Ringo's Pix: Anti-Prop 8 Demonstration
US News | Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:31:54 pm PST
Ringo the Gringo has a ton of photos from the anti-Proposition 8 demonstration in downtown LA: Anti-Prop 8 Demonstration - Los Angeles, CA on Nov. 15, 2008.
Show top rated links | LinkViewer
US News | Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 12:31:54 pm PST
Ringo the Gringo has a ton of photos from the anti-Proposition 8 demonstration in downtown LA: Anti-Prop 8 Demonstration - Los Angeles, CA on Nov. 15, 2008.
1072 comments
1![]() |
Walter L. Newton Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:34:59pm |
I think there should be a federal law. One issue protests only. If the issue is gay marriage, then fine. Only pro-gay marriage folks. No Nazis, no anti-church/state people, no nut's, gee, it just becomes one big cluster fuck for stupidness.
6![]() |
rawmuse Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:36:07pm |
I am so old, I can remember when no self respecting homosexual would WANT to get married.
That was for squares like me.
7![]() |
Walter L. Newton Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:36:15pm |
8![]() |
Yashmak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:37:06pm |
Hell, I'm on a T1, and it's still loading pretty slow.
10![]() |
Walter L. Newton Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:38:01pm |
re: #8 Yashmak
Hell, I'm on a T1, and it's still loading pretty slow.
Server is bogging down, overloaded with requests I suspect.
11![]() |
ArmyWife Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:38:39pm |
THEY LOST! In votes there are winners and losers. THEY ARE THE LOSERS and are now proving it. ;)
12![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:39:17pm |
re: #10 Walter L. Newton
Server is bogging down, overloaded with requests I suspect.
Probably for the best. I'm guesing some of the images aren't really work friendly unless you are a Pelosi staffer.
14![]() |
Lawrence Schmerel Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:40:24pm |
Have social conservatives taken California?
15![]() |
Pvt Bin Jammin Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:40:31pm |
:( I keep getting "page load error". Guess I will have to wait awhile.
16![]() |
firedupengineer Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:40:32pm |
re: #11 ArmyWife
THEY LOST! In votes there are winners and losers. THEY ARE THE LOSERS and are now proving it. ;)
Classy American Losers!
17![]() |
Ringo the Gringo Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:40:44pm |
re: #3 conservativeChick
Oh boy lets see the freaks!
Some of the people there were freaky, most were not. And unlike some of the anti-Prop 8 protests during the previous 10 days, everyone at this demonstration was well behaved.
Of course, had the march passed by any churches it may have been a different story.
20![]() |
Hard Right Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:41:23pm |
re: #17 Ringo the Gringo
Some of the people there were freaky, most were not. And unlike some of the anti-Prop 8 protests during the previous 10 days, everyone at this demonstration was well behaved.
Of course, had the march passed by any churches it may have been a different story.
No whips hanging out of nether-regions?
21![]() |
jcm Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:42:10pm |
Democracy works Obama won.
Democracy failed Prop 8 passed.
Same election.
Same voters.
Cognitive Dissonance.
22![]() |
Ringo the Gringo Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:42:40pm |
I think one of my hamsters just had a heart attack.
24![]() |
Walter L. Newton Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:43:12pm |
re: #19 Ringo the Gringo
Thanks Charles.
Good job. I was able to get the page. Nice pictures, well, good pictures, well, crazy pictures, well, ...
25![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:43:17pm |
Someone needs to inform the Anti-Prop 8 people that no discrimination exists with Prop 8.
There is no differential treatment between protected groups (assuming Sexual Orientation is even a protected class).
26![]() |
Ward Cleaver Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:43:52pm |
re: #21 jcm
Democracy works Obama won.
Democracy failed Prop 8 passed.Same election.
Same voters.Cognitive Dissonance.
Big time.
27![]() |
Ward Cleaver Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:44:25pm |
28![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:44:31pm |
Democrat 101: If you lose scream, shout, pitch a fit. If that doesn't work, file a lawsuit. Pre-emptive ones work best.
29![]() |
Walter L. Newton Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:44:36pm |
OT
Bye, bye. Well, I'm off to get ready for Christmas f'n cheer at the theatre tonight. IT'S TOO DAMN EARLY FOR A CHRISTMAS SHOW. I haven't even shot the turkey yet.
30![]() |
reine.de.tout Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:45:18pm |
re: #22 Ringo the Gringo
I think one of my hamsters just had a heart attack.
No kidding - I get a complete failure to load.
Will try later.
31![]() |
~BfromTX Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:45:21pm |
Sloooooooooooooow Loooooaaaaaddddd...oh look first two pics just come up. Ahh the rainbow flag...which no longer includes Mormons and gays who support prop 8.
32![]() |
conservativeChick Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:45:29pm |
re: #7 Walter L. Newton
No its slow for me too.
33![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:45:48pm |
re: #29 Walter L. Newton
OT
Bye, bye. Well, I'm off to get ready for Christmas f'n cheer at the theatre tonight. IT'S TOO DAMN EARLY FOR A CHRISTMAS SHOW. I haven't even shot the turkey yet.
I know! They've been showing Christmas specials here since Holloween!
34![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:46:53pm |
I just can't help but think that if the vote had gone the other way and conservatives had gone to the courts to get it overturned that they would have been lambasted, ridiculed, and skewered by the media, the pundits, and everyone else under the sun.
I really don't like the way that I am being treated by my country these days, to be honest.
35![]() |
Ringo the Gringo Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:47:47pm |
The site will open in a few minutes. Try again in a little while.
It just chokes up when everyone hits it all at the same time.
36![]() |
rawmuse Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:47:55pm |
OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.
So, this is all about those 2 words.
First off, I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.
37![]() |
jcm Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:47:59pm |
re: #34 vxbush
I just can't help but think that if the vote had gone the other way and conservatives had gone to the courts to get it overturned that they would have been lambasted, ridiculed, and skewered by the media, the pundits, and everyone else under the sun.
I really don't like the way that I am being treated by my country these days, to be honest.
You'll feel much better after re-education.
//
38![]() |
conservativeChick Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:48:01pm |
re: #17 Ringo the Gringo
Or any Christains or Jews.
39![]() |
BlueCanuck Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:48:18pm |
Well until Ringo replaces his hamster, I am out of here for a while.
/sweet, sweet overtime tonight. . . . .
40![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:49:16pm |
re: #17 Ringo the Gringo
Some of the people there were freaky, most were not. And unlike some of the anti-Prop 8 protests during the previous 10 days, everyone at this demonstration was well behaved.
Of course, had the march passed by any churches it may have been a different story.
The protests at the churches thing has to stop, if they have any moral high ground they lose it when they do that.
41![]() |
razorbacker Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:49:48pm |
I read someone, somewhere, who said that the best advertisement for gay marriage was the steady parade of gay couples rehabbing houses and changing decors on the various home improvement shows (HGTV and Bravo have some of them. Keep your significant other away from those shows. They're expensive.)
And yeah, I see what they mean. Ordinary people living ordinary lives getting along as best they can.
But these folks kinda sully the cause, in my opinion. And if they were straight and acting like that, it'd be detrimental to heterosexual marriage, too.
42![]() |
jcm Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:49:51pm |
Gotta run....
See ya' all on the FNDT, save me a seat at the bar.
43![]() |
jaunte Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:50:02pm |
Someone is that protest is suffering from the same Mercedes=Peace symbol dyslexia we've seen before in some of Zombie's photos.
44![]() |
Yashmak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:50:55pm |
re: #11 ArmyWife
THEY LOST! In votes there are winners and losers. THEY ARE THE LOSERS and are now proving it. ;)
You don't prove you're a loser for continuing to fight for what you believe in. You prove you're a loser if you don't.
45![]() |
reine.de.tout Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:50:59pm |
re: #34 vxbush
I just can't help but think that if the vote had gone the other way and conservatives had gone to the courts to get it overturned that they would have been lambasted, ridiculed, and skewered by the media, the pundits, and everyone else under the sun.
I really don't like the way that I am being treated by my country these days, to be honest.
conservatives tend to accept the results of the process, and would not have created havoc. However, the ridicule and skewering would probably have taken place, anyhow.
46![]() |
nyc redneck Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:51:34pm |
re: #36 rawmuse
OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.So, this is all about those 2 words.
First off, I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.
sometimes you hear the word 'gay' in an old movie and you have to go, "oh, that's what it used to mean."
occasionally, i still use it in the old way.
people giggle when i say, "i feel so gay today."
47![]() |
Hard Right Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:51:59pm |
re: #44 Yashmak
You don't prove you're a loser for continuing to fight for what you believe in. You prove you're a loser if you don't.
It's not that they are fighting. It's how they are fighting.
48![]() |
Ringo the Gringo Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:52:00pm |
re: #20 Hard Right
No whips hanging out of nether-regions?
Thanfully no....But if there had been, I would have photgraphed it for you.
49![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:52:01pm |
re: #35 Ringo the Gringo
The site will open in a few minutes. Try again in a little while.
It just chokes up when everyone hits it all at the same time.
Okay...but I'm not going to see ugly, scrawny old guys with inflated scrotums am I?
50![]() |
yochanan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:52:12pm |
i don't think gov't should be in anybody marriage one way or the other
why should a single worker pay a different tax rate than a married person. and marriage is a religious issue as well different religions have different views on marriage why pick one esp now that america isn't only a christian country even christians don't agree on how or if you can end a marriage.
51![]() |
Hard Right Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:52:41pm |
re: #48 Ringo the Gringo
Thanfully no....But if there had been, I would have photgraphed it for you.
Don't go to any trouble on my part. Ick.
52![]() |
Yashmak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:52:44pm |
re: #41 razorbacker
I read someone, somewhere, who said that the best advertisement for gay marriage was the steady parade of gay couples rehabbing houses and changing decors on the various home improvement shows (HGTV and Bravo have some of them. Keep your significant other away from those shows. They're expensive.)
No joke man, I can't keep my girlfriend off of those shows. I'm getting ready to buy a home, and she's already got a whole binder full of samples, sketches, and plans. . . .none of which we have money for. It's going to lead to some pretty upsetting arguments down the road a bit, I imagine.
53![]() |
Hard Right Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:53:20pm |
re: #49 Quilly Mammoth
Okay...but I'm not going to see ugly, scrawny old guys with inflated scrotums am I?
Darn it! I had forgotten that until now. Where's my brain bleach?
54![]() |
jaunte Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:54:15pm |
re: #52 Yashmak
Just keep the bills manageable with a smaller house:
[Link: www.tumbleweedhouses.com...]
55![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:54:19pm |
re: #45 reine.de.tout
conservatives tend to accept the results of the process, and would not have created havoc. However, the ridicule and skewering would probably have taken place, anyhow.
True, on both counts. How very unfortunate it is that we have to play by the rules, but everyone else is allowed to break them. And yet, that is why we're conservatives. No post-modern interpretation of rule playing is acceptable to us.
56![]() |
Lincolntf Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:54:25pm |
This Prop. 8 protest deal is annoying but I can't get worked up about it.
The confirmation that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State has taken all of the wind out of my sails.
57![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:54:56pm |
re: #46 nyc redneck
sometimes you hear the word 'gay' in an old movie and you have to go, "oh, that's what it used to mean."
occasionally, i still use it in the old way.
people giggle when i say, "i feel so gay today."
Hey, reine.de.tout and I are playing Scrabble online, and I have been led to believe that you may want to join us....
58![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:55:11pm |
re: #47 Hard Right
It's not that they are fighting. It's how they are fighting.
The photos cover a demonstration 13000 strong at Civic Center, LA, the only ugly in this demo are the "god hates gay" crew that showed up, and the inevitable WCW goons who show up at every demo, rain or shine.
59![]() |
zelnaga Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:55:29pm |
re: #36 rawmuse
OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.So, this is all about those 2 words.
So it's a separate institution but it's an equal institution. I think we've heard that before.
60![]() |
yochanan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:55:47pm |
maybe we should pick the jewish idea of marriage and devorce i.e. with out a religious devoce you are still married even if you get a civil devorice american marriage laws are based on prot. christian views. or maybe we should have FLDS view or muslim
OR BETTER YET THE GOV'T SHOULD NOT BE IN THIS AT ALL. LET EACH GROUP DECIDE FOR THEMSELEVES AS LONG AS THEY CAN'T FORCE IT ON OTHER GROUPS
62![]() |
Yashmak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:56:47pm |
re: #47 Hard Right
It's not that they are fighting. It's how they are fighting.
Can't really disagree there. . .but you know protests, they tend to draw out the most emphatic/enthusiastic portion of whatever group is represented. But you're right, just like the Black Panthers didn't really help the cause of the civil rights movement, some of these folks aren't exactly making their cause look attractive.
63![]() |
rawmuse Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:57:08pm |
re: #54 jaunte
Just keep the bills manageable with a smaller house:
[Link: www.tumbleweedhouses.com...]
Wow. Do you have to go outside to change your mind?
64![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:57:26pm |
re: #50 yochanan
That really only works if you remove the benefit system associated with getting married.
But really either way without Government involvement the entire thing gets screwy.
For example: If you leave marriage up to the Religions, then that leaves non religious people out of the ability to get married. Ok, so now you allow those without Religion to marry. But by what constraints? You can't enforce your religious constraints on them, nor can you have universal constraints as that is Government involvement. So now you have everyone have their own constraints...which really means NO constraints. Fine. In this scenario, men can marry men, women can marry women, a man can marry two women, a woman can marry a man and an woman, a man can marry 100 different people, you can marry a dog, couch, the stars, etc. (I think you get the idea). Ok so at this point marriage is nothing more than a contract between parties....(which might be ok to some) but if it is nothing more than a contract then it is meaningless & no longer marriage.
65![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:57:37pm |
re: #50 yochanan
i don't think gov't should be in anybody marriage one way or the other
why should a single worker pay a different tax rate than a married person. and marriage is a religious issue as well different religions have different views on marriage why pick one esp now that america isn't only a christian country even christians don't agree on how or if you can end a marriage.
Short of keeping census records (useful for genealogy research) I agree. Take the entitlement out of it and nobody cares. Then private concerns can call it what they want without infringing on others.
66![]() |
jaunte Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:58:06pm |
re: #63 rawmuse
Yes, I think I'd need at least a half-dozen in a row, plus a barn, to make that work.
67![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:58:06pm |
re: #60 yochanan
maybe we should pick the jewish idea of marriage and devorce i.e. with out a religious devoce you are still married even if you get a civil devorice american marriage laws are based on prot. christian views. or maybe we should have FLDS view or muslim
OR BETTER YET THE GOV'T SHOULD NOT BE IN THIS AT ALL. LET EACH GROUP DECIDE FOR THEMSELEVES AS LONG AS THEY CAN'T FORCE IT ON OTHER GROUPS
But it used to be that governments cared to do what was best for society, and most people accepted that marriage was best for the health of the society. No one makes these arguments anymore, and when I raise it in conversation people look at me as if I'm completely wacko. Which I may be, but I don't think this is the reason why.
68![]() |
razorbacker Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:58:19pm |
Now AllahPundit posted this over to Ace of Spades' house. I don't know why I find it so damn funny, so apropo, so delicious.
But I do.
This bad boy here fits so many different things in so many different ways.
I'm going to be absent for a while. Would one of you more studious types please take notes?
70![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 12:59:51pm |
re: #40 Thanos
The protests at the churches thing has to stop, if they have any moral high ground they lose it when they do that.
Yes - I'd like to know how disrupting a service in Lansing, MI or a Mormon Church in NYC had anything to do with a vote in CA or AZ?
71![]() |
rawmuse Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:00:32pm |
re: #59 zelnaga
If you are equating the institution of Slavery and the resulting civil rights struggle to this political movement, I have to think that is a bit of a stretch. And many blacks I know would be (and are) highly insulted by such an equivocation.
Maybe that is why they voted it down.
72![]() |
Hard Right Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:00:42pm |
re: #58 Thanos
The photos cover a demonstration 13000 strong at Civic Center, LA, the only ugly in this demo are the "god hates gay" crew that showed up, and the inevitable WCW goons who show up at every demo, rain or shine.
My reference is to the other "demonstrations" and incidents. I haven't looked at this one as I'm at work.
73![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:00:59pm |
re: #46 nyc redneck
sometimes you hear the word 'gay' in an old movie and you have to go, "oh, that's what it used to mean."
occasionally, i still use it in the old way.
people giggle when i say, "i feel so gay today."
74![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:01:16pm |
re: #36 rawmuse
I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.
Yeah....and 'fag' used to mean cigarette!
75![]() |
Dianna Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:01:31pm |
re: #60 yochanan
Not possible.
The state has a legitimate interest in marriage, and regulating it. It was actually a huge victory just to get the concept of civil marriage and divorce accepted.
We do not want the state to completely withdraw from marriage.
76![]() |
Hard Right Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:01:47pm |
re: #62 Yashmak
Can't really disagree there. . .but you know protests, they tend to draw out the most emphatic/enthusiastic portion of whatever group is represented. But you're right, just like the Black Panthers didn't really help the cause of the civil rights movement, some of these folks aren't exactly making their cause look attractive.
True. Such people are a minority that hurt the efforts of the majority.
77![]() |
rawmuse Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:02:17pm |
re: #69 buzzsawmonkey
True, but if you crack almost any modern dictionary the number one slot is now reserved for "homosexual". That is a fairly recent change.
78![]() |
nyc redneck Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:03:13pm |
re: #57 vxbush
{vxbush} thank you so much for thinking of me but,
i'm so bad at cards, board games, puzzles etc. and i run from the room when charades starts up. i was always the kid who sat in the corner, coloring.
i've never played scrabble. i'll pass for now, and let someone, skilled, have my seat.
80![]() |
JumpLandPackRepeat Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:03:34pm |
My 6-year-old asked me what "gay" meant yesterday. I tried to keep it simple and said it's when boys like boys and girls like girls. He seemed satisfied with that for now and let it go.
I wonder how many of those that voted Yes did so just as a protest against the judges making same-sex marriage legal because the people wanted to make that decision. I personally don't care if gays get married. Atheists can marry and no one seems to have a problem with them.
81![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:03:42pm |
Ex-President Bill Clinton's speeches to be vetted in concession for Hillary Clinton nomination
[Link: www.nydailynews.com...]
Yeah, this will last. I see a titanic explosion coming soon to a foreign policy near you!
83![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:04:06pm |
re: #61 rawmuse
Tim Geithner named as likely next Tres. Sec.
The Stock Market seemed to have liked the pick, which is interesting. Were they afraid that O would pick a loon?
84![]() |
Salem Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:04:08pm |
Yeah, the pictures are only 1/10 loaded so far, but I get the uh *ahem* jist of it.
85![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:04:54pm |
Ok I've been looking through the pictures and I have a couple comments.
1st, Ringo, thanks for taking them.
2nd, not allowing ANYONE to marry someone of the same sex is NOT discrimination!
3rd, Homosexual marriage (aka the right to do whatever the heck you want just because you want to) is NOT a Civil RIGHT!
4th, those who believe that marriage should remain between a man & a woman (as it has been since the beginning of time) DO NOT hate homosexuals.
5th, Believing that marriage is between a man & a woman is not equal to thinking that Gays should be beaten up or discriminated against.
6th, not being able to marry someone of your own sex is NOT the same as being forced to sit in the back of a bus, not being allowed to use certain bathrooms, being lynched, being beat up for walking down the street, not being able to vote, not being able to get a job, not being able to attend University.....
Let's get a grip here people!
87![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:05:23pm |
re: #70 vapig
Yes - I'd like to know how disrupting a service in Lansing, MI or a Mormon Church in NYC had anything to do with a vote in CA or AZ?
Well you know us Mormons - probably thought they could get to us through our hive mind.
/I wish I didn't have to use this.
88![]() |
ArmyWife Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:06:11pm |
re: #44 Yashmak
But they past a constitutional amendment. Game is over. Are we still fighting for McCain to win? No. Why? He lost. We are fighting for our party but not through law suits and violence, but through fundamental changes to the plat form to win in another election.
Gay marriage is something the majority of the population doesn't agree with as is proven by this vote. Because the vote didn't go your way does NOT give you the right to scare people in churches, to be violent and belligerent or to force your agenda on a private business (eHarmony). These things tend not to engage people to your cause. Go live with your SO. I don't care. I don't care what you do in your bedroom with a consenting adult. Don't mistake my tolerance for acceptance, however.
(When I say you, its the collective you, for clarification)
89![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:06:16pm |
re: #71 rawmuse
If you are equating the institution of Slavery and the resulting civil rights struggle to this political movement, I have to think that is a bit of a stretch. And many blacks I know would be (and are) highly insulted by such an equivocation.
Maybe that is why they voted it down.
Yes - I've heard the same thing here. It's also hypocritically cowardly that these protesters have plenty of hate to spread around to white churches - yet didn't dare to protest, say a black Baptist Church or a Hispanic Catholic Church.
Not that I'd want them to - just pointing out the inconsistency.
90![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:06:45pm |
MORE:
This is NOT an issue of "Separate but equal" as everyone regardless of sexual orientation or any other presumed protected class (assuming sexual orientation is a protected class) is forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex.
Its EQUAL but EQUAL!
91![]() |
Lincolntf Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:07:03pm |
re: #81 Nevergiveup
Hillary Clinton is essentially a "Reality TV" star. Watching her lie/being lied to during hubby's tenure should have been a brief and meaningless interlude in American politics.
She wasn't even qualified to be a Senator, and now she's the Sec. of State? It boggles the mind.
92![]() |
davinvalkri Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:07:09pm |
re: #17 Ringo the Gringo
Oh yeah, or any blacks too. Apparently 70% of the African American population of California voted Yes on 8; and a few days ago any black near Westwood, near UCLA, got heckled with racial slurs. It's OK when gays do it, apparently. Also, apparently African-Americans didn't see it as a civil rights issue.
93![]() |
Iron Fist Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:07:31pm |
re: #64 WrathofG-d
I used to be pro-gay marriage. The way that it has unfolded over the last four or five years has changed my mind. I'm sure that for some of the people, they really do want to get married and have a "traditional" marriage with their chosen spouse. I am also sure that that is the minority view. The way it has played out, I think it is more about getting in the face of straights and changing societal norms to be more accommodating to them. In other words, they want to force me to approve of their choices.
Trying to go through the courts has been a big mistake. Three unelected judges telling the whole State (let alone the whole country) that they don't have a right to their views is a recipe for failure. It guarantees a backlash, and that's what just happened in California. The gays have succeeded in changing hearts and minds, it is just that they have gone in exactly the opposite direction from what they wanted.
94![]() |
rawmuse Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:07:48pm |
re: #69 buzzsawmonkey
My respect for your learned authority as a practical wordsmith demands that I accept your correction.
But I don't have to like it. :)
95![]() |
Desert Dog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:07:55pm |
I think the method for getting Prop. 8's point across was not the correct one, but the SCOC left very little wiggle room for the detractors of gay marriage. I am all in favor of granting gay couples some sort of "civil union" so they can get similar benefits to married people. But, almost all of the rights they say they do not have, they already have. There is nothing in the law that prevents partnerships, nothing that prevents beneficiaries from being named. The only thing a "gay married couple" might run into is when "family members only" visitation is at stake. Their rights are not being trampled, they are not being "persecuted", they are not victims. They wanted to have the court act as a legislature in a questionable manner.....and this is the response they get back.
I have gay friends, gay relatives and I love them all. But, asking the society to change a natural and age old tradition for their own narrow personal agenda is asking too much. Two consenting adults can do whatever they wish with each other, it's none of my business. But, when a very small group of people wish to force their lifestyle upon me and society in general, that is too much......
96![]() |
Spar Kling Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:08:24pm |
re: #21 jcm
Democracy works Obama won.
Democracy failed Prop 8 passed.
Same election.
Same voters.
Cognitive Dissonance.
How about this:
Use logic to win if possible, but if you fail . . .
Use appeals to emotion to win, but if emotion fails . . .
Use the law to win, but if the law fails . . .
Use force.
You don't see street demonstrations protesting Obama's election, you don't see a rash of lawsuits, you don't see the Republicans setting up a "government in exile," and you're not going to see George Bush flying around visiting foreign governments as did Jimmy Carter. Why? Because most Republicans respect our Constitution, while the "moonbat" left simply uses and abuses our Constitution when it's convenient.
-sk
97![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:09:01pm |
re: #80 JumpLandPackRepeat
My 6-year-old asked me what "gay" meant yesterday. I tried to keep it simple and said it's when boys like boys and girls like girls. He seemed satisfied with that for now and let it go.
I wonder how many of those that voted Yes did so just as a protest against the judges making same-sex marriage legal because the people wanted to make that decision. I personally don't care if gays get married. Atheists can marry and no one seems to have a problem with them.
Actually, I have a friend in California that said she knew many, many people that voted no because they just felt it was inevitible. The were against gay-marriage and had voted twice to ban it - but with the courts over-ruling them each time they had just given up.
98![]() |
yochanan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:10:00pm |
if they could get this passed in cal. it wouldn't pass anywere if people got to vote on it freely.
i still feel the way israel does it is best each group gets to decide what they want to do with out forcing their viewpoint on other groups
99![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:10:37pm |
re: #87 DaddyG
Well you know us Mormons - probably thought they could get to us through our hive mind.
/I wish I didn't have to use this.
LOL! You didn't!
100![]() |
Ringo the Gringo Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:11:40pm |
re: #85 WrathofG-d
I'd ding you up twice if I could.
101![]() |
Jinx Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:11:54pm |
Regardless of which side you are on regarding Prop 8, the militant radicals in the gay movement have demonstrated that they truly are domestic terrorists. They've stomped on crosses carried by their opponents, silencing the opposition by brute force instead of debate; sent hate mail and envelopes with white powder to Mormon temples to scare mormons away from practicing their beliefs.
And now, they are attempting to use the California Supreme Court to overturn a mandate that is written in the constitution to allow people to vote for and install constitutional amendments. The California Supreme Court is walking a thin line. If they overturn Prop 8, they overturn the entire California constitution and over the law of the land installing their own, unique form of government--rule by judicial fiat where the justices create the laws.
102![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:12:03pm |
103![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:12:07pm |
re: #54 jaunte
Just keep the bills manageable with a smaller house:
[Link: www.tumbleweedhouses.com...]
My first home was 950 square feet. It was almost that small. But I could see a use for such homes.
104![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:12:18pm |
re: #53 Hard Right
Darn it! I had forgotten that until now. Where's my brain bleach?
You can thank zombie for that indelible image. Someday karma will get zombie for that!
105![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:13:08pm |
Marriage licenses are issued by a state, being able to pick who you marry as long as they are adult, mentally competent, and human shouldn't be regulated.
Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.
106![]() |
nikis-knight Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:13:42pm |
re: #56 Lincolntf
This Prop. 8 protest deal is annoying but I can't get worked up about it.
The confirmation that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State has taken all of the wind out of my sails.
I'm just glad the election is over so I don't have to pretend to have any respect for HRC anymore.
Yeah, she was better than the Chicago Marxist. She still had no class.
107![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:13:46pm |
re: #97 vapig
Actually, I have a friend in California that said she knew many, many people that voted no because they just felt it was inevitible. The were against gay-marriage and had voted twice to ban it - but with the courts over-ruling them each time they had just given up.
I think Obama got a lot of votes based on that logic, too. Folks were told that he was going to win, so they voted for him.
108![]() |
rawmuse Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:14:22pm |
re: #103 vxbush
The closest I ever got to living in a house that size, it was a house boat, 900 sq ft. the kind you see moored in Sausalito, which is where I would have moored it.
Couldn't get a bank loan for it.
That was probably a reasonable outcome.
109![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:14:43pm |
Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.
110![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:15:14pm |
re: #101 Jinx
...sent hate mail and envelopes with white powder to Mormon temples to scare mormons away from practicing their beliefs.
The threats made me want to go more often. Of course I also took the whole family down to Centennial Olympic Park the day after the Olympic bombing in 1996 just to send the terrorists a message.
111![]() |
yochanan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:15:30pm |
problem i have is mostly that they will try to force others to accept it, such as teachers in religous schools. by using the strong arm of gov't.
and i think the tax issue is discrimatory against single people.
112![]() |
nikis-knight Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:16:01pm |
re: #59 zelnaga
So it's a separate institution but it's an equal institution. I think we've heard that before.
Black people ARE identical to white people, however.
Men are not identical (even beyond genitals) to women.
Thus, male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships are not all interchangable.
113![]() |
VMA211Dan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:16:12pm |
If Cali. judges overturn Prop. 8 over the will of the people, BHO will have a few more judges to look at for SCOTUS. In BHO's world, justice is not blind. Twist the law to fit your liberal/socialist ideaology.
114![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:16:24pm |
re: #93 Iron Fist
I used to be pro-gay marriage. The way that it has unfolded over the last four or five years has changed my mind. I'm sure that for some of the people, they really do want to get married and have a "traditional" marriage with their chosen spouse. I am also sure that that is the minority view. The way it has played out, I think it is more about getting in the face of straights and changing societal norms to be more accommodating to them. In other words, they want to force me to approve of their choices.
Trying to go through the courts has been a big mistake. Three unelected judges telling the whole State (let alone the whole country) that they don't have a right to their views is a recipe for failure. It guarantees a backlash, and that's what just happened in California. The gays have succeeded in changing hearts and minds, it is just that they have gone in exactly the opposite direction from what they wanted.
I agree whole heartedly with your assessment. I used to be a lot more sympathetic to gays. No more - their thuggery has absolutely disgusted me. From hate crimes legislation to teaching 5 year olds about their lifestyle. Enough!
Civil Unions are legal in almost all 50 states. The marriage issue is also a states rights issue. If gays want to marry there are at least two states at this point in time that allow it. Let them vote with their feet.
115![]() |
Iron Fist Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:17:01pm |
re: #105 Thanos
Society, not just social conservatives. There were a lot of people who pulled the lever for Obama and voted "yes" on Prop.8. No one, I mean no one of any significance in either Party was for gay marriage. You don't have to like that. But that is the fact of where we stand today.
116![]() |
Lincolntf Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:17:39pm |
Marriage pre-dates the United States, pre-dates the Constitution, even pre-dates organized Religion. It exists solely as a social construct. I lived in MA when Margaret Marshall issued her "landmark" ruling that homosexuals should be given all of the rights and protections that married couples have. I don't consider gay couples "married", and that's all that really matters to me.
117![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:17:43pm |
re: #109 Thanos
Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.
Where'd you buy that bumper sticker?
118![]() |
yochanan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:18:09pm |
jewish law says the issue is more complex than just one male and one female. some types of jews were not allowed to marry others in some subsets of jews.
but then we don't want to force our beliefs on gentiles and we don't want gentiles to force there beliefs on us. and this issue could just do that.
119![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:18:29pm |
re: #112 nikis-knight
Black people ARE identical to white people, however.
Men are not identical (even beyond genitals) to women.
Thus, male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships are not all interchangable.
Thanks G-D!
120![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:18:40pm |
re: #109 Thanos
Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.
I didn't understand this comment. Everyone is for liberty, and everyone wants rules.
121![]() |
Cap'n DOC Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:18:44pm |
re: #8 Yashmak
Hell, I'm on 3 T-1s, and it's still slow. Must be the pipe on that end.
122![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:18:52pm |
re: #115 Iron Fist
Society, not just social conservatives. There were a lot of people who pulled the lever for Obama and voted "yes" on Prop.8. No one, I mean no one of any significance in either Party was for gay marriage. You don't have to like that. But that is the fact of where we stand today.
They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?
123![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:19:35pm |
re: #105 Thanos
Marriage licenses are issued by a state, being able to pick who you marry as long as they are adult, mentally competent, and human shouldn't be regulated.
Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.
It's been said here before, but when a gay couple can produce a child without a third party we'll talk.
124![]() |
Desert Dog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:19:47pm |
re: #105 Thanos
Marriage licenses are issued by a state, being able to pick who you marry as long as they are adult, mentally competent, and human shouldn't be regulated.
Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.
Should gay marriage be taught in school as a natural and normal behavior? Should it be presented as exactly the same as marriage between and man and woman? I do not think I would like a school to basically tell my 2nd grader that it's perfectly natural and normal for two women or two men to get married, just as it is for a man and a woman. Marriage between a man and a woman is a the foundation of our society. Please show me how it is not.
Society is slowly accepting the fact that there are gay people. If certain members of the gay community continue this method of protest, they are hurting their cause way more than they are helping it.
125![]() |
Ringo the Gringo Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:19:52pm |
re: #105 Thanos
Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.
Social conservatives (and clearly many liberals, after all this is California) are not for "two parent families", they are for families with both a mother and a father (or at least maintaining that as the ideal).
That's the gist of it.
126![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:20:02pm |
re: #114 vapig
I agree whole heartedly with your assessment. I used to be a lot more sympathetic to gays. No more - their thuggery has absolutely disgusted me. From hate crimes legislation to teaching 5 year olds about their lifestyle. Enough!
Civil Unions are legal in almost all 50 states. The marriage issue is also a states rights issue. If gays want to marry there are at least two states at this point in time that allow it. Let them vote with their feet.
What about the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Won't other states have to abide by the legal decisions of another states?
127![]() |
Salem Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:20:08pm |
All I know is that the people voted, the vote should stand. Same deal if 8 hadn't passed. If 8 is overturned, the precedent can come back to haunt everyone, including these protesters. Unfotunately, I get the feeling that most of these protesters only care about democracy as long as it's not their vote that is overruled.
128![]() |
turn Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:20:11pm |
re: #80 JumpLandPackRepeat
My 6-year-old asked me what "gay" meant yesterday. I tried to keep it simple and said it's when boys like boys and girls like girls. He seemed satisfied with that for now and let it go.
I wonder how many of those that voted Yes did so just as a protest against the judges making same-sex marriage legal because the people wanted to make that decision. I personally don't care if gays get married. Atheists can marry and no one seems to have a problem with them.
That would be turn, I'm fed up with liberal judges reversing the will of the people. Otherwise I don't really care one way or another. BTW my favorite uncle was gay. I can still remember the night the family was sitting around the dinner table when my father broke the news to my brother and I, hell I had to be about 9 or 10 at the time. The conversation turned to my uncle (mom's younger brother) and then mom and dad began cryptically arguing over whether dad should tell my brother and I something. After a few shots of ten high my dad just came out and said "Lee is gay, he likes other men." Oh I realized what he meant right away but I had no idea up until that point what gay meant. Long story short, Uncle Lee remained my favorite uncle and my parents seemed to be very relieved. Oh and at my dad's funeral I found out that uncle had been sleeping with my cousin Bret for years!
129![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:20:14pm |
re: #109 Thanos
Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.
That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there pilgrim. I happen to think that the government shouldn't define marriage and should get out of the entitlement business. Then let the various factions be guided by the dictates of their own conscience.
Any government that can forbid something can also require it.
Of course I have a very libertarian streak. I believe that a population must practice private morality - something that just cannot be legislated.
The difficult part is balancing individual rights with community standards with the common good. I fear anyone who professes to have an easy answer to that question.
130![]() |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:20:27pm |
It's to to see the protesters were fairly well behaved. I've heard a lot of the protests are getting a bit rowdy.
131![]() |
ArmyWife Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:20:44pm |
re: #103 vxbush
Mine was 1200 sq feet. I am sending this link to my husband. He took me to lunch today (SAP WARNING: called out of the blue, said "Baby, meet me at Chipotle cause I miss you") and we were talking about building a house behind my house and tearing the house I live in down. Its old, its big, its drafty. I said I wanted small, new, small and new. This is perfect. Not for the environment, for CLEANING.
132![]() |
Cap'n DOC Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:20:46pm |
re: #93 Iron Fist
From my perspective - Give them a finger and they want a fist.
133![]() |
VMA211Dan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:20:56pm |
re: #122 Thanos
They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?
I wish......
/
134![]() |
Hard Right Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:20:58pm |
re: #92 davinvalkri
Oh yeah, or any blacks too. Apparently 70% of the African American population of California voted Yes on 8; and a few days ago any black near Westwood, near UCLA, got heckled with racial slurs. It's OK when gays do it, apparently. Also, apparently African-Americans didn't see it as a civil rights issue.
To be precise, it isn't. I don't hate gays, but I do dislike some of their political views.
135![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:21:03pm |
re: #123 vapig
It's been said here before, but when a gay couple can produce a child without a third party we'll talk.
But they do have children, why are children of gays valued less than children of heterosexuals? Isn't it important for them to grow up in a two parent household. are Social conservatives pro-family?
136![]() |
Lincolntf Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:21:49pm |
re: #122 Thanos
I think you deliberately obfuscate the point. Nobody wants to punish gay people, but marriage between a man and a woman has proven benefits to Society, so Society makes it rewarding for a man and woman to marry. If you want to simply ban marriage in all forms because it somehow discriminates against single people, then you'd have a point.
137![]() |
rawmuse Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:21:52pm |
re: #124 Desert Dog
I am glad you wrote about that, because that is precisely what this movement is all about.
It is not so much about marriage as it is about being accepted as normal, and to be taught in schools and churches as such.
139![]() |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:22:37pm |
re: #127 Salem
Prop 8 should go through the system. Not everything decided by popular vote is constitutional.
140![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:23:16pm |
re: #122 Thanos
They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?
There is a huge difference between taking away an existing right vs. inventing a new right. Using your logic, society would be infringing on the right of a bigamist if we disallowed multiple weddings from the same person, or if we disallowed drug users from using drugs. Society has to have rules.
141![]() |
turn Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:23:23pm |
re: #127 Salem
All I know is that the people voted, the vote should stand. Same deal if 8 hadn't passed. If 8 is overturned, the precedent can come back to haunt everyone, including these protesters. Unfotunately, I get the feeling that most of these protesters only care about democracy as long as it's not their vote that is overruled.
Well said, I agree completely. The courts are trying to usurp the voter's power.
142![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:23:28pm |
re: #138 Cap'n DOC
They do not have children - naturally.
But they do have children, who can't have two parents.
143![]() |
rawmuse Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:23:28pm |
I am off for a walk. Today is too nice to squander. Later, folks.
145![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:23:50pm |
re: #131 ArmyWife
Mine was 1200 sq feet. I am sending this link to my husband. He took me to lunch today (SAP WARNING: called out of the blue, said "Baby, meet me at Chipotle cause I miss you") and we were talking about building a house behind my house and tearing the house I live in down. Its old, its big, its drafty. I said I wanted small, new, small and new. This is perfect. Not for the environment, for CLEANING.
There you go! Why spend hours cleaning? I bet you could clean that entire structure in under 1 hour flat!
146![]() |
David Simon Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:23:55pm |
re: #109 Thanos
Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.
Yeah, I'm sure that Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave because most people don't think that gay "marriage" is equivalent to traditional marriage.
147![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:23:55pm |
re: #118 yochanan
jewish law says the issue is more complex than just one male and one female. some types of jews were not allowed to marry others in some subsets of jews.
but then we don't want to force our beliefs on gentiles and we don't want gentiles to force there beliefs on us. and this issue could just do that.
Probably without meaning to you've hit the nail on the head. I believe this whole kurfluffle is a gambit to force churches - traditionally against the gay lifestyle - to perform gay marriages. It's an attempt to destroy the churches. Period.
148![]() |
bosforus Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:24:02pm |
If prop 8 had not passed, I, as a Mormon, can guarantee you that I would not have sent white powder to a homosexual's house as someone did to two of our temples (and a Catholic fraternity).
I don't see how the no on 8 crowd can expect to make any progress with the kind of behavior being displayed. Their "progress" has been measured by overturning election results through Mayor directives and an indifference by their Supreme Court towards the law and now by these "protests" that would make MLK turn in his grave.
On the other hand, in the states where gay marriage has passed the results of the elections have been respected. Even when the CA leadership began to issue gay marriage licenses in defiance of their own vote the movement for prop 8 conducted itself legally and with no 'white powder' techniques in the form of the ballot initiative.
Whose behavior appears to be that of the bigot?
[keep in mind, I am not referring to everyone who opposed prop 8 - I know there are many people, friends and acquaintances of mine alike, who were opposed to prop 8 for reasons other than the perennial 'religion is full of bigots' reasons]
149![]() |
JumpLandPackRepeat Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:24:08pm |
re: #54 jaunte
Just keep the bills manageable with a smaller house:
[Link: www.tumbleweedhouses.com...]
I got claustrophibic just watching that video!
150![]() |
Desert Dog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:24:12pm |
Ok, let's say all of this is reversed and gay marriage becomes the law again. And, let's say other states grant it as well. Where does this end?
I can see some dude showing up at city hall in a few years and proclaiming that he is deeply in love and wishes to marry: Barbara AND Tim. You see, he is bisexual and is love with both of them, and they are in love with him too. So, it's trampling on that poor guys rights to not accept his marriage to a man and a woman.......So, let's add that...
What's after that Man and animal?
Gay people.....I love you....you are human beings, just like everyone else....I do not judge you, and please, do not judge me.....I am not asking you to change your entire culture, but you are asking me to change mine.....sorry.
151![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:24:22pm |
re: #140 DeafDog
Strawman, we are talking about gay marriage, not bigamy laws. Stay with the subject.
152![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:24:28pm |
re: #135 Thanos
But they do have children, why are children of gays valued less than children of heterosexuals? Isn't it important for them to grow up in a two parent household. are Social conservatives pro-family?
Just curious. What does 2 gay parents have to do with marriage? 2 gay parents can bring up child with out being "married"?
153![]() |
Dave the..... Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:24:34pm |
re: #109 Thanos
Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.
I think a lot of them are against polygamy, incestual things, old guys going after little kids.
154![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:24:35pm |
re: #124 Desert Dog
Should gay
marriagesexuality be taught in school as a natural and normal behavior?
Isn't this what we're really talking about when it comes to "marriage" education in schools?
Really - I'd rather teach it at home. (...and please don't advocate the state take over parenting duties for the ignoramuses who won't instruct their own children about the facts of life).
155![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:24:59pm |
re: #122 Thanos
They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?
I thin it was five. Anyway. Take religion out of it, societies through out the ages have given special consideration to marriage because it provides the next generation of that society. Your argument ignores the fact that societies make rules for the continuance of that society and the prosperity of it's members. When that stops happening societies fail.
We've seen the effect broken homes across America, and, in fact, the World.
Ignoring the need for a functioning society is the only way that L. Neil Smith can make their uber-individualistic philosophy work.
156![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:25:12pm |
re: #93 Iron Fist
I too was very Pro-Gay marriage until Gavin Newsom (sp?) decided to thumb his nose at the entire state. The way that the Homosexuals have labeled me, attacked religion, and otherwise responded to this issue has pushed me even further against Gay Marriage. Their confusing being pro Traditional Definition of Marriage, and being Anti-Homosexual has pretty much ensured that they will never have me back.
Like most emotional, immature, leftists, they have confused the actual issue, and overplayed their hand with me.
You are correct when you state that: "in other words, they want to force me to approve of their choices." This is EXACTLY what it is about for the actual Homosexuals. You will notice however from the photos that they are not alone. Their issue has been wiillingly co-opted by those who take every step possible to attack the core of the United States. (ex: World Can't Wait)
Their co-opting of the actual Civil Rights Movement adds to my disgust with their cause. Their inability to get everything they want (but are denied to everyone equally) is NOT the same as the disgusting treatment of African Americans, or even Women throughout history.
Their comparing their cause to that of the Civil Rights Movement just further evidences how sick, and selfish their movement really is! That they cannot see the difference should offend everyone.
158![]() |
Jinx Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:25:45pm |
re: #36 rawmuse
The interesting thing about the word gay is that it has been redefined in colloquial use. It mutated away from the meaning of happy to homosexual. But it has also, subsequently evolved to be a pejorative as in, That was gay!
But languages are not static and constantly evolve. I think the same occurred with the word terrific, stemming from the word terrible. But then again, I could be wrong.
159![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:25:56pm |
re: #126 MandyManners
What about the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Won't other states have to abide by the legal decisions of another states?
Defense of Marriage Act.
160![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:26:08pm |
re: #153 Dave the.....
strawman, we are talking about marriage between two adult humans.
161![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:26:29pm |
re: #149 JumpLandPackRepeat
I got claustrophibic just watching that video!
But can you imagine if someone with that house died what the will would be? "I will my house to my dog." Because it's just an oversized dog house. But I find it strangely tempting.
162![]() |
sattv4u2 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:27:34pm |
re: #136 Lincolntf
marriage between a man and a woman has proven benefits to Society,
Aside from procreation (which can and does occur without marriage) , what benefits does society get out of heterosexual marriage? What "benefits" are lost if gays and/or lesbians marry?
163![]() |
Dianna Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:27:34pm |
re: #122 Thanos
They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?
The state is telling a lot of people that - and they're not gay!
Their significant others were previously married and produced at least one child. The the former spouses have a "right" to the money of the new significant other - if the two SO's marry.
The state (that is, A) presumes to tell a person (B, the prospective spouse) that they can be robbed for the benefit of the child of a former marriage (C).
The state is a scoundrel!
164![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:27:53pm |
So Wrath and Iron fist, you changed a principled stance because of the 10 percent rule? (10 percent of any population are idiots...) Sounds petulant and unreasoned to me.
165![]() |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:28:11pm |
re: #150 Desert Dog
Please stop equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophiles . It's bigoted, offensive and stupid.
166![]() |
Dave the..... Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:28:19pm |
Probably without meaning to you've hit the nail on the head. I believe this whole kurfluffle is a gambit to force churches - traditionally against the gay lifestyle - to perform gay marriages. It's an attempt to destroy the churches. Period.
Correct. Much of this is an attempt to destroy our institutions. Nothing would make the gay-left alliance (meaning, those gays who are also lefty moonbatish) then to put the Boy Scouts, Catholic Church, etc out of business in America. Look at what happened to E-Harmony this week.
167![]() |
NoGardtheGreat Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:28:32pm |
Hang on folks! We're forgetting the bisexuals out there. If gays can get married, should bi's be able to have one male and one female marriage too? Are all three married? Is it just one union, or two separate ones?
Until the gays can answer that, they are not seeking any form of rights, just their own agenda.
168![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:28:53pm |
re: #159 Quilly Mammoth
Defense of Marriage Act.
Would it be wrong for me to foresee a challenge of it before the USSC?
169![]() |
Desert Dog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:29:08pm |
re: #157 Thanos
Easy answer on your part. I think my point if valid. It is a rubber stamp on their lifestyle that they want the most. If this is overturned and accepted and other states grant it, it opens up the flood gates of an agenda that wants to change our society at it's core. I greatly respect your opinion and think you are a very smart guy, but on this issue, it is not as cut and dry as you are stating.
170![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:29:10pm |
re: #163 Dianna
The state is telling a lot of people that - and they're not gay!
Their significant others were previously married and produced at least one child. The the former spouses have a "right" to the money of the new significant other - if the two SO's marry.
The state (that is, A) presumes to tell a person (B, the prospective spouse) that they can be robbed for the benefit of the child of a former marriage (C).
The state is a scoundrel!
More importantly, Dianna, people like Thanos are saying that because the measured only passed by 3% (or 5%) that it really isn't a valid election. Pretty scary stuff.
172![]() |
Hard Right Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:29:34pm |
re: #165 Killgore Trout
Please stop equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophiles . It's bigoted, offensive and stupid.
DD did not equate it with either of those. He used those examples to show how slippery a slope the granting of "rights" can be. Nothing more.
173![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:29:44pm |
South Africa's Desmond Tutu receives US State Department award
[Link: www.jpost.com...]
Past recipients include former US presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Czech leader Vaclav Havel and former South African President Nelson Mandela.
Now that's one hell of a line up!
174![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:30:30pm |
re: #163 Dianna
The state is telling a lot of people that - and they're not gay!
Their significant others were previously married and produced at least one child. The the former spouses have a "right" to the money of the new significant other - if the two SO's marry.
The state (that is, A) presumes to tell a person (B, the prospective spouse) that they can be robbed for the benefit of the child of a former marriage (C).
The state is a scoundrel!
Including the income of a new spouse when calculating CS? That's whack.
175![]() |
Dave the..... Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:30:34pm |
strawman, we are talking about marriage between two adult humans.
But if 4 members of a California court can rule that any laws banning gay marriage to be invalid, why not overturn a law saying a 40 year-old can't marry a 12 year old?
176![]() |
Salem Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:30:35pm |
re: #139 Killgore Trout
Prop 8 should go through the system. Not everything decided by popular vote is constitutional.
Maybe, but I imagine you'll start to have second thoughts down the road as the line is redrawn for the thousandth time because a vocal minority doesn't like it.
178![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:31:01pm |
re: #169 Desert Dog
Yes, it really is. You are giving the slippery slope fear argument when we are talking about marriage by the state between two consenting adults who might or might not have children.
179![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:31:15pm |
re: #151 Thanos
Strawman, we are talking about gay marriage, not bigamy laws. Stay with the subject.
I disagree. You want to bend the existing rules and replace them with something different. You are making universal statements about invented rights being tarnished.
Where does your non-sense end? will it be that if gays can marry than the whole world will be in balance and no one's rights are infringed? I doubt it. More likely it sets a precedent and everyone with a made-up grievence will be free to use your arguments.
Society has rules. Society needs rules.
180![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:31:17pm |
re: #168 MandyManners
Would it be wrong for me to foresee a challenge of it before the USSC?
I was actually surprised that it hasn't been yet. However, the Court has turned down a handful of appeals to them about it.
181![]() |
zelnaga Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:31:22pm |
re: #71 rawmuse
If you are equating the institution of Slavery and the resulting civil rights struggle to this political movement, I have to think that is a bit of a stretch. And many blacks I know would be (and are) highly insulted by such an equivocation.
Maybe that is why they voted it down.
What I'm saying is that there are superficial similarities. Isn't that the point of simile and metaphor, anyway? An example given on wikipedia.org's on similes is "his mind is as sharp as a samurai's sword.". The similarities between a mind and a samurai's sword are exceptionally superficial, but then again, that's kind-of the point. Similes, by their very nature, are also quite prone to hyperbole. If you don't exaggerate, the point your trying to make might be lost.
So, anyway, you're completely right - the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are completely different. Indeed, as far as I know, the institutions actually are equal - I just don't see the need for them to have another name. The website protectmarriage.com discussed the consequences of gay marriage in Massachusetts and I think the points if makes are valid ones. Of course, I don't think the problems in Massachusetts stem from their not defining marriage as being between a man and a women but rather between their non-discrimination stuff.
California could always say "adoption agencies must not distinguish between civil unions and marraige" and that'd, essentially, be the same thing as saying "adoption agencies must not distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual marriages". I mean, what's wrong with the adjective? Why do new words have to be invented?
182![]() |
Iron Fist Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:31:25pm |
re: #122 Thanos
You deal with it, and go on. I'm really tired of seeing the Social Conservatives bashed because they believe the same way Barrack Obama believes on this issue. This is the culture that we have had for well over a thousand years. You aren't going to change it by judicial fiat.
If they are really so concerned about it, why haven't more gays flocked to Massachusetts where it is Legal and gotten hitched? It's a free country. Nobody is stoping them. Just as nobody is stopping them from signing durable powers of attourney or writing a will naming their partner as benificiary, etc.
Forgive me, but if they aren't taking advantage of what the law does allow, I am skeptical of their motivations in wanting to change the law. And they aren't taking advantage of it. Not in any significant numbers.
It's not about fairness or equal rights. It is about forcing a change in social norms against the will of society.
183![]() |
JumpLandPackRepeat Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:32:09pm |
re: #128 turn
Oh and at my dad's funeral I found out that uncle had been sleeping with my cousin Bret for years
I was with ya until I got to the end, lol!
184![]() |
turn Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:32:11pm |
Oh man, I can feel the karma on this thread ... it's so thick you could cut it with a knife. Ha
185![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:32:17pm |
re: #175 Dave the.....
But if 4 members of a California court can rule that any laws banning gay marriage to be invalid, why not overturn a law saying a 40 year-old can't marry a 12 year old?
Minors cannot form legal consent.
186![]() |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:32:42pm |
re: #172 Hard Right
It's an absurd and offensive example.
Re: slippery slope.....
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument. What's next? Will interspecies marriages be next? It's stupid and bigoted.
187![]() |
Desert Dog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:32:51pm |
re: #165 Killgore Trout
Please stop equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophiles . It's bigoted, offensive and stupid.
The beastiality is a stretch, granted. And, PLEASE, I did not mention pedophiles. However, I can turn the tables of your own argument against you when it comes to three people marrying. I can use the same approach and same reasoning you are right now to justify it. Why would that be wrong? If two guys or two girls is ok, why not a girl and two guys? Or, two girls and one guy? They are consenting adults and want to do it? Why not let them?
188![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:33:09pm |
re: #179 DeafDog
What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?
189![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:33:12pm |
re: #180 Quilly Mammoth
I was actually surprised that it hasn't been yet. However, the Court has turned down a handful of appeals to them about it.
A challenge to the FF&C Clause has been turned down?
190![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:33:37pm |
re: #126 MandyManners
What about the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Won't other states have to abide by the legal decisions of another states?
The only way I can answer that (as I am not a constitutional attorney) is a case here in Virginia. Two gay ladies were residents of Virginia. They married in MA and moved to Vermont because Vermont recognized the union. One of the women had had a child with her husband before they divorced and she became gay.
after a couple of years the gay couple divorced. The mother of the child left Vermont and went back home to Virginia. Vermont mom sued for visitation and Vermont issued some sort of injunction on Virginia mom. Virginia - the state - hit back and said forget it! We don't recognize your marriage or your claim.
In the meantime, gay mom became not gay again and got back together with her ex-husband. This was Virginia trump card. When Vermont tried to push back, Virginia - the state - told Vermont to drop it as they had the biological mom, the biological dad and the child. Case was dropped.
So, that's what I know about that. Not much and I understand your question, but the law is already no where near caught up with this.
191![]() |
bosforus Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:33:44pm |
re: #178 Thanos
Yes, it really is. You are giving the slippery slope fear argument when we are talking about marriage by the state between two consenting adults who might or might not have children.
But why just 2 adults? Seriously, why can't 4 adults get married to each other? Because it's the "rule"? Well let's just change the rule. If enough people want it that seems to be good enough, right?
193![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:34:05pm |
re: #188 Thanos
What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?
What would be the basis for that objection?
194![]() |
Dave the..... Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:34:11pm |
Any one see today's USA today? As we all know, the most generous state in America is Utah. They donate both time and money to charitable causes roughly twice the rate of the rest of the country.
195![]() |
JumpLandPackRepeat Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:34:36pm |
re: #135 Thanos
But they do have children, why are children of gays valued less than children of heterosexuals? Isn't it important for them to grow up in a two parent household. are Social conservatives pro-family?
And what about all the infertile straight couples who can't produce a child?
196![]() |
Killgore Trout Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:34:38pm |
re: #187 Desert Dog
I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.
197![]() |
Desert Dog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:34:55pm |
re: #178 Thanos
To have children or not have children is moot. What is glaring at you right now, is a justification of a lifestyle. What other lifestyles should be granted equal status? It is a slippery slope, that is the point. It is a floodgate ready to open.
198![]() |
Dianna Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:35:36pm |
re: #170 Quilly Mammoth
More importantly, Dianna, people like Thanos are saying that because the measured only passed by 3% (or 5%) that it really isn't a valid election. Pretty scary stuff.
I see Thanos' point - not on the percentage by which Prop 8 passed, but his broader one.
My problem with the current behavior has to do with the very serious issue of judicial activism. The people spoke; the people can speak again, if gays make the effort. It is asking for severe trouble to rely on an activist judiciary.
199![]() |
Honorary Yooper Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:35:43pm |
re: #138 Cap'n DOC
They do not have children - naturally.
I've stayed out of this up to this point. Yes, some of them to have children. Usually it is from a previous heterosexual relationship.
I have no problem with their marriage by the state, or civil union, as one may call it. However, I do not think anyone should force such a thing on religious marriages. It should be up to each sect or religion if they choose to have them marry within said sect or religion.
200![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:35:56pm |
re: #191 bosforus
You are asking the question, why don't you answer it? Why can't four adults get married ala Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" or whatever?
202![]() |
HoosierHoops Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:36:09pm |
re: #162 sattv4u2
marriage between a man and a woman has proven benefits to Society,
Aside from procreation (which can and does occur without marriage) , what benefits does society get out of heterosexual marriage? What "benefits" are lost if gays and/or lesbians marry?
My little sister is gay..She seems happy and does not constitute a threat to western civilization as we know it.. That's my opinion.
I admit..I don't understand homosexuality..I've been around some very very handsome men..And I'm not the least bit attracted to them..So it may be chemical.. I honesty don't know...And while i don't agree with the lifestyle If anyone threatened my sister or called her names they would have to deal with the hoopster and it wouldn't be pretty.
203![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:36:22pm |
re: #189 MandyManners
A challenge to the FF&C Clause has been turned down?
I can look it up but I think there have been at least five appeals turned away. There was fear that the last one came close to being accepted which is why some people started pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
204![]() |
Dave the..... Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:36:33pm |
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument.
Interracial marriage has never been universally illegal. Moses was married to an African-American (yes, I used that term to be funny).
Several racist societies had many laws, including those dealing with interracial marriage. But one man, one women marriage goes back to English common law in the US.
205![]() |
Dianna Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:36:36pm |
re: #174 MandyManners
Including the income of a new spouse when calculating CS? That's whack.
Yes, it is. But it is done all the time.
206![]() |
Outrider Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:36:54pm |
re: #36 rawmuse
OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.So, this is all about those 2 words.
First off, I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.
Because all these characters have stolen or twisted meanings. "Peoples Democratic Republic" = Communist. Certain crosses mean hate groups. Maltese cross associated with Nazis as was the swastika. A simple rainbow arch, starting off meaning diversity, is twisted as bizarre groups leapt aboard the bandwagon. "Peoples Army" = Communist Army. The list goes on and on. The names and symbols start off innocuous to mislead people. Look at names of communist front groups in the US; United for Peace and Justice. Then there is Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development a front name for Islam terror.
The idea is to come up with emblems, logos, and names that when a person speaks against them, they will be held up to ridicule. Who can be against Relief and Development? Against Peace and Justice?
207![]() |
Desert Dog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:36:57pm |
re: #196 Killgore Trout
I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.
Well, I have one wife and I do not think I could handle another, good luck to you with that!
208![]() |
father_of_10 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:36:57pm |
Some of this makes NO sense at all. Like the one that said: "I had an affair with Mormon bishop with 6 kids for 2 years." OK, so both he and the (most likely FORMER) Bishop are both perverts. And what does THAT have to do with Prop 8? Oh, nothing, just his lame attempt at Mormon bashing.
-LAME
209![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:37:19pm |
re: #192 Thanos
So like China the state should dictate?
So now the will of the electorate is the same as the Junta of China? You're off your rocker.
210![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:37:29pm |
re: #186 Killgore Trout
re: #186 Killgore Trout
It's an absurd and offensive example.
Re: slippery slope.....
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument. What's next? Will interspecies marriages be next? It's stupid and bigoted.
I don't think so. Prohibiting Interracial marriage is, clearly, unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution referring to 'sexual orientation.'
211![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:37:33pm |
re: #196 Killgore Trout
I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.
I agree, even as a monogomous Latter-day Saint (mainstream Mormon). However I would be hard pressed to accept the "law of the land" telling me I had to provide government benefits to the multiple spouses of polygamists or to any other marital arrangement.
That's why the government should take the entitlements out of any kind of social bond. (of course I'm not voluntarily giving up my deductions as long as it's allowed).
212![]() |
midwestgak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:37:34pm |
re: #169 Desert Dog
Easy answer on your part. I think my point if valid. It is a rubber stamp on their lifestyle that they want the most. If this is overturned and accepted and other states grant it, it opens up the flood gates of an agenda that wants to change our society at it's core. I greatly respect your opinion and think you are a very smart guy, but on this issue, it is not as cut and dry as you are stating.
I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.
A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.
213![]() |
Jinx Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:37:58pm |
re: #110 DaddyG
The threats made me want to go more often. Of course I also took the whole family down to Centennial Olympic Park the day after the Olympic bombing in 1996 just to send the terrorists a message.
I'm glad you went. However, it's not the desire that they're shutting down, but the ability to go to Mormon temples that they're attacking. If they send a letter with white powder in it, the people inside must be evacuated safely, HAZMAT must be called, FBI must be called, and the Mormon temple is closed down for an indefinite period of time--thus removing the ability to go to that particular Mormon temple. It's domestic terrorism pure and simple and why the media has not run the story is disingenuous.
214![]() |
Iron Fist Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:37:59pm |
re: #139 Killgore Trout
A Constitutional amendment is not subject to judicial review. You amend the Constitution and that is where the matter ends. If the judges were to try and interfer it would be an unprecedented power grab. It would mean that there was some law of the land that was higher than the Constitution. Where that is or where it comes from, I don't know.
I've seen it argued that the Bill of Rights was and is an acknowledgement of Rights that you have where the goveernment cannot tread. No where is the right to homosexual marriage enshrined.
And, again, even the Democrats are against homosexual marriage. It isn't so much a Left-Right thing. It's broader than that.
215![]() |
quercus albus Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:38:07pm |
Mandy, et.al.
Repost from previous thread:
re: #526 quercus albus
Correction: This is true for THAT ONE mortgage company. Not a Freddie/Fanny policy. I was told by the loan officer that since it was a company policy, it wouldn't be on the net. I apologize. That was not the way it was described. I guess she didn't want us looking at other companies.
216![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:38:12pm |
re: #197 Desert Dog
No, it's not a slippery slope. It's gay marriage. You still haven't given a good reason why gays shouldn't be permitted to marry, can you stay on subject and give some reason other than "what if"?
217![]() |
Dave the..... Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:38:14pm |
I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.
But would you sue to force an employer to provide benifits to all of your spouses? Would you sue E-Harmony because they don't have a polygamist page? Would you sue the Boy Scouts, Salvation Army and attack the Catholic church because they don't share your views on this?
218![]() |
ArmyWife Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:38:24pm |
re: #135 Thanos
A 2 parent household doesn't mean simply having 2 people parenting. Its 2 people with the mother role and father role. For simplification, the mother role is to be warm and nurturing. The father role is the rule enforcer, the protector. It works. Healthy children are raised. Can healthy children be raised in a same sex household? Yes, I am sure they are, just as some unhealthy children are produced from a 2 parent mother/father household. A single parent can raise a happy child, too, but it takes a hell of a lot of work to integrate male or female role models as the case may be. There are few that pull that off - kudos, BIG BIG kudos to the single parents that do.
219![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:38:29pm |
re: #190 vapig
The only way I can answer that (as I am not a constitutional attorney) is a case here in Virginia. Two gay ladies were residents of Virginia. They married in MA and moved to Vermont because Vermont recognized the union. One of the women had had a child with her husband before they divorced and she became gay.
after a couple of years the gay couple divorced. The mother of the child left Vermont and went back home to Virginia. Vermont mom sued for visitation and Vermont issued some sort of injunction on Virginia mom. Virginia - the state - hit back and said forget it! We don't recognize your marriage or your claim.
In the meantime, gay mom became not gay again and got back together with her ex-husband. This was Virginia trump card. When Vermont tried to push back, Virginia - the state - told Vermont to drop it as they had the biological mom, the biological dad and the child. Case was dropped.
So, that's what I know about that. Not much and I understand your question, but the law is already no where near caught up with this.
I wondered what had happened to that case. Thanks!
220![]() |
HoosierHoops Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:39:11pm |
re: #185 MandyManners
Minors cannot form legal consent.
Thanks Mandy..let's keep apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
221![]() |
funky chicken Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:39:15pm |
re: #1 Walter L. Newton
Do you think we could have them hold another demonstration this weekend....most of these folks probably wouldn't notice the 8 ft chainlink and concertina wire fence construction around them for a day or two....
Keep freaks off the streets! That's a demonstration I could support.
222![]() |
Cap'n DOC Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:39:26pm |
re: #142 Thanos
Sooner or later the child, however s/he has come to be, realizes that either one or the other of its parents is not all that it purports to be. Myself, I could care less what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, but they cannot (in the circumstances as described) conceive a child in any natural manner. Therefore, the couple cannot be 'parents' of said child. What these individuals are looking for is recognition and justification for their 'unnatural' behavior. If they are granted legal recognition, then we all become responsible for the potential results of any other 'unnatural' behavior as a result of their 'act'. Why I should pay (public defender ring any bells?) for something of which society sees no benefit is beyond me.
223![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:39:34pm |
re: #196 Killgore Trout
I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.
What about polyandry?
224![]() |
midwestgak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:39:41pm |
re: #216 Thanos
No, it's not a slippery slope. It's gay marriage. You still haven't given a good reason why gays shouldn't be permitted to marry, can you stay on subject and give some reason other than "what if"?
See #212
225![]() |
Dianna Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:40:12pm |
re: #178 Thanos
Yes, it really is. You are giving the slippery slope fear argument when we are talking about marriage by the state between two consenting adults who might or might not have children.
If we were arguing out of fear, that statement might be valid. The problem is, when the courts intervene over the will of the people, that slippery slope becomes a greased ramp.
There's a great deal about this issue that's difficult; it won't be improved by tearing at each other. This needs to be thrashed out by the great, mushy middle. Not the activists on either side.
226![]() |
vapig Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:40:26pm |
re: #150 Desert Dog
Ok, let's say all of this is reversed and gay marriage becomes the law again. And, let's say other states grant it as well. Where does this end?
I can see some dude showing up at city hall in a few years and proclaiming that he is deeply in love and wishes to marry: Barbara AND Tim. You see, he is bisexual and is love with both of them, and they are in love with him too. So, it's trampling on that poor guys rights to not accept his marriage to a man and a woman.......So, let's add that...
What's after that Man and animal?
Gay people.....I love you....you are human beings, just like everyone else....I do not judge you, and please, do not judge me.....I am not asking you to change your entire culture, but you are asking me to change mine.....sorry.
Guy already tried that in MA. Showed up with two sisters and said it was his alternative lifestyle.
Look, society makes laws all the time in what they will except and what they will not. Someone please explain how this is any different that the country wide ban on polygamy? Polygamy is not only not permitted it is criminal. People go to jail for it. Why is this determination any different?
These people have equal rights, they have equal protection. They are just being denied one thing - the term marriage. I'd say they have it a lot better than the polygamists.
227![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:40:35pm |
re: #203 Quilly Mammoth
I can look it up but I think there have been at least five appeals turned away. There was fear that the last one came close to being accepted which is why some people started pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is one issue I just cannot get all worked up about either way.
228![]() |
father_of_10 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:40:45pm |
re: #191 bosforus
But why just 2 adults? Seriously, why can't 4 adults get married to each other? Because it's the "rule"? Well let's just change the rule. If enough people want it that seems to be good enough, right?
But enough people DIDN'T want it. that's the point. Prop 8 passed and the PEOPLE said No.
229![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:41:01pm |
231![]() |
ArmyWife Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:41:19pm |
re: #195 JumpLandPackRepeat
But that is a medical condition preventing it. And honestly, I don't care if heterosexual couples decide not to have children, either. Doesn't make me ok with gay marriage.
232![]() |
VMA211Dan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:41:45pm |
re: #188 Thanos
What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?
Once again.
I wish.
/
233![]() |
bosforus Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:41:46pm |
re: #200 Thanos
You are asking the question, why don't you answer it? Why can't four adults get married ala Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" or whatever?
Not sure what that refers to but the answer to my questions is obviously hypocrisy, and bigotry. I have yet to hear any argument for gay marriage that can't also be applied to polygamy other than the number of people involved which I fail to see as being relevant. And since you apparently had no answer, I'm still waiting to hear the arguments.
234![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:41:50pm |
re: #205 Dianna
Yes, it is. But it is done all the time.
It's also enriching someone at the expense of another who has no legal ties to that person.
235![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:42:01pm |
re: #216 Thanos
No, it's not a slippery slope. It's gay marriage. You still haven't given a good reason why gays shouldn't be permitted to marry, can you stay on subject and give some reason other than "what if"?
Why should gay people be given special rights and privileges by society when those special rights and privileges are Societal Carrots to propagate and expand that society? The number of gay people who marry to raise a family is pretty small.
236![]() |
bosforus Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:42:18pm |
re: #196 Killgore Trout
I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.
Upding for your consistency!
237![]() |
Jinx Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:42:22pm |
One of the interesting topics this elevates is, where does it end?
One of my brother's friends wants to marry his left hand. Why not? He's very affectionate of his left hand and is in a very intimate relationship with it. So, because he truly loves his left hand he should be able to marry his left hand and then gain all the benefits of marrying his left hand. On his taxes he could now claim his left hand as a dependent--his hand cannot survive without him. But, after he marries his left hand, he also wants to marry his right hand. Why should a polygamous marriage be excluded? He may favor the left, but his right he still loves. And then there's his pet pygmy goat....
239![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:43:06pm |
re: #212 midwestgak
I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.
A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.
Now, THAT is one point at which I'll fight like hell.
240![]() |
funky chicken Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:43:13pm |
re: #212 midwestgak
I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.
A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.
IMHO, churches shouldn't have tax exemption anyway. The drive to construct ostentatious monstrosities to house churches is really offensive. Yeah, the construction workers get paid, but the churches should pay at least property taxes.
241![]() |
bosforus Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:43:28pm |
re: #228 father_of_10
But enough people DIDN'T want it. that's the point. Prop 8 passed and the PEOPLE said No.
Don't fret, I ask the polygamy question rhetorically. :)
242![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:43:29pm |
re: #222 Cap'n DOC
I disagree. I raised three children to adulthood, I was not their biological father.
243![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:43:52pm |
re: #208 father_of_10
Some of this makes NO sense at all. Like the one that said: "I had an affair with Mormon bishop with 6 kids for 2 years." OK, so both he and the (most likely FORMER) Bishop are both perverts. And what does THAT have to do with Prop 8? Oh, nothing, just his lame attempt at Mormon bashing.
-LAME
I've known other Mormons in my own congregations who "discovered" they were gay late into a marriage with multiple kids. Left the family over it... the aftermath was not pretty in either case.
I was more upset with their abandonment of the family they had covenanted to care for than whatever subsequent lifestyle they chose to live.
The bragging about it is exactly that - A smug self-righteous kind of superiority knowing that they are now enlightened and not subject to the ignorance of their former beliefs. I've heard it many times.
Funny when I left my former belief system to become a Mormon I didn't feel the need to destroy or prove wrong what I had left. I also didn't have to abandon my dependents to do so.
244![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:44:04pm |
re: #215 quercus albus
Mandy, et.al.
Repost from previous thread:
Correction: This is true for THAT ONE mortgage company. Not a Freddie/Fanny policy. I was told by the loan officer that since it was a company policy, it wouldn't be on the net. I apologize. That was not the way it was described. I guess she didn't want us looking at other companies.
That's what I suspected. Boot her butt to the curb. She's unethical.
245![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:44:14pm |
A gay man is already able to marry a woman. I don't see any discrimination there.
/
246![]() |
Dave the..... Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:44:48pm |
Please stop equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophiles . It's bigoted, offensive and stupid.
50 years ago, they weren't considered all that different. Some day the pedophiles will say "hey, remember when gay marriage was illegal?"
I'm not equating these things. I'm equating the arguements used to support them. And 4 judges in California can rule.
247![]() |
Iron Fist Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:44:51pm |
re: #192 Thanos
What you are proposing is the State dictating. What you are upset about isn't the fact that the State is, in your words, dictating. You are upset that the State isn't enforcing your values on the rest of society.
which goes back to my original point. Gay marriage isn't about equal rights. It is about forcing societal norms to change through an Imperial Judiciary. That one's a loser if you allow a vote.
248![]() |
father_of_10 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:44:56pm |
re: #239 MandyManners
Now, THAT is one point at which I'll fight like hell.
It happened in Albuquerque just last year. The People's State of New Mexico went after the photographers because they refused to do a shoot of a commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.
249![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:45:15pm |
re: #235 Quilly Mammoth
Sorry but marriage is not a "special right" or "privelage". It was around before the Christian church, or the US. For that matter, gay marriage was legal until it was outlawed by a Christian Roman Emperor.
250![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:45:33pm |
re: #188 Thanos
What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?
I'm trying to imagine the scenario, but I struggle because of 3000 years of societal history.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the rules regarding marriage are based on Common Law and have been codified in various state laws, which derive their authority - ultimately - from the US constitution. The US constitution does not grant any special rights based on sexual orientation. So, it is totally within the authority of the states to define the legal parameters.
In this particular case, I do not see tyranical behavior. Folks should be free in their bedroom to do whatever. I do not see anything that is hamstringing a gay couple from continuing to live happy and productive lives.
251![]() |
Hard Right Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:45:52pm |
re: #186 Killgore Trout
It's an absurd and offensive example.
Re: slippery slope.....
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument. What's next? Will interspecies marriages be next? It's stupid and bigoted.
I think you are reading things into the post that aren't there. Until DD says or suggests they are the same, I will takes his words at face value.
252![]() |
turn Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:46:17pm |
OT - Wow the dow looks like it is going to close up 500!
See ya all later, got to finish up here before I leave to go walk the black lab along the American.
Have a great weekend!
253![]() |
Dave the..... Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:46:30pm |
A gay man is already able to marry a woman. I don't see any discrimination there.
You give the sarcasm slash, but what you say is true. Gays have the same rights as straights. No law says that a straight person can marry the same sex.
254![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:46:34pm |
re: #220 HoosierHoops
Thanks Mandy..let's keep apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
It grates when people throw up the minor angle.
255![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:46:37pm |
re: #249 Thanos
Sorry but marriage is not a "special right" or "privelage". It was around before the Christian church, or the US. For that matter, gay marriage was legal until it was outlawed by a Christian Roman Emperor.
Any reference for that? I never heard that. I am not questioning your veracity, just a reference if possible?
256![]() |
Honorary Yooper Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:47:00pm |
My real problem with this has less to do with the legality/illegality of homosexual marriage than it does with mob rule. The protestors are angry that the proposition passed. OK, I can see not being happy with it. I'm unhappy Dick Durbin was not unseated in the Senate (yes, I voted for his opponet). I'm unhappy Barack Obama being President-elect instead of John McCain. However, I did not feel the need to take to the street and try to impose my will on others. If these folks are so unhappy with the passage of Proposition 8, they get off their asses and make a new Proposition to counteract Proposition 8. If they care enough about the issue, they should make their case, present it to the people in the next election, and get their own proposition passed. If they do not, then they are full of crap because it is less about the issue than them having a temper tantrum in public.
257![]() |
Yashmak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:47:03pm |
re: #88 ArmyWife
But they past a constitutional amendment. Game is over.
Obviously, the game is NOT over, as the passage of Prop 8 was immediately legally challenged, and those challenges are pending in California courts at this time.
Here is the fact of the matter as I see it: Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. And yet, California has just passed a constitutional ammendment treating homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples under the law. We're singling out a group and telling them they can't enjoy a privelege that everyone else in the USA enjoys. That seems very much like discrimination to me. . . no matter WHAT I might personally think about gay marriage. But hey, at least we had the wisdom as a state to grant LIVESTOCK additional rights on the same ballot.
As Thanos so aptly put it:
"Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?"
258![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:47:10pm |
re: #247 Iron Fist
My value is liberty, and individual rights. I don't mind speaking up for that. What's your real objection to gay marriage?
259![]() |
leboaz Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:47:37pm |
Can't get it to load, and yes I have a P.C.! Probably for the best anyway. But I, for one, would be OK with overturning Prop. 8, and making same-sex marriage legal everywhere in exchange for overturning the presidential election.
260![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:48:09pm |
261![]() |
Outrider Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:48:09pm |
re: #240 funky chicken
IMHO, churches shouldn't have tax exemption anyway. The drive to construct ostentatious monstrosities to house churches is really offensive. Yeah, the construction workers get paid, but the churches should pay at least property taxes.
I have no problem with the church building itself as well as its' associated functionary buildings being tax exempt. My heartburn kicks in when a particular church buys other properties around the town or city and they in turn are afforded tax exempt status, thus removing the properties from the tax rolls. I see this happening in Savannah with not only churches, but most noted of all SCAD (Savannah College of Art and Design). Many properties through out the city have been removed from the tax rolls because tax exempt organizations purchase them and in many cases profit from the purchase.
263![]() |
father_of_10 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:48:14pm |
re: #245 vxbush
A gay man is already able to marry a woman. I don't see any discrimination there.
/
Exactly. Where are we wrong? We are advocating that anyone can marry. Just as long as it is boy-girl. No discrimination there.
Just when did a sexual act preference become a protected class?
264![]() |
midwestgak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:48:55pm |
re: #240 funky chicken
IMHO, churches shouldn't have tax exemption anyway. The drive to construct ostentatious monstrosities to house churches is really offensive. Yeah, the construction workers get paid, but the churches should pay at least property taxes.
um, do you even know what you're talking about?
ostenetatious monstrosities like Notre Dame?
265![]() |
Cap'n DOC Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:48:59pm |
re: #242 Thanos
Was your significant other male or female? You are being obtuse. Same-sex sex results in no procreation, and that is something that cannot be argued. The purpose of 'marriage' is children, although some married couples are not blessed in that regard. I applaud your efforts as a father, and I would bet that if your current spouse were asked she would claim them as her children as well. That cannot be said if your current 'spouse' were male, now could it?
266![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:49:24pm |
Can someone here tell me the major legal differences between a civil union and marriage?
267![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:49:49pm |
re: #248 father_of_10
It happened in Albuquerque just last year. The People's State of New Mexico went after the photographers because they refused to do a shoot of a commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.
I was talking mainly about the chruch issue but, I can also see it's wrong to go after the photographer.
268![]() |
Desert Dog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:49:53pm |
re: #216 Thanos
My reasons are clearly stated, Thanos. Yours are not.
What else should we discard from our society then? If the stops are off and the 2000+ years of our culture are now wrong. What is next?
269![]() |
Ojoe Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:49:59pm |
re: #245 vxbush
A gay man is already able to marry a woman. I don't see any discrimination there.
There you have it.
What the gays want is not the same thing as marriage.
Don't use the same word.
That is constructing untruth right into the language.
270![]() |
Honorary Yooper Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:50:04pm |
re: #259 leboaz
Can't get it to load, and yes I have a P.C.! Probably for the best anyway. But I, for one, would be OK with overturning Prop. 8, and making same-sex marriage legal everywhere in exchange for overturning the presidential election.
Like I said in #256, they should, if they don't like it, present their case to the people and have their own proposition passed by the people in the next election. Anything else is not democracy, but instead, it is mob rule.
271![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:50:14pm |
re: #255 Nevergiveup
Any reference for that? I never heard that. I am not questioning your veracity, just a reference if possible?
342 AD, a decree by Theodosian, the punishments match those meted out by Islamic extremists for being gay now. You can look it up on HNN.net, I posted the link in a few threads.
272![]() |
Cap'n DOC Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:50:16pm |
re: #255 Nevergiveup
That's because Thanos likes to think he has a corner on logic.
273![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:51:04pm |
re: #256 Honorary Yooper
My real problem with this has less to do with the legality/illegality of homosexual marriage than it does with mob rule. The protestors are angry that the proposition passed. OK, I can see not being happy with it. I'm unhappy Dick Durbin was not unseated in the Senate (yes, I voted for his opponet). I'm unhappy Barack Obama being President-elect instead of John McCain. However, I did not feel the need to take to the street and try to impose my will on others. If these folks are so unhappy with the passage of Proposition 8, they get off their asses and make a new Proposition to counteract Proposition 8. If they care enough about the issue, they should make their case, present it to the people in the next election, and get their own proposition passed. If they do not, then they are full of crap because it is less about the issue than them having a temper tantrum in public.
They have the right to protest.
274![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:51:32pm |
re: #196 Killgore Trout
I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.
In the case of a 3 person 'arrangement,' sould social security pay double 'survivor' benefits when one dies? Should insurance cover both spouses?
275![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:51:39pm |
re: #249 Thanos
Sorry but marriage is not a "special right" or "privelage". It was around before the Christian church, or the US. For that matter, gay marriage was legal until it was outlawed by a Christian Roman Emperor.
Guess again, bub. Societies other than Christian have been giving marriage special rights and privileges since the dawn of man.
And your history is wrong. There was no official recognition of gay marriage in the Roman Empire. Constantine began to outlaw homosexuality around 312 AD primarily because of the Book of Leviticus.
276![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:51:49pm |
re: #265 Cap'n DOC
My point is that gays exist, gays have permanent relationships, gays have children. They have through all of history, and their population has always been 1-2 percent of the general. Why are their children deprived of married parents?
277![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:51:52pm |
You would think opponents of Gay sex would be all for Gay marriage.
If it's anything like traditional marriage the latter would certainly curtail the former significantly.
/just a little levity folks
278![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:51:54pm |
I'm going to have to leave soon, but I want to ask: when can a city, state, or nation determine to do what is in its best interest over the interest of individuals? This applies in many situations (Kelo comes to mind) but sociological research seems to indicate pretty clearly that children do best and adults do best in a one man, one woman marriage. If that is best for the individuals, then it would be better for society to support that institution as it will result in a better society overall.
But marriage as an institution has existed for millennia. This isn't something specific to the US.
279![]() |
Conservative in Liberal Hands Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:52:20pm |
re: #263 father_of_10
Just when did a sexual act preference become a protected class?
I want equal protection for heterosexuals or asexuals too! Why should I be invited to see flagrant displays of public affection, vulgarity, stupidity, demeaning acts, even if they're between consenting adults? Sex belongs behind closed doors - it's warmer that way!
280![]() |
jaunte Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:52:20pm |
I don't see that a gay marriage harms mine. In fact if gays can marry, and adopt, some more of the children who are now waiting to be adopted could have parents. Unless the opponents of gay marriage intend to take care of them all.
281![]() |
Naso Tang Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:52:27pm |
re: #148 bosforus
............
[keep in mind, I am not referring to everyone who opposed prop 8 - I know there are many people, friends and acquaintances of mine alike, who were opposed to prop 8 for reasons other than the perennial 'religion is full of bigots' reasons]
What are those reasons (other than the bigotry ones)?
Religious opposition to something is not bigotry, but religious imposition on others is tyranny.
Let's be consistent here. Straight couples should have their marriages annulled if they don't produce offspring within, say, 5 years; and atheists should never be allowed to marry, and if the prophets have a new vision one day, Mormons should be allowed to marry multiple wives.
//
282![]() |
leboaz Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:52:32pm |
re: #270 Honorary Yooper
Absolutely! If you don't like the LAW, change it. Don't just scream like a baby until you get fed.
283![]() |
Cap'n DOC Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:52:43pm |
In the case of homosexuals, they would like someone else, mainly me, to foot the bill for their AIDs medication, among other things...
284![]() |
Honorary Yooper Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:52:50pm |
re: #273 MandyManners
They have the right to protest.
Yes, they do, but it would be more effective if they set about using legal channels to have their own proposition and present their own case to the people in the next election.
285![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:53:06pm |
General note: I'm getting lots of replies here, and I'm skimming so if I miss reply to you, I'm not intentionally snubbing, just trying to keep up.
286![]() |
Cap'n DOC Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:53:51pm |
re: #276 Thanos
Because one or the other of their 'parents' is not their parent! How much plainer does it have to be made to you?
287![]() |
Conservative in Liberal Hands Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:53:58pm |
And I still can't see [Link: www.ringospictures.com...] I guess we overloaded Ringo's hamsters. Maybe he should get an enhanced set, like Charles did...
(Thanks Charles!)
288![]() |
sattv4u2 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:54:06pm |
re: #274 DeafDog
In the case of a 3 person 'arrangement,' sould social security pay double 'survivor' benefits when one dies? Should insurance cover both spouses?
POINT ONE.. no, there was only one payee into the system. The 'spouses" would have to divide the benifits
POINT 2,,, yes, as long as the payee paid for the extra premiums!
289![]() |
Ojoe Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:54:09pm |
re: #281 Naso Tang
In some times and places, you got married only after your sweetheart was pregnant.
BBL
290![]() |
yochanan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:54:42pm |
291![]() |
Honorary Yooper Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:55:00pm |
re: #289 Ojoe
In some times and places, you got married only after your sweetheart was pregnant.
BBL
Um, yeah, usually at the business end of her father's shotgun. Hence the term "shotgun marriage".
292![]() |
sattv4u2 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:55:04pm |
re: #283 Cap'n DOC
In the case of homosexuals, they would like someone else, mainly me, to foot the bill for their AIDs medication, among other things...
Do you object to footing the bill for an 8 year old childs aids med if the family was indigent?
293![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:55:13pm |
re: #274 DeafDog
In the case of a 3 person 'arrangement,' sould social security pay double 'survivor' benefits when one dies? Should insurance cover both spouses?
That is the slippery slope. I would buy the logical fallacy argument if there weren't bona-fide groups like NAMBLA out there trying to get the American Psychological Association to declare Man Boy Love a normal healthy relationship.
Homosexuality was considered abnormal behavior prior to gay rights groups changing the agenda within the APA.
Regardless of where your opinion falls on normal vs. abnormal sexual behavior, the precedent of giving groups rights under the law takes the fallacy out of the slippery slope.
294![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:55:37pm |
re: #271 Thanos
342 AD, a decree by Theodosian, the punishments match those meted out by Islamic extremists for being gay now. You can look it up on HNN.net, I posted the link in a few threads.
I am reading it as this debate goes on, but it does't appear quite as clear cut as you make it.
295![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:55:41pm |
re: #286 Cap'n DOC
I wasn't my kids biological parent, I raised them, they call me dad, they call their bio father by his first name when they speak of him at all, which they don't like to because he was an SOB.
296![]() |
funky chicken Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:56:43pm |
re: #248 father_of_10
It happened in Albuquerque just last year. The People's State of New Mexico went after the photographers because they refused to do a shoot of a commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.
I'm really damned tired of people suing everybody in sight. I can pretty much guarantee that there is more than one professional photographer in Albuquerqe. I'd also guess that this couple's guests own cameras, so if they didn't tell the photog in advance what kind of event he/she was being hired to shoot, and the photog freaked out and left the scene, somebody could have taken lovely pics for them.
I frankly couldn't care less about gay marriage one way or the other. But the people of CA got to vote, and they voted against it. Gays who want their unions to be called marriages can move to Massachusetts or (maybe?) Vermont. Otherwise they can take advantage of the civil union benefits available to them. There is no legal discrimination involved either way.
I voted for McCain. Should I be out on the streets flinging poo and making an ass of myself because he lost?
297![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:56:52pm |
re: #294 Nevergiveup
I am reading it as this debate goes on, but it does't appear quite as clear cut as you make it.
What's not clear cut? The part where he says "use swords against them?
299![]() |
sattv4u2 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:57:03pm |
300![]() |
HoosierHoops Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:57:22pm |
re: #240 funky chicken
IMHO, churches shouldn't have tax exemption anyway. The drive to construct ostentatious monstrosities to house churches is really offensive. Yeah, the construction workers get paid, but the churches should pay at least property taxes.
Gak! there are thousands of small churches that could not exist paying property taxes...Leave the churches alone...It's not like EXXON.
And the benefits they contribute to America far outweigh the benefit of taxing them out of existence..
/Can you believe I'm defending churches here?
weird thread
301![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:58:01pm |
re: #284 Honorary Yooper
Yes, they do, but it would be more effective if they set about using legal channels to have their own proposition and present their own case to the people in the next election.
Their tantrum might work against the latter option.
302![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:58:31pm |
303![]() |
bosforus Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:58:49pm |
re: #285 Thanos
What do you make of the Lex Scantinia from 150 BCE?
[this is not a snarky question, I'm curious]
304![]() |
Iron Fist Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:58:51pm |
re: #258 Thanos
I have stated my reason for my opposition of it. It isn't a fairness isue. It is about forcing society to condone and accept a lifestyle that society doesn't accept. Forcing the issue of gay marriage is the imposition of moral value that are not embraced by the majority of the populace.
You would scream if someone were trying to re-impose sodomy laws in the United States. You would claim that "Christianists" were imposing their moral standards on society.
That's a knife that cuts both ways.
And you didn't answer my point, so I'll ask it again: why aren't gays rushing to Mass. to get married if they want to so badly? Why aren't they signing the power of attourney papers, making their wills, etc. There is alot tof what marriage provides that is available through other means. Why aren't more gays doing that?
Why are they then asking the Court to force society to change public morality to suit their wishes?
305![]() |
yochanan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:58:55pm |
as a jew i only acept the torah's diff. of what a marrage is, the torah is more important to me than an gentile goverment.
306![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:58:56pm |
re: #297 Thanos
What's not clear cut? The part where he says "use swords against them?
Not that it was against gay marraige but it's origins and the relevance to this debate
307![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:59:01pm |
re: #292 sattv4u2
Do you object to footing the bill for an 8 year old childs aids med if the family was indigent?
Good point.
308![]() |
Ringo the Gringo Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:59:09pm |
What worries me if same sex marriage becomes the law of the land, especially considering that a clear majority of Americans are against it, is that people will be coerced into doing and even saying things which they do not believe to be true. Either out of fear being labled a bigot or out of fear of being sued (or worse). The case of E-Harmony is just one example. If same sex marriage is legal and therefore equivalent to traditional marriage the floodgates will be open for countless similar lawsuits.
There is also no doubt that married homosexual characters would soon find their way into school text books and onto the shelves in elementary school libraries. The books are already written. Fairy tales in which the prince marries another prince are waiting to be donated to the local school library, most likely by an attorney.
There are some good arguments for allowing same sex marriage but please do not pretend that it will not be revolutionary, because it will. It will effect every aspect of our culture...Make no mistake about it.
And once the toothpaste is out of the tube there is no putting it back.
309![]() |
David Simon Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:59:43pm |
re: #274 DeafDog
In the case of a 3 person 'arrangement,' sould social security pay double 'survivor' benefits when one dies? Should insurance cover both spouses?
Indeed.
[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]
Yet another liberal social experiment gone awry.
310![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 1:59:58pm |
re: #214 Iron Fist
You mean its not a Government for the people, and by the people...unless the Supreme Court knows better?
311![]() |
yochanan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:00:07pm |
and for safardic jews living in muslim countries more than one wife is allowed. but wife no. one has to approve.
312![]() |
bosforus Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:00:21pm |
re: #281 Naso Tang
Well, there were people who argued against prop 8 on the grounds of civil rights without resorting to insults.
313![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:00:31pm |
re: #299 sattv4u2
That is the slippery slope.
No it's not ,, see my #288
...so what if the multiple spouses then sue for equal protection under the law when they get tired of receiving only half benefits from the government?
Again - why does the government have to provide benefits based on marital status at all?!
/Promoting population growth is sooooo 19th century.
314![]() |
Yashmak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:00:35pm |
re: #278 vxbush
This applies in many situations (Kelo comes to mind) but sociological research seems to indicate pretty clearly that children do best and adults do best in a one man, one woman marriage.
I've seen plenty of sociological research indicating that children do just as well raised by homosexual male couples. I'm sure each side of the argument has its own favored sources of sociological research supporting their side.
If this is really about children, then based on what you've said, it'd be best not only to ban gay marriage, but to take children away from single parents, and place them all with a one man, one woman married couple. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?
315![]() |
reesmatt Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:00:42pm |
Nobody is stopping anyone from having loving relationships with whomever they want to marry. Prop 8 simply amends the state constitution to clarify that marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the only kind that will be recognized by the state. To have one's marriage recognized by the state through a marriage license is no more a "right" than is having one's ability to drive a vehicle officially recognized by the state through the granting of a driver's license. The state giveth, and the state can taketh away, just like with any license. The citizens of California have decided (repeatedly) that the interests of society are best served by sanctioning and promoting marriage between 1 man and 1 woman as the fundamental unit of society. Love really has nothing to do with it, and is not a prerequisite for having one's relationship validated by the state; there are first cousins that genuinely love each other, adults that love minors, siblings that love each other, etc., and while in most cases the state does not prevent them from having loving relationships, it does not recognize those relationships by granting a marriage license. These laws regarding marriage are not the products of some nameless, faceless state, they are the products of the collective judgment of the citizens of California. If the citizens want to revise that collective wisdom and allow the granting of marriage licenses to homosexual couples, they will do it at the ballot box. So far though, the majority of citizens have again ratified their collective judgment that marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the only marriage that should be recognized by the state. Amplifying this most recent ratification is the fact that the citizens are again restating the position that was originally taken from them by judicial fiat.
316![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:00:56pm |
re: #311 yochanan
and for safardic jews living in muslim countries more than one wife is allowed. but wife no. one has to approve.
How likely is that to happen?
317![]() |
funky chicken Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:01:12pm |
re: #258 Thanos
Frankly, it doesn't matter if Iron Fist is personally opposed to gay marriage. The voters in CA voted for Prop 8. It passed, with a pretty respectable margin. Done deal.
There are quite a few people here at LGF who want the government to say that human personhood begins at conception. Colorado voters were against that initiative by a huge margin--73% against. Done deal.
At least the Operation Rescue freaks aren't out behaving badly in CO.
Do these gay marriage proponents really think they are going to win anybody over with these antics?
318![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:01:16pm |
So far the only clear case I"ve heard that isn't totally what iffish is the potential of Gays to insist that churches marry them. I don't think that would stand in court due to the protections that religion has in the constitution, and the fact that marriage is in the end civil, not religious. The church doesn't issue your license.
Churches should be allowed not to marry gays even if it were legal. In the two states that it is legal, have any churches been sued?
319![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:02:04pm |
re: #271 Thanos
342 AD, a decree by Theodosian, the punishments match those meted out by Islamic extremists for being gay now. You can look it up on HNN.net, I posted the link in a few threads.
You are not correct. Valentinian around 392, and succeeding emperors, in the Lex Dei decreed that burning was the punishment for homosexual acts...but only on the "catcher" so to speak. The Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian have a very convoluted law that says that marriage based on "unnatural sex" should be punished. Some of this was geared towards the eeastern peoples that practiced polygamy. The level of the severity of the punishment is debated still.
320![]() |
Kenneth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:02:22pm |
Bob Woodward had this to say about Clinton's nomination as SoS:
Being president is about control, and tell me who ever controlled Bill or Hillary Clinton. They can't control each other. ... I think it's because Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker and others have convinced Obama, 'You're going to have to focus like a laser on the economy. That's issue Number One. And give Hillary and Bill the world.' ... I think people are fantasizing or smoking something if they think Joe Biden's going to call Hillary Clinton up and say, 'This is what we want you to do.'
Bang on.
Haahhahaha!
321![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:02:22pm |
re: #304 Iron Fist
How does gay marriage harm society? Does it harm you or yours if a gay person marries another gay person? If so please explain the harm to society.
322![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:02:30pm |
re: #315 reesmatt
Sounds like a well reasoned argument to me.
324![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:02:36pm |
re: #280 jaunte
I don't see that a gay marriage harms mine. In fact if gays can marry, and adopt, some more of the children who are now waiting to be adopted could have parents. Unless the opponents of gay marriage intend to take care of them all.
The first part of your statement is true. Whether or not gays can marry and divorce should not harm your marriage.
I support civil unions and, with those, gay couples can adopt. In fact, they can do most everything that heterosexual couples can. I am not convinced that gay 'marriage' is a good idea. I'm waiting for Thanos to give a good argument.
325![]() |
Kenneth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:03:37pm |
re: #321 Thanos
I'm less bothered by same sex marriage than I am about no-sex marriages. Been there, done that. Never again.
326![]() |
sattv4u2 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:03:49pm |
re: #313 DaddyG
...so what if the multiple spouses then sue for equal protection under the law when they get tired of receiving only half benefits from the government?
Again - why does the government have to provide benefits based on marital status at all?!
/Promoting population growth is sooooo 19th century.
They do have "equal protection". Both would be getting the same amount (1/2 of their spouses bennies) . No difference, no inequality
327![]() |
wii42 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:03:54pm |
Is there a word - like 'instalaunch' or 'slashdotted' - for when a link from LGF makes a site inaccessible?
328![]() |
Yashmak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:03:59pm |
re: #304 Iron Fist
I have stated my reason for my opposition of it. It isn't a fairness isue. It is about forcing society to condone and accept a lifestyle that society doesn't accept. Forcing the issue of gay marriage is the imposition of moral value that are not embraced by the majority of the populace.
So if the majority decided to vote in a measure ammending the Constitution to deny gays the privelege of having a driver's license, you'd feel it's wrong to oppose that too? I mean, it wouldn't be a fairness issue, it'd be about forcing society to condone and accept gays driving!
329![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:04:47pm |
re: #327 wii42
Is there a word - like 'instalaunch' or 'slashdotted' - for when a link from LGF makes a site inaccessible?
Lizardlanched
330![]() |
midwestgak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:05:06pm |
re: #212 midwestgak
I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.
A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.
Also - how about sex education curriculum of public schools? They would have to teach that heterosexual and homosexual marriage are equivalent.
Also, a Catholic orphanage which does not allow homosexuals to adopt could lose their license to adopt out to anyone. Its a state by state matter.
This is a very serious issue. Read some articles about it before dismissing it as "it doesn't affect me." It will affect the entire society as we know it.
331![]() |
hydrocarbon hank Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:05:07pm |
May God bless the children of those parent who "discover they are gay" late in life.
I work with at risk teens and have seen the catastrophic devastation first hand through their children's lives.....you can't help but hurt with them.
332![]() |
Quilly Mammoth Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:05:11pm |
re: #318 Thanos
So far the only clear case I"ve heard that isn't totally what iffish is the potential of Gays to insist that churches marry them.
So clearly you simply ignore anything you don't like, and seem to often support your arguments with "iffy" facts.
333![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:05:13pm |
re: #314 Yashmak
I've seen plenty of sociological research indicating that children do just as well raised by homosexual male couples. I'm sure each side of the argument has its own favored sources of sociological research supporting their side.
If this is really about children, then based on what you've said, it'd be best not only to ban gay marriage, but to take children away from single parents, and place them all with a one man, one woman married couple. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?
Yes, but I grew up with my grandparents, and my father was out of the picture. I think things would have been very different for me and I would have avoided a lot of social problems if I had lived in a home with two parents.
334![]() |
Lizard by the Bay Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:05:36pm |
re: #304 Iron Fist
I have stated my reason for my opposition of it. It isn't a fairness isue. It is about forcing society to condone and accept a lifestyle that society doesn't accept. Forcing the issue of gay marriage is the imposition of moral value that are not embraced by the majority of the populace.
You would scream if someone were trying to re-impose sodomy laws in the United States. You would claim that "Christianists" were imposing their moral standards on society.
That's a knife that cuts both ways.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (because truly, I have no dog in this hunt), I do see a big difference. For one thing, this nation has always valued individual rights over tyranny of the majority. Just because 52% of people feel some way does not mean that their will should be imposed on others if their will is to take rights and freedoms away from the group in the minority.
Also, one can easily list exactly the rights, protections, and freedoms taken away from gays by Prop 8. Can someone tell me exactly what has been "taken away" from straight people by allowing gays to marry?
335![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:05:48pm |
re: #326 sattv4u2
They do have "equal protection". Both would be getting the same amount (1/2 of their spouses bennies) . No difference, no inequality
So do we split the benefits equally between children right now? How about mistresses - does the wife have to share with them? After all that's just another time honored social contract.
336![]() |
VMA211Dan Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:05:55pm |
re: #318 Thanos
So far the only clear case I"ve heard that isn't totally what iffish is the potential of Gays to insist that churches marry them. I don't think that would stand in court due to the protections that religion has in the constitution, and the fact that marriage is in the end civil, not religious. The church doesn't issue your license.
Churches should be allowed not to marry gays even if it were legal. In the two states that it is legal, have any churches been sued?
Not yet. But wait. Some loopy judge will rule against the church and the church will lose tax-exempt status. I don't think gays go to church much anyway.
337![]() |
midwestgak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:06:12pm |
re: #300 HoosierHoops
Gak! there are thousands of small churches that could not exist paying property taxes...Leave the churches alone...It's not like EXXON.
And the benefits they contribute to America far outweigh the benefit of taxing them out of existence..
/Can you believe I'm defending churches here?
weird thread
You called?
338![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:06:17pm |
re: #288 sattv4u2
POINT ONE.. no, there was only one payee into the system. The 'spouses" would have to divide the benifits
POINT 2,,, yes, as long as the payee paid for the extra premiums!
Those are good 'common sense' answers, but they are hardly codified and fully/clearly understood. My point was more rhetorical. It's one thing to say folks can do whatever they want in the bedroom. I'm fine with that. But there are tons and tons of issues that would emerge if society would allow multiple marriage partners. The court system would become a mess.
339![]() |
HoosierHoops Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:06:46pm |
re: #266 Nevergiveup
Can someone here tell me the major legal differences between a civil union and marriage?
Well i think you are saying..there is no difference.. So what is the problem?
Call it what you will..doesn't hurt or affect you or your family..
Let em call it marriage..get over it and live your life righteously in the eyes of your God and morals you define.
I promise you this..It make take 5 years or a hundred years but gays will have the right to get married in America.
It will happen.. And how does that destroy your life or infringe on your rights?
What is the problem..there is a small % of people that are gay.It's always been that way and always will be that way...You want to burn them at the stake or let them live their lives happily?
What does it matter to you?
340![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:07:05pm |
EEOC, Federal Courts Agree: Forcing Meat-handlers to Handle Meat Violates Civil Rights [jdub]
[Link: ace.mu.nu...]
Any time the courts get involved in anything--Duck!
342![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:07:21pm |
re: #334 Lizard by the Bay
NOTHING has been taken away from Homosexuals with Prop 8!
343![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:07:27pm |
re: #330 midwestgak
Also - how about sex education curriculum of public schools? They would have to teach that heterosexual and homosexual marriage are equivalent.
Parents should be able to opt out.
Also, a Catholic orphanage which does not allow homosexuals to adopt could lose their license to adopt out to anyone. Its a state by state matter.
The state would be imposing its morality on a religious institution. Not good. In fact, it's horrendous.
344![]() |
father_of_10 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:07:44pm |
re: #296 funky chicken
I'm really damned tired of people suing everybody in sight. I can pretty much guarantee that there is more than one professional photographer in Albuquerqe. I'd also guess that this couple's guests own cameras, so if they didn't tell the photog in advance what kind of event he/she was being hired to shoot, and the photog freaked out and left the scene, somebody could have taken lovely pics for them.
I frankly couldn't care less about gay marriage one way or the other. But the people of CA got to vote, and they voted against it. Gays who want their unions to be called marriages can move to Massachusetts or (maybe?) Vermont. Otherwise they can take advantage of the civil union benefits available to them. There is no legal discrimination involved either way.
I voted for McCain. Should I be out on the streets flinging poo and making an ass of myself because he lost?
No, that wouldn't be politically correct. It IS politically correct in this mixed up society to be perverted, hedonistic and stupid, though. Which is why S.F. has Gavin.
345![]() |
sattv4u2 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:07:44pm |
re: #335 DaddyG
So do we split the benefits equally between children right now? How about mistresses - does the wife have to share with them? After all that's just another time honored social contract.
SS laws are clear cut. Unless I otherwise specify, my wife(s) gets the bennies. If she dies also, my kid(s) do. You can't pass them on after that to next door neighbors, your mechanic, the lady that does your taxes , (responding to your "mistresses" canard)
346![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:08:02pm |
re: #332 Quilly Mammoth
So clearly you simply ignore anything you don't like, and seem to often support your arguments with "iffy" facts.
No, so far all of the arguments I've heard against it tie back to different flavors of "it's how we do things, it's traditional" "It's what society wants, individual rights be damned"
347![]() |
Yashmak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:08:41pm |
re: #247 Iron Fist
which goes back to my original point. Gay marriage isn't about equal rights. It is about forcing societal norms to change through an Imperial Judiciary. That one's a loser if you allow a vote.
You're right. It's about discrimination against a group because of their sexual preference, something that is illegal in this nation, no matter if the majority is in favor of that discrimination or not.
348![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:08:42pm |
re: #334 Lizard by the Bay
cont.
To believe that something has been taken away from Homosexuals with Prop 8 you have to accept their illogical, incorrect, and just wrong argument.
Nothing has been taken away from Homosexuals with prop 8. They have no more, or no less rights than a Heterosexual does.
349![]() |
Honorary Yooper Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:08:58pm |
re: #340 Nevergiveup
EEOC, Federal Courts Agree: Forcing Meat-handlers to Handle Meat Violates Civil Rights [jdub]
[Link: ace.mu.nu...]
Any time the courts get involved in anything--Duck!
What. The. Fuck?
They were hired to handle meat. Since lines are usualy divided, if they did not want to handle pork, they should have looked elsewhere for a job, or asked to be on the chicken or beef lines only.
350![]() |
Wm T Sherman Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:09:00pm |
As I understand it, the anti Prop 8 suits are arguing that the state constitution is unconstitutional.
Is that even possible?
351![]() |
Lizard by the Bay Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:09:13pm |
re: #342 WrathofG-d
NOTHING has been taken away from Homosexuals with Prop 8!
Well, except the right to be legally married. (If I could put up a smiley rolling his eyes, it would be here).
352![]() |
Nevergiveup Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:09:24pm |
re: #339 HoosierHoops
Well i think you are saying..there is no difference.. So what is the problem?
Call it what you will..doesn't hurt or affect you or your family..
Let em call it marriage..get over it and live your life righteously in the eyes of your God and morals you define.
I promise you this..It make take 5 years or a hundred years but gays will have the right to get married in America.
It will happen.. And how does that destroy your life or infringe on your rights?
What is the problem..there is a small % of people that are gay.It's always been that way and always will be that way...You want to burn them at the stake or let them live their lives happily?
What does it matter to you?
I just ask a simple question. What are you talking about? I am not a lawyer. It is relevant to the debate and I am not conversant with the real differences? I was making NO judgement.
353![]() |
Naso Tang Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:09:33pm |
re: #300 HoosierHoops
Gak! there are thousands of small churches that could not exist paying property taxes...Leave the churches alone...It's not like EXXON.
And the benefits they contribute to America far outweigh the benefit of taxing them out of existence..
/Can you believe I'm defending churches here?
weird thread
There would be complications for sure. Other real estate is valued by business level and comparisons with other sales. Churches aren't often bought and sold, so what would the tax level basis be?
However, to take other side, the truth is that they do "consume" the same resources that all other property does, like roads, fire, police and so on. If only a minority of a population attend a particular church, (or mosque or synagogue or scientologist head shrink shop) or all churches in an area, why should all the others subsidize them?
As to tax out of existence, if there are not enough members in one to pay the bills, there is probably another larger one nearby that they can join. Worship is not just a matter of personal convenience, is it?
354![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:09:39pm |
re: #293 DaddyG
Exactly! My point in asking the questions was rhetorical.
I might be convinced that gay marriage is a good idea....I'm not, but I'm open to listening to the arguments. Civil Unions seem like the right approach to me, unless Thanos (or someone else) can get me to understand the injustice of not allowing marriage.
Multiple marriage partners is just plan assinine. The court costs alone would become astronomical!
355![]() |
sattv4u2 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:09:51pm |
re: #338 DeafDog
Those are good 'common sense' answers, but they are hardly codified and fully/clearly understood. My point was more rhetorical. It's one thing to say folks can do whatever they want in the bedroom. I'm fine with that. But there are tons and tons of issues that would emerge if society would allow multiple marriage partners. The court system would become a mess.
Actually, in the case of life insurance, it is a CONTRACT that is 100% " codified and fully/clearly understood". Today, I could call my broker, take out a million dollar life ins. policy and name you, who I do not know, the benificiary. As long as I live up to my end of the contract (paying the premiums) you'll get a mill. when i die!
356![]() |
midwestgak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:09:55pm |
re: #343 MandyManners
The state would be imposing its morality on a religious institution. Not good. In fact, it's horrendous.
Not good it correct. But that is the potential backlash. It almost happened in Mass.
357![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:10:01pm |
re: #350 Wm T Sherman
Yes it is possible. IIRC The Civil Rights laws did the same thing. They found that anti Black laws were unconstitutional.
That being said, those laws don't apply to this scenario.
358![]() |
reine.de.tout Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:10:07pm |
re: #330 midwestgak
. . .
Also, a Catholic orphanage which does not allow homosexuals to adopt could lose their license to adopt out to anyone. Its a state by state matter.
. . ..
In Massachusetts I believe, Catholic Charities no longer operates adoption services for just this reason.
359![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:10:16pm |
re: #351 Lizard by the Bay
They can marry any person of the other sex they would like.
360![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:10:23pm |
re: #347 Yashmak
You're right. It's about discrimination against a group because of their sexual preference, something that is illegal in this nation, no matter if the majority is in favor of that discrimination or not.
Huh? What law says so?
361![]() |
Ringo the Gringo Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:10:37pm |
I would imagine that legalizing same sex marriage will drastically increase the demand of school vouchers.
362![]() |
midwestgak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:10:51pm |
re: #358 reine.de.tout
In Massachusetts I believe, Catholic Charities no longer operates adoption services for just this reason.
Thank you reine!
363![]() |
Thanos Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:11:03pm |
So if civil union and marriage are the same thing to all intents and purposes, what's the difference? Why are you quibbling over a word then? Please explain.
364![]() |
father_of_10 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:11:18pm |
re: #360 MandyManners
re: #347 Yashmak
You're right. It's about discrimination against a group because of their sexual preference, something that is illegal in this nation, no matter if the majority is in favor of that discrimination or not.
Huh? What law says so?
Exactly. Where is this codified?
365![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:11:28pm |
re: #356 midwestgak
Not good it correct. But that is the potential backlash. It almost happened in Mass.
Would the church be able to move the kids to another state?
366![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:11:31pm |
re: #360 MandyManners
It is NOT discrimination against a group because of their sexual preferences (which isn't a protected class anyway).
Should we not discriminate against those whose sexual preference is towards animals? children? relatives?
367![]() |
Lizard by the Bay Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:11:35pm |
re: #359 WrathofG-d
They can marry any person of the other sex they would like.
That's like saying that Iraqi's had the "right to vote" for Saddam back in Baathist Iraq.
368![]() |
JustMyView Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:11:43pm |
re: #212 midwestgak
I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.
A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.
This is not true. Gay people are not looking to change the rules and practices of religious organizations. There are multiple statements about this available on the web. The goal is the legalization of civil marriage.
Also, it's worth noting that a few Christian denominations currently marry gay people, but those marriages are not recognized as legal.
Again, the goal is legal civil marriage, w/ churches making whatever decisions they want about whom they will marry.
370![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:11:47pm |
re: #361 Ringo the Gringo
I would imagine that legalizing same sex marriage will drastically increase the demand of school vouchers.
How so?
371![]() |
HoosierHoops Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:11:47pm |
372![]() |
nyc redneck Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:11:59pm |
re: #316 MandyManners
How likely is that to happen?
it doesn't.
the requirement is a meaningless formality.
373![]() |
NoGardtheGreat Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:12:02pm |
re: #311 yochanan
and for safardic jews living in muslim countries more than one wife is allowed. but wife no. one has to approve.
So I would have to become a "safardic Jew" (I have no clue what that is) and move to a Muslim country to get a three way going?
Hang on! If this is legal in Muslim countries, how the heck to they recruit terrorists? You'd think they be too busy!
Akmed, "Mohammad wants you to give up all your wives and blow yourself up!"
Me, "Ya, not today Akmed, Saturday is around the corner and that's orgy night!"
/running for deep cover!
374![]() |
kimbob Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:12:02pm |
There is a lot of general inertia regarding change within society, and
this inertia in general imparts some stability to our culture. For most of us, there is continuity between the past and present ( a la Burke). Don't really have a tradition of gay marriage in this country, and it is difficult to know whether allowing marriage between gays is good or bad change, as far as long term impact on our culture. As an aside, I do distinctly remember being told by some gays I knew 15-20 years ago, that marriage was just for "breeders", and I don't think they meant this as a compliment. How times change.
375![]() |
Honorary Yooper Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:12:14pm |
re: #357 WrathofG-d
Yes it is possible. IIRC The Civil Rights laws did the same thing. They found that anti Black laws were unconstitutional.
That being said, those laws don't apply to this scenario.
Well, there is a constitutional difference between the two. The anti-Black laws violated an already agreed upon portion of the Constitution, specifically Amendments 14 and 15. This does not violate the Constitution in any way shape or form. Nothing regarding it has been hased out one way or the other constitutionally on a national scale.
376![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:12:22pm |
re: #358 reine.de.tout
In Massachusetts I believe, Catholic Charities no longer operates adoption services for just this reason.
Oh, for crying out loud! That's just horrible.
377![]() |
bosforus Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:12:28pm |
re: #358 reine.de.tout
In Massachusetts I believe, Catholic Charities no longer operates adoption services for just this reason.
Weren't they one of the top orphanages as well? And good luck trying to remove your child from a school that's "normalized" gay marriage.
378![]() |
father_of_10 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:12:30pm |
re: #368 JustMyView
This is not true. Gay people are not looking to change the rules and practices of religious organizations.
Yes they are.
379![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:13:04pm |
re: #366 WrathofG-d
It is NOT discrimination against a group because of their sexual preferences (which isn't a protected class anyway).
Should we not discriminate against those whose sexual preference is towards animals? children? relatives?
Not that strawman!
380![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:13:19pm |
re: #367 Lizard by the Bay
No it isn't and don't be so obtuse. I'm sorry your emotions tell you that Homosexuals should be able to marry whomever they would like, but I deal in logic, and facts.
And the facts are that the Homosexual community have the same rights that the Heterosexual community does. Both groups are treated equally. NEITHER can marry someone of their own sex.
I'm sorry you don't like the reality but that is what it is.
381![]() |
vxbush Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:13:36pm |
Being a person who loves numbers and statistics, I would love to see the percentage of homosexual couples who want marriage that have had no more than 3 partners and have currently been in a committed relationship for more than 2 years. Just to choose some random numbers out of a hat.
382![]() |
reine.de.tout Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:13:40pm |
re: #365 MandyManners
Would the church be able to move the kids to another state?
I'm not certain how many actual "orphanages" remain.
I do know that Catholic Charities has been very active in the area of free pregnancy counseling, pre-natal care, and adoption placement services, no payment required, no questions asked, for it seems like a gajillion years, and they are very very good at this.
However, they have ceased to operate in Massachusetts, which requires services to all couples.
383![]() |
Iron Fist Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:13:43pm |
re: #328 Yashmak
Once it passed as a Constitutional amendment there nothing practical that can be done about it. If you want to try and re-amend the Constitution have at it, but storming Churches screaming about it isn't going to win you friends or influence people. You are going to have to make people change their minds of their own free will.
Until that happens, the law won't be changed. All that will happen with tthese tactics will be a hardening of the position on the issue. As I said earlier, I used to be in favor of gay marriage, but gays have convinced me otherwise.
384![]() |
DaddyG Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:13:44pm |
re: #345 sattv4u2
SS laws are clear cut. Unless I otherwise specify, my wife(s) gets the bennies. If she dies also, my kid(s) do. You can't pass them on after that to next door neighbors, your mechanic, the lady that does your taxes , (responding to your "mistresses" canard)
Not a canard. We are talking about changing defined laws including Social Security benefits. If individuals can argue for the right to be granted government benefits based on social contracts other than marriage as currently defined - who is to say when and where those rights cannot be enforced for other types of untraditional social bonds?
I'm very consistent in saying the government should not be redistributing funds based on the relationships individuals decide to get into. I have even been advocating (against my self interest) that traditional marriage should not be the reason someone can take a tax deduction.
Social security benefits would have to be revisited or perhaps couples (triples and what not) would be asked to declare beneficiaries like they do with life insurance. Nice and legal and not forcing society to define religious concepts for anyone but themselves.
There remains the matter of community standards - which is a far trickier subject IMO
385![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:14:04pm |
re: #368 JustMyView
This is not true. Gay people are not looking to change the rules and practices of religious organizations. There are multiple statements about this available on the web. The goal is the legalization of civil marriage.
Also, it's worth noting that a few Christian denominations currently marry gay people, but those marriages are not recognized as legal.Again, the goal is legal civil marriage, w/ churches making whatever decisions they want about whom they will marry.
I've a bridge for sale.
386![]() |
midwestgak Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:14:05pm |
re: #368 JustMyView
This is not true. Gay people are not looking to change the rules and practices of religious organizations. There are multiple statements about this available on the web. The goal is the legalization of civil marriage.
It may not be their intention, but it will be the unexpected consequences. People need to read up on this topic. I have and it is a very serious issue. This is the time to address it and stop its progression.
387![]() |
father_of_10 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:14:14pm |
re: #380 WrathofG-d
No it isn't and don't be so obtuse. I'm sorry your emotions tell you that Homosexuals should be able to marry whomever they would like, but I deal in logic, and facts.
And the facts are that the Homosexual community have the same rights that the Heterosexual community does. Both groups are treated equally. NEITHER can marry someone of their own sex.
I'm sorry you don't like the reality but that is what it is.
Ahhh, but they want MORE rights. That's the point. that, and wanting their relationships NORMALIZED.
388![]() |
sattv4u2 Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:14:34pm |
re: #381 vxbush
Being a person who loves numbers and statistics, I would love to see the percentage of
homosexualheterosexual couples who want marriage that have had no more than 3 partners and have currently been in a committed relationship for more than 2 years. Just to choose some random numbers out of a hat.
works both ways
390![]() |
Naso Tang Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:14:49pm |
re: #312 bosforus
Well, there were people who argued against prop 8 on the grounds of civil rights without resorting to insults.
That there are nutcases (more than their fair share) among gay rights groups is indisputable, but it seems to me that prop 8 (along with the one here in Florida) is designed to deny civil rights.
What arguments do you have that gay marriage denies anyone else their rights? It wouldn't change mine any way that I can see, and I've been married (once) for 32 years.
391![]() |
HoosierHoops Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:15:03pm |
re: #352 Nevergiveup
I just ask a simple question. What are you talking about? I am not a lawyer. It is relevant to the debate and I am not conversant with the real differences? I was making NO judgement.
Oh I'm sorry to you.. I was just venting alittle..
kind regards..
Like I said my little sister is gay and I'd protect her from any person..
'll wait for the next thread to post again..unless. I have too..
:)
392![]() |
MandyManners Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:15:22pm |
re: #372 nyc redneck
it doesn't.
the requirement is a meaningless formality.
Well, it's nice of them to give the wife a veto.
393![]() |
DeafDog Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:15:23pm |
re: #318 Thanos
Conversely, the only case you've made for gay marriage instead of civil unions is that childred of gay parents don't have parrents that are 'married.' I don't see that as a big deal. Why am I wrong?
394![]() |
Dianna Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:15:23pm |
re: #229 MandyManners
Yes.
It gets worse. No one can write off child support as a deduction.
You pay taxes on money you never get the benefit of.
395![]() |
WrathofG-d Fri, Nov 21, 2008 2:15:41pm |
re: #375 Honorary Yooper
Honoray Yooper. I would love to continue this conversation (as on its own it is a very interesting one) but insofar that the Anti-Man/Woman Marriage movement is trying to co-opt an actual struggle for equal rights, I will not discuss it here and play into their ruse, and propaganda.
The Anti-Man/Woman Marriage movement has nothing to do with Equal RIght. The right to marry whomever (or WHATever) you want is NOT a Civil Right.
I hope you understand.
