|
HardRadio HardBoard The Heavy Metal Supersite
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
live4metal
Joined: 12 Jul 2001 Posts: 1057 Location: El Segundo,CA.
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 6:31 pm Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban |
|
|
Wow,quite a deep discussion.I've been married( to a woman) for five years.since that time I've paid higher taxes(there's a marriage penalty law in effect)and my beard has started to go gray.
If the sausage smokers & carpet lickers of America want to join in on all the fun that is Marriage who the fukk is our Government to say they cant?!
Not all Hetro-Marriages end in procreation,that's not a prerequisite for marriage.So what's the differance?
The differance is our President is not obiding by the rule of keeping religion out of politics.
I'm amazed at our Governments inability to dispense law & justice according to the times we live in. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mijarra
Joined: 28 Nov 2000 Posts: 1564 Location: Pennsylvania
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 8:18 pm Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dillinger:
The times change. Humans evolve. Religion does not. I hereby side with evolution. No, a queer is not the same as a dog or cat getting married. Having married a female at one time and being pseudo lesbian I can assure you I know what I am talking about.
A cross dressing pseudo-lesbian. You have a very complicated life, Bralllaaala. Wouldn't that just make you a straight guy though?
Evolution is undeniable, I agree. We must change with the times and some of the indecencies of the past are just not acceptable today. Gay people do deserve rights, and they do deserve safety and security, and the right to be who they are whether I or anyone else agrees with them. The only problem is when their rights are used as an excuse to force the rest of society to conform to their wishes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dillinger
Joined: 28 May 2003 Posts: 151 Location: Philly
|
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2004 10:25 pm Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mijarra:
quote: Originally posted by Dillinger:
The times change. Humans evolve. Religion does not. I hereby side with evolution. No, a queer is not the same as a dog or cat getting married. Having married a female at one time and being pseudo lesbian I can assure you I know what I am talking about.
A cross dressing pseudo-lesbian. You have a very complicated life, Bralllaaala. Wouldn't that just make you a straight guy though?
Evolution is undeniable, I agree. We must change with the times and some of the indecencies of the past are just not acceptable today. Gay people do deserve rights, and they do deserve safety and security, and the right to be who they are whether I or anyone else agrees with them. The only problem is when their rights are used as an excuse to force the rest of society to conform to their wishes.
sometimes, even gays (!) have something in common with straights..it appears you see that notion as an imposition.
Bralalalala straight guy?!!! Well, thanks for trying. There is something called psychology and Bralalalala's is simply not that of a "guy." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tyrannorabbit
Joined: 04 Oct 2000 Posts: 3985 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 2:47 am Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JesseR72:
Why not give up on all laws pertaining to marriage then? A person ought to be able to marry someone he/she loves, right? Be it someone of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, someone under 18, a cousin, a sibling.
Well, there are laws about under-18's because of the concept of informed consent - varying from state to state (and of course, country to country).
As for relatives...inbreeding results in freaks.
Laws and restrictions on who can marry whom are fine by me if they are based on solid reasoning, and not on maintaining a fictitious "standard" of an institution that has changed drastically its history anyway.
Marriage is only as "sacred" as it is made by the people participating in it. Nobody can erode marriage as an institution except for married people themselves. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mijarra
Joined: 28 Nov 2000 Posts: 1564 Location: Pennsylvania
|
Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:25 pm Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dillinger:
[QUOTE]There is something called psychology and Bralalalala's is simply not that of a "guy."
Now, on that point I agree with you. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JesseR72
Joined: 17 Feb 2002 Posts: 414 Location: PA
|
Posted: Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:33 pm Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Tyrannorabbit:
quote: Originally posted by JesseR72:
Why not give up on all laws pertaining to marriage then? A person ought to be able to marry someone he/she loves, right? Be it someone of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, someone under 18, a cousin, a sibling.
Well, there are laws about under-18's because of the concept of informed consent - varying from state to state (and of course, country to country).
As for relatives...inbreeding results in freaks.
There are laws about homosexuals marrying too.
As for relatives/inbreeding, I thought we determined here that marriage wasn't about procreating, it's about being united with someone you "love". Perhaps there are some people who found "love" at their family reunion, should we discriminate against them? [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img] |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tyrannorabbit
Joined: 04 Oct 2000 Posts: 3985 Location: Canada
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 12:58 am Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by JesseR72:
quote: Originally posted by Tyrannorabbit:
quote: Originally posted by JesseR72:
Why not give up on all laws pertaining to marriage then? A person ought to be able to marry someone he/she loves, right? Be it someone of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, someone under 18, a cousin, a sibling.
Well, there are laws about under-18's because of the concept of informed consent - varying from state to state (and of course, country to country).
As for relatives...inbreeding results in freaks.
There are laws about homosexuals marrying too.
As for relatives/inbreeding, I thought we determined here that marriage wasn't about procreating, it's about being united with someone you "love". Perhaps there are some people who found "love" at their family reunion, should we discriminate against them? [img]images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]
If they meet at their family reunion, they're probably not closely related enough for any existing law to stop them.
There are laws against all sorts of things; I don't agree with all of them even in my own country, but people break them at their own peril. In any country, some laws serve no purpose but to clock hours for lawyers and give politicians boogeymen to rail against.
But laws, and definitons of marriage, change. Ten years ago this all would've seemed like an absurd debate. Twenty, it would've been unthinkable. Ten years from now, it may well seem like an absurd debate again but for entirely different reasons.
Well, maybe twenty. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jim McCormick
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 Posts: 467 Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:21 am Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mijarra:
quote: Originally posted by Jim McCormick:
Ok, here is the facts plain & simple. When government or government fueled by religion dictates your personal choice of a marriage partner, by punishment of law, then thats is wrong.
Jim, that is not a "fact", that is YOUR OPINION, and you're putting a spin on it that isn't the intent of what I am saying. What I am saying is that marriage is already defined as the union of a man and a woman and it should not be altered to appease a minority group. This is not about discrimination.
Nitro, I am not trying to "impose my beliefs on you". They are not "my" beliefs, they are the beliefs of millions of Americans and the basis on which our country was founded.
It seems like my convictions and beliefs are discounted in this argument, yet those of others are almost taken as fact. So I really don't see what else I can say. I believe marriage is the union of a man and woman, as do millions of other in this country. Not two men, two women, a cat and a dog, or any other combination. That's the end of it, as I see it.
If gay people are allowed to marry, it won't really hurt me or bother me much. I will just shake my head and smile the same way I do every time the liberal minority forces their agenda on the rest of the country. So, burn a flag, don't say God in school (only if you're Christian though), by all means don't display the 10 Commandments in public, and marry your gay partner if you wish. What do I care? I'll be dead in 50 years. I'm hoping this country will keep things together at least that long.
Yes Mijarra, it is a fact that this country was built on seperation of church & state. Which amending this bill to the constitution would be tossing that ideal right out the window.
Yes Mijarra, it is a fact that the far majoriaty of the people who are against gay marriage are Christains in this country.
Yes Mijarra, it is a fact that Christains (right wing, moderate Christains that is) by their determination of organization pretty well control this country's politics by massing voters, but that does not mean there are more of them than us. They are just more organized & better at rounding up voters to vote for their cause through peer pressure, thus forcing politician's hand's.
Now Mijarra, I really have to ask these questions of you. What really is it that scares you so much by gay marriage, especially afer your rather extreme rationale from your last paragraph. Are you a closet right wing Christain? Moderate? You've never came out & said it (at least that I know of), but there is something more here. Or are you really homophobic? You claim that this is the majoriaty's opinion, but it is also yours too, since you sooo obviously side with them.
"I will just shake my head and smile the same way I do every time the liberal minority forces their agenda on the rest of the country. So, burn a flag, don't say God in school (only if you're Christian though), by all means don't display the 10 Commandments in public, and marry your gay partner if you wish." - Mijarra
None of us here are saying we want to force the rest of the country to not say God in school (Pledge of Alegiance), but those who are non-Christain should have the right not to. No one here is saying Christains shouldn't be allowed their Ten Comandments, just don't throw it in our face in public as a tool to gain converts. I believe there are many good things about the comandments, "thou shall not kill', 'thou shall not steal', "thou shall not bear false wittness aganst thy neighbor", "honor thy mother & father'" but these values came long before Christainity. In other words these type of values are universal, but you Mijarra & the Christains (once again right wing & moderate, when pressed) seem to think the rest of us non-Christains & Liberals are enemies of these ideas. We just want to be left alone, live & let live, that is all. A notion that seems to be foriegn to you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Just an average joe
Joined: 08 Aug 2002 Posts: 148 Location: Grand Rapids Michigan
|
Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2004 11:13 am Post subject: SF to sue California for gay marriange ban |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Mijarra:
quote: Originally posted by Jim McCormick:
Ok, here is the facts plain & simple. When government or government fueled by religion dictates your personal choice of a marriage partner, by punishment of law, then thats is wrong.
.
Nitro, I am not trying to "impose my beliefs on you". They are not "my" beliefs, they are the beliefs of millions of Americans and the basis on which our country was founded.
.
Actually the idea that America was founded on Christian beliefs is false. The founding fathers were NOT christian. They were Deists.
Deism: (1) The belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. (2) The doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning.
-taken from websters (i'm not trying to insult intelligence here by posting the definition)
john Adams, the second president of the United States says “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”-treaty of tripoli 1796, acticle 11
Thomas Jefferson, third prez...“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry. . . .” The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom
I could go on, but all i have to say is read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I am christian myself as i have stated before, but as a historian and firm believer in the idea that this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom...that is, to escape religious persecution and for all people to worship (or not) as they want, I whole heartedlt support the idea of homosexuals being able to marry and have the same basic civil rights as every other human being in this country. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|