Gay Marriage Stuff

[Ron L]

Just please stop forcing your views on me.

Pot calling the Kettle Black

Clearly it is a much larger issue with you than you choose to admit. Stop fooling yourself into fooling others, your only making a fool of yourself.

If you are gay, so what if I think it's a sin, I'm a crappy person too, I'm not saying you are any less of a person, or of any less value.

What fucking church do you come from. You are here thumping your bible and your beliefs at the very least fill in your thread with more senseless fluff before contradicting yourself in a single sentence.

...it is a deviation from the natural way of doing things whether you were "born" that way or grew up that way, or became that way does not change that one fact, that it is not natural, neither evolution nor creation happen that way.

Are you fucking kidding me? Time for another Xanax you idiot.

 

[jim-00-4.6]

Or are you just trying to go out of your way to get a rise outta me since it didn't work the last time? Or the time before. Or even the time before that...

Jen, you're gay?!?!?!?!
Holy Shit!
:rofl:

Yeah, last time I heard, judgement is also a sin...See ya in hell I guess.

in hell only if you buy the "christian" bullshit they're peddling.
There's no "after"life, there's just "life". Deal with it.
We're not all the same; what's so fucking hard about that?
So much for all the touchy-feely bible bullshit ... oh, wait.. this is where we selectively go back and use the old testament as the verbatim word of god, right?
and now we ignore the new testament word of jesus since that's convenient and suits the current topic.
fucking hypocrisy.

 

[az_max]

Come on.

This is all you got......

Perhaps we should come up with a new word for real marriages, I mean over 50% end now in divorce, so perhaps the term "marriage" needs and overhaul.

Rental

 

[skippy3k]

Honestly, how does this change your life? If a gay couple gets married today, how will it affect your life tomorrow?

It won't.

So fucking move on already. Focus on things that do affect your life, like fuel prices, quality of education, healthcare, retirement, etc. People who get worked up about gay marriage don't have enough in their life to think about.

 

[thedude]

i dont think this falls under "general". either way, dicks are for chicks, but whatever.

 

[antichrist]

Basically, it would be the same if the courts started making it a law to call all Rovers "Jeeps".

First of all, courts don't make laws, the legislature does.
Secondly, I didn't realize a law was passed that male couples had to call one of them a wife. Would you please point out the bill that was signed making that a law?
Thirdly, people have been calling Rovers Jeeps since long before I ever bought my first in the 70's. I don't really care. Yes, I cared when I was 18, maybe 19, but I decided to grow up and not worry about it because it has no impact on me whatsoever.

But, you and your wife do have my condolonces, that your marriage was so fragile that it's been damaged but two men or two women getting married. Hopefully with counseling and hard work you can work together to save the shambles and pick up the pieces and start again, stronger than before. Just be sure to be open with your children and let them know that you both love them, and even though gay marriage has wrecked your own marriage and alll other heterosexual marriages, you'll always love them. Children can be very affected when a marriage is damaged. Just tell them it's because of all the faggots getting married...I'm sure they'll understand.

 

[MarkP]

Honestly, how does this change your life? If a gay couple gets married today, how will it affect your life tomorrow?

It won't.

. . .

It's not the marriage itself. As I said in my reply to Durda

Once the 'language' is managed and the laws changed, it is now the responsibility of the government to drive the particular agenda into all areas of society, to include education. Obviously the 'government' is FOR the people and anyone opposing the agenda is AGAINST the people. Those that opt out of public school are seen to opt out of the agenda, hence homeschool becomes unacceptable. The slippery slope of 'government approval'.​

If you have children it does affect you. This is not a religious point of discussion. It should be a discussion of the slippery slope of government approval and how it 'must' drive forward others agenda. You can extend Durda's argument to Global Warming as the language is managed to control your life. Why are you breathing?

 

[antichrist]

Honestly, how does this change your life? If a gay couple gets married today, how will it affect your life tomorrow?

Well, apparently heterosexual married couples will lose some rights, or at least according to a post in the last homophobic thread. But my question about which rights exactly would be denied us went unanswered. But, I mean, it was said with such authority, it must be true. Must be some hidden law only the truely worthy are allowed to know about.

 

[antichrist]

For instance when was the last time you heard the term 'swamp' or 'jungle'?

Jesus, at least educate yourself.

http://www.okefenokee.com/

The Great Okefenokee Swamp, one of America’s most fascinating natural areas, is the largest, intact, un fragmented, wilderness Swamp in North America.

 

[RBBailey]

If it is not the way of things, then we are going the wrong way. And if we are going the wrong way, then what is at the end of the road?

The main reason I'm actually concerned about it politically speaking is this: The people of California voted against it, the supreme court upheld their vote, then one single person decided that it should be the other way around -- that is not democracy, that is a judge legislating from the bench.

If gay marriage is about rights, why don't they sue for rights instead of marriage? (Which I would support) You see, it's not me who started the terminology war.

Anyway, never mind, America was never destined to die in a fight anyway. It has always been apparent to those who pay attention, that she would go down with merely a whimper, the greatest republic in history relegated to a footnote on the timeline of human history. I know, I know, there is nothing more important than your Rover, so I'll leave you alone now, I didn't mean to force my thread upon you.

 

[RBBailey]

First of all, courts don't make laws, the legislature does.

Hu... that's exactly my point. The court made this law, or are you not paying attention to the news any better than the post you are commenting on?

 

[antichrist]

Hu... that's exactly my point. The court made this law, or are you not paying attention to the news any better than the post you are commenting on?

:rofl: Cute. I think you need to do a bit more research. They struck down a law banning gay marriage as being unconstitutional. Exactly where supreme courts are supposed to be rulling.

Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

Nice try Ben, calling the tail a leg.

 

[cptyarderho]

Hu... that's exactly my point. The court made this law, or are you not paying attention to the news any better than the post you are commenting on?

the court did not make a law. Please post a link to said law and language.


I thought so. They declared a law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That is in the courts ability.

I am sure many racists in the South felt as you do in the 1950s. They seem to have survived. You will too.

 

[RBBailey]

There was no gay marriage before the ruling, now there is, this is called legislating from the bench. There is nothing unconstitutional about a law banning gay marriage -- show me where it is if I'm wrong.

This has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with my marriage, it does not effect my marriage, it effects my country. It's a step in the removal of the foundation -- the traditional family is the foundation of our society -- please give me an argument that says otherwise instead of blaming my marriage issues for my views or calling me a racist.

It is now law in California that there be gay marriage. A single court over ruled the will of the people -- this is the basic definition of tyranny. Next, we will go the way of Canada and Britain, you will be outlawing my Bible and telling me it's for freedom.

 

[UpNorth]

There was no gay marriage before the ruling, now there is, this is called legislating from the bench. There is nothing unconstitutional about a law banning gay marriage -- show me where it is if I'm wrong.

This has nothing to do with race. It has nothing to do with my marriage, it does not effect my marriage, it effects my country. It's a step in the removal of the foundation -- the traditional family is the foundation of our society -- please give me an argument that says otherwise instead of blaming my marriage issues for my views or calling me a racist.

It is now law in California that there be gay marriage. A single court over ruled the will of the people -- this is the basic definition of tyranny. Next, we will go the way of Canada and Britain, you will be outlawing my Bible and telling me it's for freedom.

Maybe you aren't racist, but you are a bigot.

 

[jammin]

Unfortunately using another term, for homosexual unions is insufficient to accomplish the goals of those 'getting married' in California. They want their lifestyle to be endorsed by the government and accepted by society.

They wish it to not be prohibited by the government. I think that is a bit different.

The control of language in a debate is essential to winning it. In a debate that might well last for generations the very first step is to set the language within society for you side to prevail.

That argument does have some merit.

For instance when was the last time you heard the term 'swamp' or 'jungle'? Those terms conjure up images of festering decay, disease, danger...and are quite passé. Now we use the terms 'wetland' and 'rain forest'. The change to more positive terms was not by accident. And it worked...it is now a serious felony (several actually) to disrupt wetlands in ways that past generations would deem laudable.

I see the terms 'swamp' and 'jungle' applied when the subject is in fact a swamp or jungle.

The terms 'wetland' and 'rain forest' can apply respectively to some of those same areas, while also applying to other areas that are typically not considered 'swamps' or 'jungles'.

Such as estuaries, marshes, bogs, temperate rain forests, etc. Not all jungles are rain forests, either.

Your examples do not support your argument. You can probably find better ones.

 

[az_max]

To me it doesn't matter if you like the same sex, the opposite sex or sheep. What ever makes you happy (and the sheep are concenting). You deserve to be just as happy as the couple next to you. If a guy/girl couple get to have common law marriage and have benefits, so should your sheep.

atriot:

 

[Durda]

They wish it to not be prohibited by the government. I think that is a bit different.

:rofl:

B.S.
If that were true the couples in question would have; had a big party, invited all their friends and their Pastor/Minister of choice, and exchanged vows...and they would have done that back when they fell in love and decided to spend the rest of their lives together. What do you think the government would have done about it? Send some agents in to tear the couple apart and disrupt the ceremony?

Why does the happy couple need government approval to marry anyway?

I see the terms 'swamp' and 'jungle' applied when the subject is in fact a swamp or jungle.

The terms 'wetland' and 'rain forest' can apply respectively to some of those same areas...

You could have stopped there, as that was my point.:yawn:

Jesus, at least educate yourself.

http://www.okefenokee.com/

And it was named such when...1600's If the place were discovered today it would be named The Okefenokee Wetlands, that's my point.

Jeez at least everyone liked my Patriot Act example.

Another example if you will. There is a concerted effort in my state to change the name of Lake Powell to 'The Glen Canyon Dam Reservoir'. Any guesses as to why? (<-- retorical-- ) (Before someone feels the need to find a link to something I already know about, don't. I'm familiar with the Glen Canyon Institute.)

 

[RBBailey]

Maybe you aren't racist, but you are a bigot.

Bigot? In my views of politics and law? Sure, I guess you could call it that.

Remember, I have stated more than once, I have no legal issues or problems with homosexuals getting the same rights as heterosexuals. I specifically opened this thread saying so. In fact, I would vote against it, but I would not want it to be overturned in the courts if my state voted for gay marriage. You can quote me on it. I wouldn't agree with it, but legally, I'd stand by it. Marriage is not a right, it is both a legally recognized institution and a "religious" ceremony of commitment. Why does it then have to be gay marriage? Why, again, do they have to hijack the a core value of my family and religious belief system? Why can they not get their "rights" by other means, by a different name?

Why do gay couples, fighting for what they call progressive, anti-conservative values; and when they get what they want, immediately go and set up a conservative style wedding, sign a traditional license, adopt children to have a traditional family, and call it the traditional name of marriage? Is that not a paradox to you?

Why do I hear time and time again, gay couples telling me that they are living the lifestyle they are fighting for the rights to get? One of my co-workers told me she has been living this way for 10 years, and would gladly live this way for another 20 before she gets the right to live the way she wants. She said this to me while holding her second adopted child in her arms. Do you not see the backwards way of thinking here? THEY ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHTS!! So ask yourself... what is it that they are fighting for really? Is it really just for the "right" to get a piece of paper, to be called "married"? Or is there another agenda being pushed here?

Make no mistake, I have a distinct view on what is right and wrong in the world, I happen to think the gay lifestyle is wrong, but I also think it is wrong to slander someone, to get drunk, to lie, to cheat, and to steal -- those are my views. I think it is wrong to think of a homosexual as less of a person. But does that mean I am bigoted to think that marriage is for one set of circumstances? How is that wrong?

If I am wrong for having my own views on this, then you are wrong for thinking I'm wrong. How is it that you think I am wrong, yet you yourself are not bigoted in thinking I am wrong? You cannot at once say, "All things are OK," and at the same time say, "so you are wrong for thinking all things are not OK." Circular reasoning is not an answer to social issues and debates, neither is the flinging wide the doors to all things.

Finally, I respect all of your views on this, really, honestly. And I can say that because I understand the desire, the temptation to see this as a freedom, fairness, be-nice-to-everyone type issue. I simply disagree.

 

[jammin]

It's a step in the removal of the foundation -- the traditional family is the foundation of our society

If you could state specifically what you mean by "the traditional family", what you mean by "our society", and how you consider it "the foundation" of that society, I might take a stab at at a reasoned argument. Or it might prompt someone else to give a decent response.

Without such a limit on scope, answering is difficult precisely because the entire notion as stated is vague, and because family structure has varied widely over both time, locale and culture throughout human history.

Is it safe to assume that by "the traditional family" you mean a "nuclear family", consisting of a single set of male/female parents and their offspring under the age of majority, in a single household?

Is it safe to assume that by "our society" you mean residents within the current borders of the United States only, and that you include the colonial and revolutionary periods in your reckoning? I'm guessing that you don't intend to include Native American family makeup, nor Black families from the slavery era (or possibly even pre-civil rights movement). Correct me if I am wrong.