motorcycle. Sure, they are both used as forms of personal transportation, but they are not the same thing.
By the same token, for thousands of years the definition of marriage has been the (typically) religious and legal union of a male and a female (human). Just in the past 25 or fewer years has there been a movement to authorize/legalize and re-define "marriage" to include the union of homosexuals. This is not marriage. I have no problems calling it a civil union or any other such thing, but it is NOT a marriage - period.
[Dripping Sarcasm]
Now, as far as the whole "gay marriage should be legal" thing and anyone who opposed such a view is a bigot. Perhaps you're right - so long as the partners are adults and consenting, what difference does it make what the similarities or differences are. In fact, I don't think anyone has the right to deny my partner and I happiness just because I'm a male and he is a male sheep. We are both of "adult" age and we both seem to be consenting (it's so difficult to translate sheep language to know for sure).
I mean, why not - if it makes us happy, who are we hurting? We just want the right to be "married" like everyone else. What sort of a bigot are you to deny us? Obviously, anyone who would deny this marriage MUST be doing it because they are a fanatical religious zealot - they claim to not be religious or have a spiritual faith, perhaps they are members of the church of Atheism. It's still a religion and they are still bigots - and I'm still denied MY right to happiness. You do realize that I have a RIGHT TO HAPPINESS; right? It's guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence - you can look it up.
[/Dripping Sarcasm]
Marriage is what it is and what it has been for thousands of years, it is only between a man and a woman, it is not a "motorcycle" or a union between people of like genders or even farm animals. If you want those things, fine, whatever, but don't try to call it marriage - because it isn't.
As far as what two consenting adults do behind a closed door, sure that's THEIR business. But, when you bring that activity out from behind the closed door and try to sell it as being good and normal, hogwash! When you try to tell my kids that such behaviour to acceptable and normal and that they need to embrace it , you've given up the protection of remaining behind a closed door. If you keep it behind closed doors and don't bring it out into the open I won't declare it illegal - so long as you don't preach to my kids that it's just a different kind of acceptable behaviour.
it is not a "motorcycle" or a union between people of like genders or even farm animals. If you want those things, fine, whatever, but don't try to call it marriage - because it isn't.
Apparently, in the Middle East, they call it "practice".
This is what I get from your post Ginsue.
1) You don't think it's right for people to ride motorcycles.
2) Being gay is the same as having sex with animals.
3) The second part completely negates your position on the first part.
theGinsue
08-14-2010, 00:45
The farm animal point just shows the hypocrisy of the pro-gay position. They want to remove the lines of what is considered okay, but still hold other things off-limits? Using their common rebuttal: "thats just bigoted".
When you blur the lines of what is acceptable, where do you stop? If you say that something should now be considered acceptable, but not this other thing, how is that any more right than what you stand against?
As far as the "You don't think it's right for people to ride motorcycles." crack - I get that you were going for humor, but.. My point is that a car and a motorcycle are not the same - just as heterosexual and homosexual unions are not the same and they shouldn't be classed the same. As far as whether I think either one is "right", I am not declaring right or wrong for either. In fact, I personally believe that marriage is the surest way to screw up a perfectly good relationship.
I was trying to point out that you used a comparison of different but equal in the first part, but then switch to different but lower in the second part. :) <3
The 1st Amendment. A term originally used by Thomas Jefferson, and defined by the Supreme Court. Have fun reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
I don't see anyone's sexuality as right or wrong, especially based upon Christianity's definition of right and wrong. Homosexuality doesn't affect me in any way, and neither does gay marriage. I think its wrong to condemn someone for being the way they are, or for doing what makes them happy (as long as it does not affect anyone else).
Maybe its because I'm not religious, but I don't see any difference between "civil union" and "marriage".
I also see no issue with someone being gay and religious. Plenty of people are gay and religious, some of them hide the former for the sake of the latter. Is that more right than being openly (I don't mean flaming, that shit is irritating) gay and religious?
The meaning of the separation of church and state is that the government cannot control what religion a person practices. Not separating religion from government. If a person wants to pray in school, let them. It's not against the law. And onece again, "marriage" is the union between a man and a woman, period, end of statement.
ghettodub
08-14-2010, 10:18
I couldn't really give a shit. It doesn't have any effect on me, as I'm not gay and I don't live in California. It doesn't change my rights any, so meh...
DeusExMachina
08-14-2010, 10:21
The meaning of the separation of church and state is that the government cannot control what religion a person practices. Not separating religion from government. If a person wants to pray in school, let them. It's not against the law. And onece again, "marriage" is the union between a man and a woman, period, end of statement.
What you think it means is different from what the Supreme Court thinks it means. A person praying in school is different from preventing two people from being married because a religion is opposed to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_Test#Lemon_test
Oh, and don't look up the definition of "marriage" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Its just going to piss you off. [ROFL2]
I couldn't really give a shit. It doesn't have any effect on me, as I'm not gay and I don't live in California. It doesn't change my rights any, so meh...
True enough, but if it flies in California, Colorado will be VERY soon to follow.
Byte Stryke
08-15-2010, 15:57
The farm animal point just shows the hypocrisy of the pro-gay position. They want to remove the lines of what is considered okay, but still hold other things off-limits? Using their common rebuttal: "thats just bigoted".
When you blur the lines of what is acceptable, where do you stop? If you say that something should now be considered acceptable, but not this other thing, how is that any more right than what you stand against?
As far as the "You don't think it's right for people to ride motorcycles." crack - I get that you were going for humor, but.. My point is that a car and a motorcycle are not the same - just as heterosexual and homosexual unions are not the same and they shouldn't be classed the same. As far as whether I think either one is "right", I am not declaring right or wrong for either. In fact, I personally believe that marriage is the surest way to screw up a perfectly good relationship.
Well if you are going to say that Homosexual and Heterosexual Marriages arent the same whats to prevent the line from being moved even further to say that All white marriages aren't the same as Interracial Marriages? That "Slippery slope" argument made about Bestiality and Pedophilia following can be made the other way. Or How about Inter-faith Marriages... Because you Know, in the Bible it says:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)."
I mean Pagans/Jews and Christians married together!?!, its BLASPHEMY!
Lets outlaw interfaith Marriage too then and anull all existing Interfaith Marriages, Because the book of the invisible man in the sky says so! /sarcasm
Personally, I believe the line is clearly and distinctly drawn at "Whomever one or more consenting adults wish to Choose as their partners in life is no ones business but their own so long as everyone involved is a consenting adult."
If a Gay White Jewish Guy wants to Marry a Bi-Hispanic Catholic that is already Married to a straight Asian Buddhist Woman and none of them Cares, whose business is it to say its "Wrong"?
The Jewish Guy just becomes wife #2.
Simple.
Byte Stryke
08-15-2010, 16:03
What you think it means is different from what the Supreme Court thinks it means. A person praying in school is different from preventing two people from being married because a religion is opposed to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_Test#Lemon_test
Oh, and don't look up the definition of "marriage" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Its just going to piss you off. [ROFL2]
Because I like to scare the religious right
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century
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 <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage#) ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
BushMasterBoy
08-15-2010, 17:07
A recent survey showed that 95% of gay men were born that way...and the other 5% were just sucked into it!
The only way to stop gays from having sex is to get them married.
It works for hetero couples....should work for them, too.
The only way to stop gays from having sex is to get them married.
It works for hetero couples....should work for them, too.
There we go, that's the best argument for allowing gays to marry!
ghettodub
08-17-2010, 10:09
The only way to stop gays from having sex is to get them married.
It works for hetero couples....should work for them, too.
[ROFL1]
ghettodub
08-17-2010, 10:12
True enough, but if it flies in California, Colorado will be VERY soon to follow.
Very true, as we do tend to follow California for many things. But really, I'm still not seeing how it effects me in any way. I'm not getting in to any debates on religion, etc either on this matter, as I respect other's rights to believe what they want.
But if someone can give me a good answer on how this would have an impact on me, as a straight male, then I would love to hear it.
Byte Stryke
08-17-2010, 10:25
Very true, as we do tend to follow California for many things. But really, I'm still not seeing how it effects me in any way. I'm not getting in to any debates on religion, etc either on this matter, as I respect other's rights to believe what they want.
But if someone can give me a good answer on how this would have an impact on me, as a straight male, then I would love to hear it.
I'm like you, Straight Male, Married, Happy.
It wont have any Impact on us except that the homophobic fear-mongers would have you believe that if Gays and lesbians are allowed to marry it would mark the end of western civilization and the collapse of the free world.
They want you to think it would give license and Gays and Lesbians would be hovering over schoolyards sexually assaulting children and molesting farm animals.
Because, you know, The Book from the invisible man in the sky says Homosexuality is perverse and deviant behavior. My Question is, "For whom?"
Oh, And as far as not getting into any debates on Religion, That wont work as it seems to be the entirety of the argument against it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.