PDA

View Full Version : The unanswerable question...


Pages : [1] 2

Taco John
02-26-2005, 12:09 AM
I asked this question of one of our local whacked out extremists recently, and the response I got back was a strained squiggle, and then silence. So I'd like to pose it to anyone else who can answer this.

To paraphrase:



What is wrong with the term civil union, and why do liberals fight it so vehemently? It accurately describes any two people (hetero or homo) that wish to live together and enjoy the benefits of a long term relationship. I see nothing wrong with the term whatsoever.


To which I responded:

I don't have any problem with Civil Union... So long as that's what you're calling every marraige in the eyes of Uncle Sam... Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with these unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.


Sounds like we have found common ground. We both agree that the term "Civil Union" accurately describes two people, hetero or homo, that wish to live together and enjoy the benefits of a long term relationship...

Yay! Common ground!

But then things went nutzo from there... I asked the follow-up:


It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with marital (or whatever, civil) unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.

What problem do you have with that?


The answers I got from there were shoddy at best... So I'm hoping to see if someone might have an answer to this one.

Donger
02-26-2005, 07:10 AM
I suppose the best answer I could provide would be to ask a very simple question: "Should the US government be involved in maintaining societal tradition?"

whoman69
02-26-2005, 11:16 AM
I have no problem with a civil unions as long as they carry equal weight with a marriage. Without that, its useless. I don't want it called a marriage because to me that is a religious ceremony. Most religions do not support homosexuality and if they are forced to marry homosexuals that would be against the constitution's freedom of religion. That said, most conservatives do not support even civil unions. In fact in the latest round of votes, Oklahoma has banned civil unions.

unlurking
02-26-2005, 12:13 PM
Who has been saying religions will be FORCED to marry homosexuals?!?!

Hell, religions turn away people NOW that aren't "acceptable". Most churches require multiple counseling sessions with the minister/priest/whatever to make sure the couple are ready.

This is one thing that just pisses me off in terms spouting lies to make your argument that homesexuality is going to end the world.

As far as Donger's question goes, I think the simple answer is no. I think the US Government should protect the rights of society to grow and change without forcing ANY SINGLE "tradition" upon all.

As far as goverment recognized unions by any should be recognized in the same way to me. To be honest, I don't give a damn if Uncle Sam calls my tax break the "hetero civil union between two residents of planet Earth". As long as I get my tax-break, call it the "Uncle Sam has decided you are lucky enough to get lube before he rapes you" discount.

KCFalcon59
02-26-2005, 08:18 PM
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010305.asp

In all the states where gay marriage was on the ballot this year, the voters voted against it — as they should have.

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes — and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.

The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges — for anybody — and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.

Incidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage, even though gay activists are pushing it.

What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.

They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.

There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable.

They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.

marsaray
02-26-2005, 09:17 PM
Same sex marriage is not right. There is no pro creation.

4th and Long
02-26-2005, 10:08 PM
Same sex marriage is not right. There is no pro creation.
The world would be a less complicated if we were all worms.

Taco John
02-27-2005, 12:34 AM
I suppose the best answer I could provide would be to ask a very simple question: "Should the US government be involved in maintaining societal tradition?"



Not unless the Framers got it wrong.

|Zach|
02-27-2005, 12:35 AM
Same sex marriage is not right. There is no pro creation.
Nobody is making you do it...why would other people getting married bother you at all?

Taco John
02-27-2005, 12:36 AM
Most religions do not support homosexuality and if they are forced to marry homosexuals that would be against the constitution's freedom of religion.



Why do people even drag that strawman into the debate? Nobody is saying that churches should be forced to marry gays. Bringing it up is just stupid and pointless.

Taco John
02-27-2005, 12:39 AM
Same sex marriage is not right. There is no pro creation.



So? What does pro-creation have anything to do with it? Using this logic, people who are sterile shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have kids.

Taco John
02-27-2005, 12:41 AM
So I still haven't gotten an answer.

I think this is the intellectual "checkmate" of this argument.

SBK
02-27-2005, 01:36 AM
So I still haven't gotten an answer.

I think this is the intellectual "checkmate" of this argument.

Would you admit that gay marriage is a direct assault on the traditional family, and traditional family values?

|Zach|
02-27-2005, 01:42 AM
Would you admit that gay marriage is a direct assault on the traditional family, and traditional family values?
Traditional? I would say so...I don't equate that as a bad thing automatically like others do.

Donger
02-27-2005, 07:31 AM
So? What does pro-creation have anything to do with it? Using this logic, people who are sterile shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't have kids.

Other than it's the only reason we have male and female, nothing.

Also, there's a rather large difference between a heterosexual couple not being able to reproduce due to a medical anomoly, and nature dictating that homosexuals can't reproduce period, don't you think?

unlurking
02-27-2005, 08:00 AM
Would you admit that gay marriage is a direct assault on the traditional family, and traditional family values?
And forced monogamy is an assault on the traditional family values of Mormons (but they changed). Incest laws are an assault on the traditional family values of traditional monrach family values (trying to avoid the south jokes). Interracial marriages were (and probably still are to some) an assualt on traditional family values.

Times change, so do traditions.

unlurking
02-27-2005, 08:02 AM
Other than it's the only reason we have male and female, nothing.

Also, there's a rather large difference between a heterosexual couple not being able to reproduce due to a medical anomoly, and nature dictating that homosexuals can't reproduce period, don't you think?
"They took ar joooooobs!"

"They took yer jooooooobs!"

OK everyone, back in the pile!

:D

(Sorry, your post reminded me of a South Park episode!)

Boozer
02-27-2005, 08:03 AM
Also, there's a rather large difference between a heterosexual couple not being able to reproduce due to a medical anomoly, and nature dictating that homosexuals can't reproduce period, don't you think?

Maybe, but if that's the reason the government sanctions marriage, then sterile people (including post-menopausal women) should not be allowed to get married.

the Talking Can
02-27-2005, 08:05 AM
Would you admit that gay marriage is a direct assault on the traditional family, and traditional family values?

what's a traditional family value?

a. poligamy
b. divorce
c. wife beating
d. arranged marriages
e. all of the above


gay marriage is about...(drum roll)..gay marriage, I imagine the people involved don't give a **** about you or your "traditional family values," they just had the crazy idea that in a free county not run by mullahs they could spend their lives with loved ones, free of persecution and with the same rights before the law as any citizen....go figure

2bikemike
02-27-2005, 08:25 AM
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell010305.asp

In all the states where gay marriage was on the ballot this year, the voters voted against it — as they should have.

Of all the phony arguments for gay marriage, the phoniest is the argument that it is a matter of equal rights. Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes — and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples' options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?

The issue is not individual rights. What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what "consenting adults" do in private is nobody else's business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.

The rhetoric of "equal rights" has become the road to special privilege for all sorts of groups, so perhaps it was inevitable that gay activists would take that road as well. It has worked. They have already succeeded in getting far more government money for AIDS than for other diseases that kill far more people.

The time is long overdue to stop word games about equal rights from leading to special privileges — for anybody — and gay marriage is as good an issue on which to do so as anything else.

Incidentally, it is not even clear how many homosexuals actually want marriage, even though gay activists are pushing it.

What the activists really want is the stamp of acceptance on homosexuality, as a means of spreading that lifestyle, which has become a death style in the era of AIDS.

They have already succeeded to a remarkable degree in our public schools, where so-called "AIDS education" or other pious titles are put on programs that promote homosexuality. In some cases, gay activists actually come to the schools, not only to promote homosexuality as an idea but even to pass out the addresses of local gay hangouts to the kids.

There is no limit to what people will do if you let them get away with it. That our schools, which are painfully failing to educate our children to the standards in other countries, have time for promoting homosexuality is truly staggering.

Every special interest group has an incentive to take something away from society as a whole. Some will be content just to siphon off a share of the taxpayers' money for themselves. Others, however, want to dismantle a part of the structure of values that make a society viable.

They may not want to bring down the whole structure, just get rid of the part that cramps their style. But when innumerable groups start dismantling pieces of the structure that they don't like, we can be headed for the kinds of social collapses seen both in history and in other parts of the world in our own times.

I agree with most of this article.

Maybe I'm missing something but what in the hell rights do married people have that homo's don't? Damn near everything I can think of can be covered with a legal document.

Donger
02-27-2005, 08:28 AM
Maybe, but if that's the reason the government sanctions marriage, then sterile people (including post-menopausal women) should not be allowed to get married.

I didn't say it was the reason. Just answering TJ's other question.

Boozer
02-27-2005, 09:32 AM
I agree with most of this article.

Maybe I'm missing something but what in the hell rights do married people have that homo's don't? Damn near everything I can think of can be covered with a legal document.

If that were true, you'd see more heterosexual couples skip marriage in favor of making their own contracts.

whoman69
02-27-2005, 11:14 AM
civil unions are needed because a gay partner cannot make decisions for their dying partner in the hospital, cannot include their partner in their insurance plans in most states, do not have all the rights of a family member in inheritance. If they pass civil unions without the same equality in law, they will simply sue to get those rights. I would rather have a country based on laws, than law suits.

4th and Long
02-27-2005, 12:14 PM
I still say we'd be better off if we were all worms.

Worms are hermaphrodites. Each worm has both male and female organs. Worms mate by joining their clitella (swollen area near the head of a mature worm) and exchanging sperm. Then each worm forms an egg capsule in its clitellum.

SBK
02-27-2005, 12:46 PM
what's a traditional family value?

a. poligamy
b. divorce
c. wife beating
d. arranged marriages
e. all of the above


gay marriage is about...(drum roll)..gay marriage, I imagine the people involved don't give a **** about you or your "traditional family values," they just had the crazy idea that in a free county not run by mullahs they could spend their lives with loved ones, free of persecution and with the same rights before the law as any citizen....go figure

Numbnuts, a traditonal marriage, ie traditional family value is 1 man, 1 woman and kids, if that couple decides to have kids. That is traditional.

|Zach|
02-27-2005, 03:11 PM
Numbnuts, a traditonal marriage, ie traditional family value is 1 man, 1 woman and kids, if that couple decides to have kids. That is traditional.
I would have said this in your original post...terms like "traditional values" are a lot more subjective than you seem to think.

unlurking
02-27-2005, 03:47 PM
I would have said this in your original post...terms like "traditional values" are a lot more subjective than you seem to think.
Agreed.

Maybe the better question would have been...

"Would you admit that gay marriage is a direct assault on MY traditional family, and MY traditional family values?"

DenverChief
02-27-2005, 03:54 PM
Other than it's the only reason we have male and female, nothing.

Also, there's a rather large difference between a heterosexual couple not being able to reproduce due to a medical anomoly, and nature dictating that homosexuals can't reproduce period, don't you think?
so people that can but choose not to have kids shouldn't be allowed to marry?

|Zach|
02-27-2005, 03:56 PM
Agreed.

Maybe the better question would have been...

"Would you admit that gay marriage is a direct assault on MY traditional family, and MY traditional family values?"
Well that is a point...but also it is just the term itself. It is so subjective. He is putting it out there like it could be used as empirical data.

DenverChief
02-27-2005, 03:57 PM
gay marriage is about...(drum roll)..gay marriage, I imagine the people involved don't give a **** about you or your "traditional family values," they just had the crazy idea that in a free county not run by mullahs they could spend their lives with loved ones, free of persecution and with the same rights before the law as any citizen....go figure


outstanding post...too bad its lost on most people

jcl-kcfan2
02-27-2005, 08:36 PM
If that were true, you'd see more heterosexual couples skip marriage in favor of making their own contracts.


Aren't there more people living together (or "in sin", if you prefer) than ever before?

Rausch
02-27-2005, 08:38 PM
Aren't there more people living together (or "in sin", if you prefer) than ever before?

It's worked for me anyway...

SBK
02-27-2005, 09:21 PM
Agreed.

Maybe the better question would have been...

"Would you admit that gay marriage is a direct assault on MY traditional family, and MY traditional family values?"

I guess Im the only one that feels a family is 1 man 1 woman and their children. I must be turning into some kind of moonbat. :thumb:

|Zach|
02-27-2005, 09:50 PM
I guess Im the only one that feels a family is 1 man 1 woman and their children. I must be turning into some kind of moonbat. :thumb:
No, you are ok now that you told us what your idea of the term "traditional family" is. It was just so subjective I can't understand how you thought everyone could read that and think the same thing...

Inspector
02-27-2005, 10:24 PM
"What problem do you have with that?"

none

Pitt Gorilla
02-27-2005, 10:27 PM
It's worked for me anyway... :thumb:

Cochise
02-28-2005, 08:37 AM
Aren't there more people living together (or "in sin", if you prefer) than ever before?

Don't have the stats, but I have heard many times that the divorce rate is actually higher for people who live together first. :shrug:

Rain Man
03-01-2005, 08:08 AM
I think the government needs to repeal the orgasm tax. Everyone cheats on it anyway.

jspchief
03-01-2005, 08:22 AM
Also, there's a rather large difference between a heterosexual couple not being able to reproduce due to a medical anomoly, and nature dictating that homosexuals can't reproduce period, don't you think?

Medical anomoly? What causes this medical anomaly? Nature? I guess god must have reached down with powers and reduced certain men's sperm count. ( insert "mysterious ways" cliche here).

What about people who simply don't want kids? They can't marry? How about a women who is over the age of forty, and doesn't want to get pregnant because of the increased risk of downs syndrome in the child? Can she not marry?

Taco John
03-02-2005, 10:24 PM
Other than it's the only reason we have male and female, nothing.

Also, there's a rather large difference between a heterosexual couple not being able to reproduce due to a medical anomoly, and nature dictating that homosexuals can't reproduce period, don't you think?



What does any of this have to do with allowing two people the freedom to commit themselves to eachother, and enjoy the tax burden or benefit of two other people in a similar circumstance?

I get that they can't pro-crete. But so what?

Taco John
03-02-2005, 10:26 PM
Would you admit that gay marriage is a direct assault on the traditional family, and traditional family values?


Assault? In what way? How does what they do in their home affect what happens in yours?

Using the word "assault" is nothing more than demagoguery.

Taco John
03-02-2005, 10:28 PM
what's a traditional family value?

a. poligamy
b. divorce
c. wife beating
d. arranged marriages
e. all of the above


gay marriage is about...(drum roll)..gay marriage, I imagine the people involved don't give a **** about you or your "traditional family values," they just had the crazy idea that in a free county not run by mullahs they could spend their lives with loved ones, free of persecution and with the same rights before the law as any citizen....go figure



That rabbit is kicking that guy in the head.

That's crazy.

I'm Brian Fellows!

Taco John
03-02-2005, 10:32 PM
I'm still curious why Russ couldn't answer the question...

WoodDraw
03-02-2005, 11:01 PM
Assault? In what way? How does what they do in their home affect what happens in yours?

Using the word "assault" is nothing more than demagoguery.

Exactly. Even if we do accept his definition of a "traditional" family as being a husband, wife, and child, why is that important? What impact will two homosexual people entering into a civil union have on someone's "traditional" family? How exactly are they assaulting your values?

SBK
03-03-2005, 12:24 AM
Exactly. Even if we do accept his definition of a "traditional" family as being a husband, wife, and child, why is that important? What impact will two homosexual people entering into a civil union have on someone's "traditional" family? How exactly are they assaulting your values?

Don't act like Im the only one that holds those values. How many times that this subject has been brought to the people to vote, (which is how America is supposed to work), has it passed?

As far as assaulting my values, I don't think that I should need to explain that Steve and Tom are married to toddlers. I don't think that my kids need to hear about someone with 2 dads at school. I don't think my kids should be taught that being gay is beautiful.

Marriage is a convenant between a man, a woman and GOD. Marriage is not anything else. Most people take those vows, and that convenant way too lightly.

Lastly, please, give me 1 right that I have as a married man, that a homosexual doesn't have. Just 1. Not a perk, not a title, a RIGHT that I have because Im a hetero that a homosexual person doesn't have.

Boozer
03-03-2005, 06:00 AM
Lastly, please, give me 1 right that I have as a married man, that a homosexual doesn't have. Just 1. Not a perk, not a title, a RIGHT that I have because Im a hetero that a homosexual person doesn't have.

Forced share inheritence rights from your spouse.

Taco John
03-03-2005, 06:20 AM
Lastly, please, give me 1 right that I have as a married man, that a homosexual doesn't have. Just 1. Not a perk, not a title, a RIGHT that I have because Im a hetero that a homosexual person doesn't have.


You have your union recognized by the state as legally binding, and the protections that go along with that recognition.

Velvet_Jones
03-03-2005, 08:42 AM
Because the self-proclaimed libertarian thinker el taco likes predictions I would like to make one: If gay marriage ever passes, the Gay divorce rate will almost double that of heterosexual marriages. That's right. I think the divorce rate will be over 90%.

I predict this because most gay men are self-centered pretentious emotional basket cases that are not stable enough to be a foundation for a long-term relationship. I know that my view is limited by my personal experiences but 100% of the gay men I know show these exact traits.

As for gay women, the ones I know are obsessed with sex and constantly talk about or announce their sexuality. Out of the ten or so lesbians I know, I would say only one is a trustworthy individual that I think could be committed to one person.

I would like to ask anyone who cares to give an opinion as to why, when presented to the public, gay marriage looses in a landslide every time it's tried? My opinion is that the gay is a moral issue to most. The gay lifestyle is dangerous and damaging to those who participate because it is a lifestyle based on gratification not morality. The gay lifestyle is not stable, grounded in doing the right thing, or about building a future. It's about what's in it for me, how can I get it now, and doing what feels good.

Velvet

SBK
03-03-2005, 11:38 AM
Forced share inheritence rights from your spouse.

I can leave my inheritance to whomever I wish, same as a homosexual.

SBK
03-03-2005, 11:41 AM
You have your union recognized by the state as legally binding, and the protections that go along with that recognition.

Protections? Recognized?

This is a lame attempt to say "you can get married."

All you need is an attorney to draw up a document for any legal issues you need taken care of, and to say the state protects me because Im married is bs.

Homosexuals cannot marry folks of the same sex, and neither can I, likewise, I can marry a person of the opposite sex, same right that a homosexual has.

WoodDraw
03-03-2005, 03:21 PM
As far as assaulting my values, I don't think that I should need to explain that Steve and Tom are married to toddlers. I don't think that my kids need to hear about someone with 2 dads at school. I don't think my kids should be taught that being gay is beautiful.

And many have felt the same way about their kids associating with people of different ethnicity and religions.

Marriage is a convenant between a man, a woman and GOD. Marriage is not anything else. Most people take those vows, and that convenant way too lightly.

And between God? Which God? And when did he spell out these rules of marriage to you?

Of course, it is all a moot point anway as congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and what you just said clearly violates that. You can't deny someone the right to marry simply because God might think they are naughty.

Lastly, please, give me 1 right that I have as a married man, that a homosexual doesn't have. Just 1. Not a perk, not a title, a RIGHT that I have because Im a hetero that a homosexual person doesn't have.

I'm not an expert on the laws of marriage and civil unions and I won't pretend to be but it doesn't matter. Why should you be entitled to marriage while a homosexual couple iis not? What, in the eyes of the secular state, makes you better than they are?

SBK
03-03-2005, 07:56 PM
I'm not an expert on the laws of marriage and civil unions and I won't pretend to be but it doesn't matter. Why should you be entitled to marriage while a homosexual couple iis not? What, in the eyes of the secular state, makes you better than they are?

I cannot marry a person of the same sex, neither can a homosexual couple. I have to live by the same rules they do....

As far as where did God lay out the rules for marriage, the Bible is a good place to look. :thumb:

WoodDraw
03-03-2005, 09:08 PM
I cannot marry a person of the same sex, neither can a homosexual couple. I have to live by the same rules they do....

You are allowed to marry the person you love, they are not.

As far as where did God lay out the rules for marriage, the Bible is a good place to look. :thumb:

So should we limit marriage to Christians only then?

|Zach|
03-03-2005, 09:19 PM
As far as where did God lay out the rules for marriage, the Bible is a good place to look. :thumb:
You are more than welcome to live your life from the words in that book.

I am not interested in forcing other people too.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2005, 09:36 PM
You are more than welcome to live your life from the words in that book.

I am not interested in forcing other people too.

If not that book, then will evey other major civilization in the history of the world (we are talkin' "marriage" here...) suffice??? :hmmm:

|Zach|
03-03-2005, 09:40 PM
If not that book, then will evey other major civilization in the history of the world (we are talkin' "marriage" here...) suffice??? :hmmm:
No, but the judgment and consensus of adults who have made the decision they love each other and want to spend their lives togerther works for me.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2005, 09:45 PM
No, but the judgment and consensus of adults who have made the decision they love each other and want to spend their lives togerther works for me.

Fair enough.

Fugg "history" and other cultures--what do they know, eh? ;)

|Zach|
03-03-2005, 09:54 PM
Fair enough.

Fugg "history" and other cultures--what do they know, eh? ;)
Heh, I don't think that is sending a huge FU to history...I just think its time we turn a corner. This may be simplistic but like I have said before...

If a homosexual couple has decided they love eachother enough to spend the rest of their lives together than I wish them all the luck in the world just like I wish that upon any heterosexual couple.

WoodDraw
03-03-2005, 09:55 PM
If not that book, then will evey other major civilization in the history of the world (we are talkin' "marriage" here...) suffice??? :hmmm:

Really? I'm assuming that you've researched all of this? I just did a quick google search and already found a few sources that disagree with you.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2005, 09:57 PM
Really? I'm assuming that you've researched all of this? I just did a quick google search and already found a few sources that disagree with you.

Yeah, and I'd LOVE to assess the "credibiliity" of THOSE sources....don't move the "goal" on me here: we are talkin' about MAJOR civilizations that condoned and sanctioned HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES....--not simply "tolerated" or "looked the other way." :)

Feel free to LIST them.... :hmmm:

|Zach|
03-03-2005, 10:04 PM
Doesn't Canada allow gay marriage? I can't remember.

Rausch
03-03-2005, 10:10 PM
Fair enough.

Fugg "history" and other cultures--what do they know, eh? ;)

Indeed.

If not for America Democracy is some $#it the Romans toyed with for a while.

There isn't another nation in the world I'd want us to "act more like."

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2005, 10:47 PM
Doesn't Canada allow gay marriage? I can't remember.

That experiment began precisely 2 yrs ago. :)

WoodDraw
03-03-2005, 10:59 PM
I'm not an expert on the history of marriage and I'm assuming you aren't either. You said that no major society condoned gay marriage while a quick source showed some level of gay marriage or unions in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Nativate American culture and even some evidence of the early church having a different stance on homosexuality. I am sure that it is safe to say that most significant societies in the history of our world have not truely accepted gay marriage. I'd also say that it is safe to say that most of these cultures' ideas were based heavily on religous ideas. The United States has a high level of freedom both of religion and from religion that is almost unheard of throughout history. So really, what significance does what culture X believed in the 15 century have on today's society? The question we have to ask is what is wrong with same-sex marriage? Is there an arguement against it that goes beyond religion and personal biases? If so, I'd love to have someone explain it to me.

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2005, 11:02 PM
I'm not an expert on the history of marriage and I'm assuming you aren't either. You said that no major society condoned gay marriage while a quick source showed some level of gay marriage or unions in Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Nativate American culture and even some evidence of the early church having a different stance on homosexuality. I am sure that it is safe to say that most significant societies in the history of our world have not truely accepted gay marriage. I'd also say that it is safe to say that most of these cultures' ideas were based heavily on religous ideas. The United States has a high level of freedom both of religion and from religion that is almost unheard of throughout history. So really, what significance does what culture X believed in the 15 century have on today's society? The question we have to ask is what is wrong with same-sex marriage? Is there an arguement against it that goes beyond religion and personal biases? If so, I'd love to have someone explain it to me.

I teach American and World History. NAME the societies you claim fit the profile I've asked for: MAJOR civilizations that condoned and sanctioned HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES. Otherwise, you should just let it go.

Greeks, Romans, and some Egyptians did "tolerate" the behavior; but what about MARRIAGE? Native Americans? No...they "looked the other way." Next....

Mere tolerance of the behavior is not the same as sanctioning or condoning MARRIAGE. :)

WoodDraw
03-03-2005, 11:18 PM
I teach American and World History. NAME the societies you claim fit the profile I've asked for: MAJOR civilizations that condoned and sanctioned HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES. Otherwise, you should just let it go.

Greeks, Romans, and some Egyptians did "tolerate" the behavior; but what about MARRIAGE? Native Americans? No...they "looked the other way." Next....

Mere tolerance of the behavior is not the same as sanctioning or condoning MARRIAGE. :)

Fair enough, although I still don't see the significance.

Taco John
03-03-2005, 11:27 PM
I'm still curious why Russ couldn't answer the question...


Damn! I can't believe how much this question shut Russ the **** up...

ROFL

Mr. Kotter
03-03-2005, 11:30 PM
Fair enough, although I still don't see the significance.

Significance, in my mind....is I don't want to be at the "cutting edge" of something like that. Period. That's JMHO though. :shrug:

SBK
03-04-2005, 08:36 AM
You are allowed to marry the person you love, they are not.


If I loved another man, I wouldn't be able to marry him either.....

I love a woman, so I was allowed to marry, same rules apply to the homosexual crowd.

SBK
03-04-2005, 08:38 AM
You are more than welcome to live your life from the words in that book.

I am not interested in forcing other people too.

Well, I guess Im on the side of the Americans who have voted on the issue here...........

You might be a good fit in Canada, I hear they want to change those rules. :thumb:

|Zach|
03-04-2005, 10:59 AM
Well, I guess Im on the side of the Americans who have voted on the issue here...........

You might be a good fit in Canada, I hear they want to change those rules. :thumb:
Seems as though I am the one backing up american ideals a lot more than you...

Me: Religious Tolerance...

You: If you dont it go somewhere else...

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2005, 11:04 AM
Seems as though I am the one backing up american ideals a lot more than you...

Me: Religious Tolerance...

You: If you dont it go somewhere else...

Serious questions here, Zach. :hmmm:

Aren't you just as 'intolerant' of those whose views you disagree with about, on this issue (as 'intolerant' as you think they are of your views?) Aren't you saying those folks should ignore THIER conscience, and their beliefs, and their ideology? So that you may impose yours upon the rest of society? Or is tolerance only a one way street?

I'm serious. Why is that NOT an accurate way for us to interpret your beliefs?

Remember, in my mind....honest disagreement is fine. But let's be honest here. :hmmm:

|Zach|
03-04-2005, 11:08 AM
Serious questions here, Zach. :hmmm:

Aren't you just as 'intolerant' of those whose views you disagree with about this issue, as you think they are of you? Aren't you saying those folks should ignore THIER conscience, and their beliefs, and their ideology? So that you may impose yours upon the rest of society?

I'm serious? Why is that NOT an accurate way for us to interpret your beliefs?

Remember, in my mind....honest disagreement is fine. But let's be honest here. :hmmm:
I am not interested in forcing anyone to do anything.

If a Church feels it is wrong to perform marriages of that nature than I respect that. If people don't agree with it then I respect that they don't have to get married to someone of the same sex.

But if there is someone who is interested in being in a homosexual relatinship then I think they should be on a level playing field. I don't see their mere existance on an infringment on you.

DenverChief
03-04-2005, 11:12 AM
Serious questions here, Zach. :hmmm:

Aren't you just as 'intolerant' of those whose views you disagree with about, on this issue (as 'intolerant' as you think they are of your views?) Aren't you saying those folks should ignore THIER conscience, and their beliefs, and their ideology? So that you may impose yours upon the rest of society? Or is tolerance only a one way street?

I'm serious. Why is that NOT an accurate way for us to interpret your beliefs?

Remember, in my mind....honest disagreement is fine. But let's be honest here. :hmmm:
nobody is asking you to ignore your values just keep them to yourself...people can still teach their children not to marry interfaith or interracial....just don't force your majority opinion on the minority ....:)

DenverChief
03-04-2005, 11:12 AM
I don't see their mere existance on an infringment on you.


ed zacahary

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2005, 11:14 AM
I am not interested in forcing anyone to do anything.

If a Church feels it is wrong to perform marriages of that nature than I respect that. If people don't agree with it then I respect that they don't have to get married to someone of the same sex.

But if there is someone who is interested in being in a homosexual relatinship then I think they should be on a level playing field. I don't see their mere existance on an infringment on you.

Fair enough.

But understand that by insisting on no societal moral standard, you are IMPOSING your beliefs upon a significant number of Americans. Whether that is your intent or not--you are.

|Zach|
03-04-2005, 11:15 AM
Fair enough.

But understand that by insisting on no societal moral standard, you are IMPOSING your beliefs upon a significant number of Americans. Whether that is your intent or not.
I don't see a whole lot moral about it...your side does...I see technical equality. I mean this is a lot of were we differ...I see zero morality issues with homosexuality.

I also, still...do not see how a homosexual marriage existing in itself infringes upon you.

DenverChief
03-04-2005, 11:18 AM
I don't see a whole lot moral about it...your side does...I see technical equality. I mean this is a lot of were we differ...I see zero morality issues with homosexuality.

I also, still...do not see how a homosexual marriage existing in itself infringes upon you.


it does becasue he wants it to in an attempt to make it appear his RIGHTS have been infriinged upon

|Zach|
03-04-2005, 11:20 AM
you are IMPOSING your beliefs upon a significant number of Americans.
How is anything being imposed on someone who is heterosexual. How would this have any effect on their worlds. Seems as though the fact that they think it is icky is their problem to deal with.

You may have a point if people were being rounded up and forced into homosexual relationships. ROFL

DenverChief
03-04-2005, 11:24 AM
You may have a point if people were being rounded up and forced into homosexual relationships. ROFL
ROFL

go bowe
03-04-2005, 11:31 AM
Same sex marriage is not right. There is no pro creation.although it's been said many times before...

so it's "not right" for old people, sterile people, or people who choose not to have children to marry, since there is no procreation?

hmmmmmm... :hmmm:

go bowe
03-04-2005, 11:32 AM
Would you admit that gay marriage is a direct assault on the traditional family, and traditional family values?no...

go bowe
03-04-2005, 11:34 AM
Other than it's the only reason we have male and female, nothing.

Also, there's a rather large difference between a heterosexual couple not being able to reproduce due to a medical anomoly, and nature dictating that homosexuals can't reproduce period, don't you think?no, not for purposes of marriage if you are only considering procreation...

no difference at all...

go bowe
03-04-2005, 11:39 AM
outstanding post...too bad its lost on most peoplespeak for yourself, sonny... :harumph:

go bowe
03-04-2005, 11:43 AM
Don't act like Im the only one that holds those values. How many times that this subject has been brought to the people to vote, (which is how America is supposed to work), has it passed?

As far as assaulting my values, I don't think that I should need to explain that Steve and Tom are married to toddlers. I don't think that my kids need to hear about someone with 2 dads at school. I don't think my kids should be taught that being gay is beautiful.

Marriage is a convenant between a man, a woman and GOD. Marriage is not anything else. Most people take those vows, and that convenant way too lightly.

Lastly, please, give me 1 right that I have as a married man, that a homosexual doesn't have. Just 1. Not a perk, not a title, a RIGHT that I have because Im a hetero that a homosexual person doesn't have. ummm... no...

maybe because it would be discriminatory? and violate constitutional guarantees?

go bowe
03-04-2005, 11:46 AM
Don't act like Im the only one that holds those values. How many times that this subject has been brought to the people to vote, (which is how America is supposed to work), has it passed?
. . .america is supposed to work that way?

well, you'd be right except for that pesky constitution thing...

go bowe
03-04-2005, 11:48 AM
Because the self-proclaimed libertarian thinker el taco likes predictions I would like to make one: If gay marriage ever passes, the Gay divorce rate will almost double that of heterosexual marriages. That's right. I think the divorce rate will be over 90%.

I predict this because most gay men are self-centered pretentious emotional basket cases that are not stable enough to be a foundation for a long-term relationship. I know that my view is limited by my personal experiences but 100% of the gay men I know show these exact traits.

As for gay women, the ones I know are obsessed with sex and constantly talk about or announce their sexuality. Out of the ten or so lesbians I know, I would say only one is a trustworthy individual that I think could be committed to one person.

I would like to ask anyone who cares to give an opinion as to why, when presented to the public, gay marriage looses in a landslide every time it's tried? My opinion is that the gay is a moral issue to most. The gay lifestyle is dangerous and damaging to those who participate because it is a lifestyle based on gratification not morality. The gay lifestyle is not stable, grounded in doing the right thing, or about building a future. It's about what's in it for me, how can I get it now, and doing what feels good.

VelvetROFL ROFL ROFL

prejudice and ignorance are wonderful things, eh? ROFL ROFL ROFL

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2005, 11:50 AM
How is anything being imposed on someone who is heterosexual. How would this have any effect on their worlds. Seems as though the fact that they think it is icky is their problem to deal with.

You may have a point if people were being rounded up and forced into homosexual relationships. ROFL

I'm not saying I buy into this view entirely (however...many people do feel this way.)

There are generally two views as to the proper role of government -- one in which the government is primarily responsible for protection of life, liberty, and property--and little else: a "libertarian" perspective. However, the other view, is that government, additionally, should seek to promote "virtue"--Aristotle, Plato, Locke, Rousseau, and, yes, the founding fathers of America favored this view.

Conservatives and liberals today are both hypocrits to a large extent, when it comes to whether or not the government ought to promote virtue. Liberals favor government promotion of virtues like charity, compassion, and a "progressive" tax structure, for instance. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to favor government promotion of "social" virtue-- prohibition of abortion, gay rights, and promotion of abstinence. Interestingly and ironically, both sides view is often based in religious beliefs and doctrine. Both sides welcome government promotion of virtue--their virtues. The question is simpy "whose?"

If, as a society, we reject social virtues of conservatives, we have naturally embraced the "virtue" of liberals in this case. If society now rejects the long-held social virtue that considers homosexuality immoral, then we have embraced a social virtue of "tolerance" that, potentially, opens a pandora's box.

How, honestly, does the government legitamately legislate against ANY "victimless" crime between "consenting" adults? Now many say, "we shouldn't!" And perhaps they are right. But try selling THAT to the public.

Is that a road we wish to go down? That is the real question.

go bowe
03-04-2005, 11:51 AM
If not that book, then will evey other major civilization in the history of the world (we are talkin' "marriage" here...) suffice??? :hmmm:good Lord, man...

are you becoming mr. shortbuskotter, now? ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
03-04-2005, 11:53 AM
Yeah, and I'd LOVE to assess the "credibiliity" of THOSE sources....don't move the "goal" on me here: we are talkin' about MAJOR civilizations that condoned and sanctioned HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES....--not simply "tolerated" or "looked the other way." :)

Feel free to LIST them.... :hmmm:hmmmm... many "major" civilizations condoned and sanctioned slavery, not simply tolerated and looked the other way...

things change over the millenia...

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2005, 11:58 AM
good Lord, man...

are you becoming mr. shortbuskotter, now? ROFL ROFL ROFL

Name them, John. (as I have qualified it) :)

go bowe
03-04-2005, 11:58 AM
Significance, in my mind....is I don't want to be at the "cutting edge" of something like that. Period. That's JMHO though. :shrug:then don't be...

just don't stand in the way of others who do want to be at the "cutting edge"...

this is america, with a constitution and individual rights, not iran controlled by mullahs...

thank God we have been on the "cutting edge" of democracy and individual liberty since the inception of our country...

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2005, 12:00 PM
hmmmm... many "major" civilizations condoned and sanctioned slavery, not simply tolerated and looked the other way...

things change over the millenia...

If you wish to be at the cutting edge of this; be my guest....why do you insist on draggin' the rest of the country with you?

Unless you are insisting on hoisting your morality on the rest of us.... :)

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2005, 12:05 PM
then don't be...

just don't stand in the way of others who do want to be at the "cutting edge"...

this is america, with a constitution and individual rights, not iran controlled by mullahs...

thank God we have been on the "cutting edge" of democracy and individual liberty since the inception of our country...

If you wish to equate democracy and liberty with lifestyle choice, be my guest....I just don't see it as anywhere near the same thing.

go bowe
03-04-2005, 12:09 PM
nobody is asking you to ignore your values just keep them to yourself...people can still teach their children not to marry interfaith or interracial....just don't force your majority opinion on the minority ....:)let me add to that...

how you choose to live by whatever set of values you embrace and/or how you teach your children to hate or be tolerant is a private action, which any american is entitled to do under the law...

with respect to not permitting gays to marry, we're talking about a government action, which is subect to legal restraints in our system of law and jurisprudence...

regardless of who claims the moral high ground or even what that "high ground" is, the issue of gay marriage is a legal/constitutional issue that will almost certainly be resolved by the supreme court in the not too distant future...

and as was the case with civil rights for blacks, the opinion of the voting public simply does not control constitutional issues, only the supremes can do that in our system...

that is, unless a federal constitutional amendment were passed to ban gay marriage (which would present a very interesting legal issue for the supremes to resolve, on a theoretical bais at least)...

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2005, 12:27 PM
...and as was the case with civil rights for blacks, the opinion of the voting public simply does not control constitutional issues, only the supremes can do that in our system...

that is, unless a federal constitutional amendment were passed to ban gay marriage (which would present a very interesting legal issue for the supremes to resolve, on a theoretical bais at least)...

You and others suggest a parellel between race and sexual preference--most Americans do not accept that parallel. There are very important distinctions.

As for the Constitutional amendment, you are probably right; and if the minority in this case is able to twist and contort the Constitution to suit it's agenda, then the amendment will likely be necessary, unfortunately. But it will be preferable to the judicial fiat that you are predicting.

And it's why some of us are very happy to have George W. appointing the next two or three SC justices....

In any event, THIS court....even as it stands now....is no Warren or Burger Court, so I think you are being quite optimistic.

go bowe
03-04-2005, 12:31 PM
Fair enough.

But understand that by insisting on no societal moral standard, you are IMPOSING your beliefs upon a significant number of Americans. Whether that is your intent or not--you are.that horse has already left the barn...

it's that pesky constitution thing again...

when our founding fathers set up our constitutional system of laws, they made a concious choice to protect the rights of the individual despite what the majority might think or do...

our system - the rule of law - is based on rational judgements and standards, not societal moral standards...

if the political will of the majority cannot control or limit the extistence or exercise of those individual rights, then how can it be said that the moral will of the majority can control or limit those rights?

in short, the rule of law in our system is not, and has never been based on "societal moral standards"...

and fwiw, i don't think political science notions regarding the purpose of government have no control over the realities of our legal system...

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2005, 12:36 PM
that horse has already left the barn...

it's that pesky constitution thing again...

when our founding fathers set up our constitutional system of laws, they made a concious choice to protect the rights of the individual despite what the majority might think or do...

our system - the rule of law - is based on rational judgements and standards, not societal moral standards...

if the political will of the majority cannot control or limit the extistence or exercise of those individual rights, then how can it be said that the moral will of the majority can control or limit those rights?

in short, the rule of law in our system is not, and has never been based on "societal moral standards"...

and fwiw, i don't think political science notions regarding the purpose of government have no control over the realities of our legal system...

Rule of law merely says that laws apply to everyone equally.

Majority rule is limited by minority rights--but I'm sure you are aware, when they are in conflict.....majority will prevails, unless the dispute involves a BASIC and fundamental Constitutional right that has been recognized by the courts.

Are you ready claim gay marriage has such protection, despite 215 years of history which has, heretofore, NOT recognized such a right? :hmmm:

go bowe
03-04-2005, 12:43 PM
. . . There are generally two views as to the proper role of government -- one in which the government is primarily responsible for protection of life, liberty, and property--and little else: a "libertarian" perspective. However, the other view, is that government, additionally, should seek to promote "virtue"--Aristotle, Plato, Locke, Rousseau, and, yes, the founding fathers of America favored this view.. . . .interesting notions...

proper role of government, eh?

unfortunately, our system of constitutional law and jurisprudence is not based on notions regarding the proper role of government...

while it can certainly be said that many of our constitutional and legal provisions were intended to further a particular view of the role of government, the legal basis of our system (the rule of law, if you will) is those expressions of such notions, not the notions themselves...

theoretical analysis is terrific, but our system doesn't operate on theory, it operates on the basis of specific, written legal and constitutional provisions...

whether or not particular constitutional rights are protected is not determined by an analysis of their "virtue" in the eyes of the majority or with respect to political theory...

go bowe
03-04-2005, 12:50 PM
If you wish to be at the cutting edge of this; be my guest....why do you insist on draggin' the rest of the country with you?

Unless you are insisting on hoisting your morality on the rest of us.... :)ok, i know i'm making lots of typing and spelling errors in this thread because i'm trying to hurry, but...

there's something about the image of me "hoisting" anything on the rest of you is pretty funny....

sometimes the country needs to be dragged along...

it's the nature of our constitutional system, i tells ya...

(and i don't see it as an issue of morality at all, as discussed in other posts; so no, i don't think i would be foisting my morality off at all...)

(do i even have any morality? i used to be a lawyer, for jimminy cricket's sake)

go bowe
03-04-2005, 12:59 PM
If you wish to equate democracy and liberty with lifestyle choice, be my guest....I just don't see it as anywhere near the same thing.aw, c'mon...

nobody's saying that they are the same thing, except maybe you...

first of all, i don't see homosexuality or gay marriage as a "choice" at all...

but even if i did think that, i don't believe that i'm equating liberty with lifestyle choice as you're trying to assert...

liberty consists of the ability to exercise individual rights and is based on written law, without regard to lifestyle choice...

if liberty exists independent of lifestyle choice, how could anybody equate the two?

go bowe
03-04-2005, 01:08 PM
You and others suggest a parellel between race and sexual preference--most Americans do not accept that parallel. There are very important distinctions.

. . .man, i must be more confused than usual today...

did i suggest a "parallel" between race and sexual preference?

i'm pretty sure i suggested that race was once an acceptable basis for discrimination and isn't now, as an example that things change in the law over time...

in fact, i think between this thread and the other thread recently where we discussed gay marriage, i've made it pretty plain that i personally don't see any need to establish a parallel between sexual preference and race under the romer analysis...


(although i do see a parallel between sexual preference and religion, both being matters of choice, since you seem to put so much emphasis on the concept of choice, :fire: )

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2005, 01:11 PM
(do i even have any morality? i used to be a lawyer, for jimminy cricket's sake)

Ah, I so enjoy cognitive disonance with you, John; hope you'll still let me buy you a beer or two next year so we can do it in person....heh.

Maybe I'll be off my "meds" by then. :p

THAT would be a great note to end on.... ;)

DenverChief
03-04-2005, 01:13 PM
Maybe I'll be off my "meds" by then. :p





AHHH so THAT explains it!

go bowe
03-04-2005, 01:20 PM
. . .As for the Constitutional amendment, you are probably right; and if the minority in this case is able to twist and contort the Constitution to suit it's agenda, then the amendment will likely be necessary, unfortunately. But it will be preferable to the judicial fiat that you are predicting.

And it's why some of us are very happy to have George W. appointing the next two or three SC justices....

In any event, THIS court....even as it stands now....is no Warren or Burger Court, so I think you are being quite optimistic.optimistic, eh? that's what they said before roe came down...

and, btw, it's not "optimism" but my opinion of the legal realities under our system...

the decision of whether or not to overturn gay marriage bans is going to be based on law, as interpreted by the supremes; that's the reality under our system...

i might be wrong about the outcome (for now), but i'm pretty sure i know how the court will get there by reading the existing case law...

and yes, it would be most interesting to see a constitutional amendment attempting to codify discrimination against a class of people (even though i don't think any such amendment will overcome the many hurdles to getting it passed, hurdles which the founding fathers put in place on purpose)...

it would present absolutely fascinating legal issues for the supremes to resolve...

and george may indeed name the next several justices, but (1) liberal justices have a nasty habit of living a very long time, and (2) sometimes president's are surprised when justices become more moderate (if not "liberal" in your terms) after they join the court (something about that pesky rule of law thingy)...

go bowe
03-04-2005, 01:34 PM
Rule of law merely says that laws apply to everyone equally.

Majority rule is limited by minority rights--but I'm sure you are aware, when they are in conflict.....majority will prevails, unless the dispute involves a BASIC and fundamental Constitutional right that has been recognized by the courts.

Are you ready claim gay marriage has such protection, despite 215 years of history which has, heretofore, NOT recognized such a right? :hmmm:harrummph... am i ready to claim that gay marriage has protection under our constitution? no, i don't need to...

(first off, i guess we'll just have to disagree as to what rule of law means in our legal system...)

equal protection is a very tiny bit of the rule of law, but if you say that's all it is, i guess i can't argue with you (and get anywhere)...

we've been down the "majority rule" road lots of times recently, i won't burden you by repeating my 209 posts about it...

no, i'm not ready to say gay marriage has any protection at all...

the issue is not just about gay marriage, it's about the the right of a class of people (classified by their "choice" of sexual preference instead of by their choice of religion, in this case), to not be discriminated against by acts of the government...

banning gays from doing which other classes of people can do is discriminatory, whether its marriage or attaining any other legal status...

under romer, singling out that class of people in order to discriminate against them (by refusing them the right to pursue happiness in their own way) is an impermissible classification and i think it will sooner or later be overturned...

go bowe
03-04-2005, 01:37 PM
Ah, I so enjoy cognitive disonance with you, John; hope you'll still let me buy you a beer or two next year so we can do it in person....heh.

Maybe I'll be off my "meds" by then. :p

THAT would be a great note to end on.... ;)sorry, i never talk about law, politics, or religion when i'm drinking... :D

btw, i don't know about your meds, but i'm pretty sure mine have knocked my iq down by 50 points...

go bowe
03-04-2005, 01:38 PM
AHHH so THAT explains it!be nice, you deviant chooser of sin, you... :fire:

DenverChief
03-04-2005, 01:52 PM
be nice, you deviant chooser of sin, you... :fire:
:)

Mr. Kotter
03-04-2005, 02:18 PM
...btw, i don't know about your meds, but i'm pretty sure mine have knocked my iq down by 50 points...

Shit. That explains a lot. :shake:

Hell, I must be at a -20 or -30 then. :banghead:

|Zach|
03-04-2005, 02:37 PM
be my guest....why do you insist on draggin' the rest of the country with you?


Dragging the rest of the country?? Anyone who has a say in this debate is in because they are on one side. How is a normal heterosexual couple who doesn't really care either way being dragged through anything.

The only way someone would feel dragged through this is if they choose to be.

Again, how are your rights being infringed upon you...you are not forced to do anything...

go bowe
03-04-2005, 02:55 PM
Shit. That explains a lot. :shake:

Hell, I must be at a -20 or -30 then. :banghead:nah, if anything, i think yours has gone up... :thumb:

(after all, you did change your stance on marijuana, didn't you? :p )

Baby Lee
03-04-2005, 03:01 PM
Shit. That explains a lot. :shake:

Hell, I must be at a -20 or -30 then. :banghead:
All I'm gonna say is. . . relative margins.

ROFL

Taco John
03-08-2005, 10:16 PM
Still no answer from Russ on this one...

Tucked tail and kept it tucked...

|Zach|
03-09-2005, 04:42 PM
ZachKC was right on this thread.

SBK
03-09-2005, 05:12 PM
Seems as though I am the one backing up american ideals a lot more than you...

Me: Religious Tolerance...

You: If you dont it go somewhere else...

Actually, if you're backing gay marriage you're not the one backing American ideals.

And saying that Im "if you don't like it go somewhere else" and you're tolerant is laughable. If you were so tolerant you wouldn't be calling me out......

SBK
03-09-2005, 05:16 PM
america is supposed to work that way?

well, you'd be right except for that pesky constitution thing...

No I am right. Except for those pesky liberal judges that think it's their job to write the law. :thumb:

|Zach|
03-09-2005, 05:21 PM
Actually, if you're backing gay marriage you're not the one backing American ideals.

And saying that Im "if you don't like it go somewhere else" and you're tolerant is laughable. If you were so tolerant you wouldn't be calling me out......
I am in no way infringing on the way you live your life if I was forcing you into a homosexual relationship you would have a point....Two people of the same sex who want to get married are not infringing on any of your rights either....

From the time you get up to the time you go to bed two people that love eachother and want to spend the rest of their lives together have no effect on you.

SBK
03-09-2005, 08:37 PM
I am in no way infringing on the way you live your life if I was forcing you into a homosexual relationship you would have a point....Two people of the same sex who want to get married are not infringing on any of your rights either....

From the time you get up to the time you go to bed two people that love eachother and want to spend the rest of their lives together have no effect on you.

:BS:

WoodDraw
03-10-2005, 12:32 AM
:BS:

What a thoughtful response...

|Zach|
03-10-2005, 12:42 AM
:BS:
Weak...explain to me...

From the time you get up to the time you go to bed how do two people that love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together that are of the same sex effect you...and your life...and your ability to raise your children...

I will take a "BS" smilie as your conscession of my point.

SBK
03-10-2005, 08:46 PM
Weak...explain to me...

From the time you get up to the time you go to bed how do two people that love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together that are of the same sex effect you...and your life...and your ability to raise your children...

I will take a "BS" smilie as your conscession of my point.

Are we not are affected by everything around us? If you go out and see a woman breast feeding a child you would say that it wasn't appropriate in public to do something like that. She was just feeding her kid, and not paying any kind of attention to you, but she has had an effect on you. Same deal with gay marriage. You can say that gay marriage won't affect you, and it's only in their house, but in reality it will effect you. It will effect everyone.

|Zach|
03-10-2005, 08:53 PM
Are we not are affected by everything around us? If you go out and see a woman breast feeding a child you would say that it wasn't appropriate in public to do something like that. She was just feeding her kid, and not paying any kind of attention to you, but she has had an effect on you. Same deal with gay marriage. You can say that gay marriage won't affect you, and it's only in their house, but in reality it will effect you. It will effect everyone.
ROFL

I am not sure which one of your posts was a better response this or your "BS" smilie.

This is going to be the fun part...is that lady in breast feeding her child infringing on my rights? Is that gay couple out in public together in infringing on my rights?

The fact that you dont like both of those things isn't a good enough reason.

Taco John
03-10-2005, 10:31 PM
Are we not are affected by everything around us? If you go out and see a woman breast feeding a child you would say that it wasn't appropriate in public to do something like that. She was just feeding her kid, and not paying any kind of attention to you, but she has had an effect on you. Same deal with gay marriage. You can say that gay marriage won't affect you, and it's only in their house, but in reality it will effect you. It will effect everyone.




You live in a fragile, fragile world of your own weakness. A woman breast-feeding her kid in public has absolutely zero efeect on me whatsoever. It's incredible to me that your life is so affected by the choices of other people that have no bearing on you whatsoever. Only a person with a cow's mentality would ask the question "Are we not affected by everything around us?" If the answer to you is yes, you are the ultimate cow. Moo.

CHIEF4EVER
03-11-2005, 05:19 AM
Listen Taco, my take on it is this: My children should not be forced to see the immoral and disgusting behavior exhibited by a minority Sodomite population. I and my wife should be able to walk in public without having to witness this disgusting demonstration of unnatural perversion. If you booty humpers want to play poke the bung and if you and your boyfriend want to suck face....DO IT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Don't expect us to support giving homos the same rights as couples married under civil law and God's law. Remember, like it or not, this is a representative democracy. Majority rules. The majority of us Americans don't want fags marrying each other and claiming the same benefits as normal married people. Nuff said.

Baby Lee
03-11-2005, 06:30 AM
You live in a fragile, fragile world of your own weakness. A woman breast-feeding her kid in public has absolutely zero efeect on me whatsoever.
And Tacqueef jacking off down in front of the Baskin Robbins would have no effect on me either. Doesn't mean it should be legal.

NewChief
03-11-2005, 07:48 AM
Are we not are affected by everything around us? If you go out and see a woman breast feeding a child you would say that it wasn't appropriate in public to do something like that. She was just feeding her kid, and not paying any kind of attention to you, but she has had an effect on you. Same deal with gay marriage. You can say that gay marriage won't affect you, and it's only in their house, but in reality it will effect you. It will effect everyone.

WTF? You have a problem with a woman breast feeding in public? Or is it okay as long as she's doing it under her burka? Or maybe the woman shouldn't be in public in the first place! Everyone knows a woman's place is in the kitchen.

Taco John
03-11-2005, 10:41 AM
And Tacqueef jacking off down in front of the Baskin Robbins would have no effect on me either. Doesn't mean it should be legal.



ROFL

Yeah. That's all this amounts to is people jacking off at the Baskin Robbins. You're such a joke. Why don't you fake some more outrage for us.

Taco John
03-11-2005, 10:45 AM
Listen Taco, my take on it is this: My children should not be forced to see the immoral and disgusting behavior exhibited by a minority Sodomite population. I and my wife should be able to walk in public without having to witness this disgusting demonstration of unnatural perversion. If you booty humpers want to play poke the bung and if you and your boyfriend want to suck face....DO IT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. Don't expect us to support giving homos the same rights as couples married under civil law and God's law. Remember, like it or not, this is a representative democracy. Majority rules. The majority of us Americans don't want fags marrying each other and claiming the same benefits as normal married people. Nuff said.


Here's my take on this: WGAF what your take is on what people decide to do with their own lives?

This isn't about outlawing gay shows of affection. It's about outlawing two people from combining their lives in the eyes of the state. Any two people should have the same rights to do so as any other two people. Hell, I think it's sick too, but it's not my place to tell other people how they should live.

As far as representative democracy, you clearly don't understand dick about it. You apparently think that this country was founded on majority rules. If that were the case, we wouldn't even have a country, as it was a vast minority of people who wanted to overthrow England in favor of Independance.

Mr. Kotter
03-11-2005, 10:52 AM
Sadly, we live in a society that now caters to the whims and desires of vocal minorities.

If one is vocal enough, and whines enough....the majority cowers in the face of political correctness. Fortunately, the majority of us can distinguish between relative merits breast feeding and homosexuality.

CHIEF4EVER
03-11-2005, 10:59 AM
As far as representative democracy, you clearly don't understand dick about it. You apparently think that this country was founded on majority rules.

Really? My bad. I was under the impression that our laws were ratified by a majority vote of those who represent us in both houses of Congress (who coincidentally are elected by a majority vote of people in their home state). I was also under the impression that our president was elected by a majority. I must have missed something....so Kerry actually won because the majority voted for someone else? :hmmm:

If that were the case, we wouldn't even have a country, as it was a vast minority of people who wanted to overthrow England in favor of Independance.

BS......Our Constitution was written WHEN again? IIRC, it was after the war was WON. Whether the rebellion was a minority or a majority of the populace at the time is irrelevant to how our system functions. Face it, the majority rules under our system and those who don't care for that state of affairs (generally any minority with an axe to grind who presume they have the right to dictate to the majority of our citizens how our society is to be shaped whether said majority agrees with it or not) may leave at any time.

SBK
03-11-2005, 12:20 PM
I don't care what any of you pro gay marriage types say. It's wrong, and will never be approved if the people are given a say.

If some wacko judge "finds" some secret text in some old document, it will be "legalized" until either the people vote or the SC strikes that law down. At which time it would be illegal again.

And to everyone knocking my breast feeding analogy.....I used to work at a hardware store when I was in high school. We used to have women sit on the shelves and whip the tit out and feed the kid right there. (no blanket, burka or any other item covering her tit) That's not appropriate, go somewhere a little more private. I don't have a problem with breast feeding, it's much healthier for the child. But I do have a problem with not a least being a little discreet.

|Zach|
03-11-2005, 02:20 PM
The majority of us Americans don't want fags marrying each other and claiming the same benefits as normal married people. Nuff said.
Are you drinking buddies with Fred Phelps or something?

WoodDraw
03-12-2005, 01:06 AM
I guess we should feel sorry for some of the people here that are so insecure in their lives that their sense of moral elitism would be shattered by the actions of two consenting adults.



Are you drinking buddies with Fred Phelps or something?

Haha...

Taco John
03-12-2005, 02:22 AM
Really? My bad. I was under the impression that our laws were ratified by a majority vote of those who represent us in both houses of Congress (who coincidentally are elected by a majority vote of people in their home state). I was also under the impression that our president was elected by a majority. I must have missed something....so Kerry actually won because the majority voted for someone else? :hmmm:


You are an under-educated idiot. Do you have any idea what the phrase "tyranny of the majority" means, or how this country was set up to prevent that? What morons like you don't understand is that you can't run rough shod over a minority when you are infringing their right to life, liberty, and happiness... even when it differs from your idea of such.




BS......Our Constitution was written WHEN again? IIRC, it was after the war was WON. Whether the rebellion was a minority or a majority of the populace at the time is irrelevant to how our system functions. Face it, the majority rules under our system and those who don't care for that state of affairs (generally any minority with an axe to grind who presume they have the right to dictate to the majority of our citizens how our society is to be shaped whether said majority agrees with it or not) may leave at any time.

Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. This country's freedom was won because a minority went against the will of the people to do what was right.

Taco John
03-12-2005, 02:25 AM
I'll ask it again since every one of you macho "fag-haters" are too big of pussies to answer it. It's hilarious watching all the sheep lost in their grazing patters since I knocked the head sheep on his ass with this question, tail tucked and never to be seen in this thread...

It's my contention that Uncle Sam shouldn't be concered with the sex involved with marital (or whatever, civil) unions. He just needs to be concerned about being fair in how they are taxed.

What problem do you have with that?


For Uncle Sam to be concerned about the sex in these unions is to mix church and state.

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 02:40 AM
What morons like you don't understand is that you can't run rough shod over a minority when you are infringing their right to life, liberty, and happiness... even when it differs from your idea of such.

No No, TJ you have it all wrong.

It is their rights who are being trampled on by having to see gay people in public.

Errr ya, thats the ticket.

CHIEF4EVER
03-12-2005, 05:46 AM
You are an under-educated idiot. Do you have any idea what the phrase "tyranny of the majority" means, or how this country was set up to prevent that? What morons like you don't understand is that you can't run rough shod over a minority when you are infringing their right to life, liberty, and happiness... even when it differs from your idea of such.

Translation: "He shot my point to hell with simple logic and made me look foolish in the process so I will attack him personally and hand him some obscure BS to try to salvage my quickly unravelling argument since I can't hold an adult discussion without being offended like a crybaby liberal juvenile".

Again, you have no idea of what you are talking about. This country's freedom was won because a minority went against the will of the people to do what was right.

Translation: "Again he refuted my point so I will try to squiggle out of it and not expose my lack of even the simplest understanding of our history by using the 'broken record' technique which is so effective for us liberals most other times".

TJ, I once respected you but you have shown yourself lately to be a train wreck. I may disagree with your views but when I DO disagree, I will refute them with at least a modicum of tact and respect. You really need to work on your juvenile outbursts when confronted with a differing opinion.

WoodDraw
03-12-2005, 04:20 PM
Where exactly did you refute his view?

penchief
03-12-2005, 07:20 PM
In a non-discriminatory society, how can we say that people have the right to be homosexual and in the same libertarian breath deny them the same rights as those who are heterosexual?

I don't think that the language used to justify denying the existence of those rights is justifiable. What is, is. And what isn't, isn't. How can we pay lip service to something and at the same time deny that it exists?

Bowser
03-12-2005, 07:46 PM
In a non-discriminatory society, how can we say that people have the right to be homosexual and in the same libertarian breath deny them the same rights as those who are heterosexual?

I don't think that the language used to justify denying the existence of those rights is justifiable. What is, is. And what isn't, isn't. How can we pay lip service to something and at the same time deny that it exists?

Because the hard religious right has a whole lot of money, and it's what they want.

penchief
03-12-2005, 07:53 PM
Because the hard religious right has a whole lot of money, and it's what they want.

How is it that the religious right has a stranglehold on true conservative thought? It seems to me that "true" conservatism should preach live and let live. Where are the true conservatives? Why don't they have a say in the republican party? Why don't they tell the religious right to go to hell because America is supposed to represent a non-discriminatory society?

Bowser
03-12-2005, 07:55 PM
How is it that the religious right has a stranglehold on true conservative thought? It seems to me that "true" conservatism should preach live and let live. Where are the true conservatives? Why don't they have a say in the republican party? Why don't they tell the religious right to go to hell because America is supposed to represent a non-discriminatory society?

Money, plain and simple.

penchief
03-12-2005, 08:04 PM
Money, plain and simple.

Sad, but most likely true. Are you suggesting that true conservatism has sold out, too?

Bowser
03-12-2005, 08:08 PM
Sad, but most likely true. Are you suggesting that true conservatism has sold out, too?

I ain't bright enuff to speak to that, but I am of the belief that a Troop Leader would sell out her Girl Scouts for the right price. The world we live in.......

penchief
03-12-2005, 08:10 PM
I ain't bright enuff to speak to that, but I am of the belief that a Troop Leader would sell out her Girl Scouts for the right price. The world we live in.......

That's Bush's World, too.

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 09:01 PM
I like Russ and all he is my bud but it is quite amazing that he has not posted on this thread

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 09:47 PM
I like Russ and all he is my bud but it is quite amazing that he has not posted on this thread

TJ's title tells you why: this is unanswerable in the minds of those who support gay marriage because they don't like the answers they are given. The differing opinions and arguments on this issue are really irreconcilable. It's a simple as that.

Russ is just smarter than those of us who waste our time and breath tellin' you guys WHY we believe what we do--even though it's something you'll apparently never, ever accept.

Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and deviant.

You don't think it's the governments place to characterize it as such. In most Americans minds it is not the governments place to sanction and approve of a lifestyle that a majority of citizens do not want cast as 'normal'--and before you trot out the race and gender comparisons, this is NOT the same in our minds....not even close. No amount of repetition or screaming on your part will convince us otherwise.

You don't like that answer, but it's really that simple.

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 09:57 PM
TJ's title tells you why: this is unanswerable in the minds of those who support gay marriage because they don't like the answers they are given. The differing opinions and arguments on this issue are really irreconcilable. It's a simple as that.

Russ is just smarter than those of us who waste our time and breath tellin' you guys WHY we believe what we do--even though it's something you'll apparently never, ever accept.

Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and deviant.

You don't think it's the governments place to characterize it as such. In most Americans minds it is not the governments place to sanction and approve of a lifestyle that a majority of citizens do not--and before you trot out the race and gender comparisons, this is NOT the same in our minds....not even close. No amount of repetition or screaming on your part will convince us otherwise.

You don't like that answer, but it's really that simple.
Life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hopefully you guys don't chuckle to hard when you say it...

I couldn't imagine being so insecure in my family and my way of life to think that people living a life seperate from mine will have a negative effect on my family and the way I raise my children when I choose to have them.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 10:05 PM
Life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hopefully you guys don't chuckle to hard when you say it...

I couldn't imagine being so insecure in my family and my way of life to think that people living a life seperate from mine will have a negative effect on my family and the way I raise my children when I choose to have them.

Zach, you really should do some reaseach on the Declaration .... Jefferson's language was his own: read Madison's record of the deliberations--I have. Everyone in the room meant government protection of PROPERTY; Jefferson was the poet, so they deferred to his language. He replaced property with happiness for "voice" effect.

The phrase, "pursuit of happiness" was very clearly understood, and meant, at the time to mean PROPERTY--government makin' sure no one took your "stuff." It's only lazy intellectuals, hippies, and opportunist activists who argue otherwise. Honestly, go back a read the primary source materials. They knew what they meant, and the courts have stuck to that meaning pretty well.

Otherwise, imagine all the things that "make people happy" that the mean ole, viscious, bigoted goverment doesn't permit. :)

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 10:06 PM
Zach, you really should do some reaseach on the Declaration .... Jefferson's language was his own: read Madison's record of the deliberations: I have.

The phrase, "pursuit of happiness" was very clearly understood, and meant, at the time to mean PROPERTY--government makin' sure no one took your "stuff." It's only lazy intellectuals, hippies, and opportunist activist who argue otherwise. Honestly, go back a read the primary source materials. They knew what they meant, and the courts have stuck to that meaning pretty well.

Otherwise, imagine all the things that "make people happy" that the mean ole, viscious, bigoted goverment doesn't permit. :)
The supreme court has linked the idea of marriage as part of every citizens pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 10:13 PM
The supreme court has linked the idea of marriage as part of every citizens pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...

One justice's majority opinion in one case does not make "case law." Especially one which he also says in your beloved Lawrence v. Texas: "[this decision does not] involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Those are HIS words, not mine. Read them for yourself.

In other words the narrow 6 member majority says, "don't get your hopes up/don't jump to conclusions" :hmmm:

I agree with Scalia's dissent: I do think it could open a Pandora's box....but it's telling that the majority took pains to make it clear, NOT TO READ anything else into their decision.

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 10:18 PM
One justice's majority opinion in once case does not make "case law." Especially one which he also says in your beloved Lawrence v. Texas: "[this decision does not] involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Tjpse are HIS words, not mine. Read them for yourself.

In other words, "don't get your hopes up/don't jump to conclusions" :hmmm:
Ask me for something and let me provide it and tell me it doesn't matter again. We already played this game once today... ROFL

If you give me your address I will send you some blinders so you and your family don't have to go through the life changing and devestating event of seeing two gay people in public.

At the end of the day there are a group of people who are not getting fair and just treatment in comparison to other people for a reason that the government shouldn't care about.

But, it is heterosexuals who are having things forced on them right? :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 10:22 PM
At the end of the day there are a group of people who are not getting fair and just treatment in comparison to other people for a reason that the government shouldn't care about.

:

Indeed, that is your opinion--nothing less, nothing more. Am I also entitled to one, or not? If I am allowed one, mine is also nothing less or nothing more either.

The only thing that will matter in a democracy (a republica democracy, yes...changes nothing) is: are there more people on your side or mine? :shrug:

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 10:25 PM
Indeed, that is your opinion--nothing less, nothing more. Am I also entitled to one, or not? If I am, mine is also nothing less and nothing more.

The only thing that will matter in a democracy (a republica democracy, yes...changes nothing) is: are there more people on your side or mine? :shrug:
I have never ever said you don't deserve an opinion...why you always bring that up is beyond me...I have never thought you are saying I shouldn't have an opinion even though we are both making points for our side.

You sound like the both the Roy's telling everyone it is only their opinion every 5 posts. YES, WE KNOW IT IS ONLY AN OPINION.

If everything worked as you described above then Fred Phelps wouldn't have the freddom to be able to walk around my campus yelling in my face that "God Hates Fags"

Most people disagree with him no? I guess he should have not been allowed on campus. :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 10:27 PM
....If everything worked as you described above then Fred Phelps wouldn't have the freddom to be able to walk around my campus yelling in my face that "God Hates Fags"

Too bad for you "free speech" is protected by Supreme Court decisions, whereas homosexual marriage is not.

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 10:29 PM
Too bad for you "free speech" is protected by Supreme Court decisions, whereas homosexual marriage is not.
To bad for you that you live in fear of two consenting adults influencing you and your family by being with eachother.

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 10:30 PM
And, yes...thats just my opinion Roy. ROFL ROFL ROFL

I thought I would stop that one before it started.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 10:32 PM
To bad for you that you live in fear of two consenting adults influencing you and your family by being with eachother.

You call it fear; we call it morality, norms, and healthy lifestyle choices.

It's similar to the discrepency between the way you view pedophilia (against it, IIRC), versus those NAMBLA morons.

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 10:33 PM
You call it fear; we call it morality, norms, and healthy lifestyle choices.

It's similar to the discrepency between the way you view pedophilia (against it, IIRC), versus those NAMBLA morons.
Don't fool yourself. Maybe Chiefs Planet hasn't been as good of a psychologist for you as you think...what you shortbuskid, chief4ever, and others have are fear...its pretty obvious/

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 10:36 PM
Don't fool yourself. Maybe Chiefs Planet hasn't been as good of a psychologist for you as you think...what you shortbuskid, chief4ever, and others have are fear...its pretty obvious/

I've seen the literature: "anyone you can't convince, is a bigot or worse. Brand them as 'homophobic' to send a message to others that their intolerance will not be welcomed either.'

You've learned the talking points and propaganda well. Heh. :thumb:

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 10:37 PM
I've seen the literature: "anyone you can't convince, is a bigot or worse. Brand them as 'homophobic' to send a message to others that their intolerance will not be welcomed either.'

You've learned the talking points and propaganda well. Heh. :thumb:
How could you not describe yourself as homophobic after your long long history on this board...

ROFL ROFL

I don't brand everyone on the other side of this issue as me homophobic...but you? There is no doubt.

I am not suprised...you are terrible at owning who you are.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 10:38 PM
Don't fool yourself. Maybe Chiefs Planet hasn't been as good of a psychologist for you as you think...what you shortbuskid, chief4ever, and others have are fear...its pretty obvious/

FTR, CP is my entertainment; I've visited with various folks about this stuff a lot...many of them were loons....it took 3 or 4 years of reading the literature for myself to sort things out.

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 10:39 PM
And with that im off for the night! Out and about have a kid night boys and girls.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 10:40 PM
How could you not describe yourself as homophobic after your long long history on this board...

ROFL ROFL

I don't brand everyone on the other side of this issue as me homophobic...but you? There is no doubt.

I am not suprised...you are terrible at owning who you are.

Look up the word "fear." I don't fear homosexuality.

www.merriamwebster.com
Main Entry: 1fear
Pronunciation: 'fir
transitive senses
1 archaic : FRIGHTEN
2 archaic : to feel fear in (oneself)
3 : to have a reverential awe of <fear God>
4 : to be afraid of : expect with alarm
intransitive senses : to be afraid or apprehensive
- fear·er noun

Frightened? nah. Feel fear? Nope; hardly...heh. Reverential awe? LOL To be afraid of; expect with alarm? Not a chance.

None of those definitions are a synonym for repulsion. Look that one up; it's different from fear.

It's a popularized tool of propaganda by activists that attempts to impugn and malign anyone who'd dare to have an opinion of their own.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 10:41 PM
And with that im off for the night! Out and about have a kid night boys and girls.

Nighty night, Zach. Have a good one.

go bowe
03-12-2005, 11:35 PM
Zach, you really should do some reaseach on the Declaration .... Jefferson's language was his own: read Madison's record of the deliberations--I have. Everyone in the room meant government protection of PROPERTY; Jefferson was the poet, so they deferred to his language. He replaced property with happiness for "voice" effect.

The phrase, "pursuit of happiness" was very clearly understood, and meant, at the time to mean PROPERTY--government makin' sure no one took your "stuff." It's only lazy intellectuals, hippies, and opportunist activists who argue otherwise. Honestly, go back a read the primary source materials. They knew what they meant, and the courts have stuck to that meaning pretty well.

Otherwise, imagine all the things that "make people happy" that the mean ole, viscious, bigoted goverment doesn't permit. :)just when i think you couldn't get any more ridiculous, you come up with shit like this...

have you ever convinced anyone that your takes on the law and the courts are even close to accurate?

but apparently, you've convinced yourself...

are you really so simple minded that you believe that only lazy intellectuals, hippies and opportunist activists disagree with your pontificati0ns? (eh, how do you like being insulted because you disagree with someone?)

(btw, if you are that simple minded, let me say that i am proud to be a lazy intellectual hippie oportunist activist... very proud to wear that label, yessiree!!)

and your notions of what the courts have "stuck to" are absolutely hilarious...

i probably should give up trying to correct your mischaracterizations of the law and the courts...

but i just can't help myself... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

DenverChief
03-12-2005, 11:35 PM
reading the literature for myself


Of whom? an unbiased source such as a hospital or govermental agency or a biased source such as a church group or maybe Focus on the Family literature? :hmmm: I wonder whos information is more accurate ?

DenverChief
03-12-2005, 11:36 PM
just when i think you couldn't get any more ridiculous, you come up with shit like this...

have you ever convinced anyone that your takes on the law and the courts are even close to accurate?

but apparently, you've convinced yourself...

are you really so simple minded that you believe that only lazy intellectuals, hippies and opportunist activists disagree with your pontificati0ns? (eh, how do you like being insulted because you disagree with someone?)

(btw, if you are that simple minded, let me say that i am proud to be a lazy intellectual hippie oportunist activist... very proud to wear that label, yessiree!!)

and your notions of what the courts have "stuck to" are absolutely hilarious...

i probably should give up trying to correct your mischaracterizations of the law and the courts...

but i just can't help myself... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:


Shhh let the village fool speak, it only weakens his arguments ;)

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 11:41 PM
* crickets *

One justice's majority opinion in one case does not make "case law." Especially one which he also says in your beloved Lawrence v. Texas: "[this decision does not] involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Those are HIS words, not mine. Read them for yourself.

In other words the narrow 6 member majority says, "don't get your hopes up/don't jump to conclusions." I agree with Scalia's dissent: I do think it could open a Pandora's box....but it's telling that the majority took pains to make it clear, NOT TO READ anything else into their decision.

:hmmm: :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 11:44 PM
just when i think you couldn't get any more ridiculous, you come up with shit like this...

have you ever convinced anyone that your takes on the law and the courts are even close to accurate?

but apparently, you've convinced yourself...

are you really so simple minded that you believe that only lazy intellectuals, hippies and opportunist activists disagree with your pontificati0ns? (eh, how do you like being insulted because you disagree with someone?)

(btw, if you are that simple minded, let me say that i am proud to be a lazy intellectual hippie oportunist activist... very proud to wear that label, yessiree!!)

and your notions of what the courts have "stuck to" are absolutely hilarious...

i probably should give up trying to correct your mischaracterizations of the law and the courts...

but i just can't help myself... :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Well, it's rants like this, that make me proud to be a strict constructionist, rather than a loose constructionist....hope it was the gin talkin', John. Otherwise you really need to go back to original intent of the founders, and refute in a subtantive way....what I've put forward, rather than the emotional appeal of embracing the activist "justice" of the courts over the past 60 or so years. :shake:

I'll ask you the same question I asked Zach: if "pursuit of happiness" is a prevailing doctrine of the SC, why are there so many laws and so much legislation that LIMIT people's 'pursuit of happiness?' And, when you realize that is so, if we can justify THOSE limits placed by the government, how can one make a compelling case that THIS issue is not also one?

go bowe
03-12-2005, 11:48 PM
One justice's majority opinion in one case does not make "case law." Especially one which he also says in your beloved Lawrence v. Texas: "[this decision does not] involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Those are HIS words, not mine. Read them for yourself.

In other words the narrow 6 member majority says, "don't get your hopes up/don't jump to conclusions" :hmmm:

I agree with Scalia's dissent: I do think it could open a Pandora's box....but it's telling that the majority took pains to make it clear, NOT TO READ anything else into their decision.ok, you've just got to stop with these fanciful distortions of the law and in this case, what iscase law is and what is not...

the majority opinion in one case IS case law...

and you're as free as anyone else is to read into the dicta of lawrence whatever you want, but you draw inferences that don't exist...

of course the decision in lawrence does not involve the issue of gay marriage and the court's noting that fact doesn't somehow mean that the court will not rule on that case when it does come before it, as it certainly will...

you can characterize the words in the opinion any way you like, but the fact is that those statements do not mean what you are trying to infer...

you can read whatever meaning into those words that you like, but your statements about what the court meant "in other words", are no more than ill-informed prattle...

prattle, i tells ya!!

and, fwiw, a six justice majority of the court is hardly "narrow"...

i swear, you amaze me, even after all the horseshit i've seen you sling, you still amaze me...

i think i'll go finish me gin and squirt and go to bed before i bust a gut laughing at your nonsense...

g'night, rob... :toast:

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 11:51 PM
...

of course the decision in lawrence does not involve the issue of gay marriage

:toast:

And we BOTH know that is all that really matters, THUS far...don't we? :)

DenverChief
03-12-2005, 11:54 PM
* crickets *



:hmmm: :shrug:


this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

the Nation’s laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis

confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education–and Romer v. Evans

There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 11:56 PM
this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

the Nation’s laws and traditions in the past half century are most relevant here. They show an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis

confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education–and Romer v. Evans

There has been no showing that in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Payne v. Tennessee

Jason, you can cut-and-paste with the best of 'em, man. :thumb:

Is that your own, or activist talking points/propaganda? :hmmm:

|Zach|
03-12-2005, 11:57 PM
I'll ask you the same question I asked Zach: if "pursuit of happiness" is a prevailing doctrine of the SC, why are there so many laws and so much legislation that LIMIT people's 'pursuit of happiness?' And, when you realize that is so, if we can justify THOSE limits placed by the government, how can one make a compelling case that THIS issue is not also one?
When limits are set force for one reason or another they limit all citizens not "some of them" in this case a group of people can do something others can not.

Mr. Kotter
03-12-2005, 11:59 PM
When limits are set force for one reason or another they limit all citizens not "some of them" in this case a group of people can do something others can not.

That is simply not true; the government makes distinctions between various groups of people based on behavior....ALL the time.

Surely you know that.

|Zach|
03-13-2005, 12:00 AM
That is simply not true; the government makes distinctions between various groups of people based on behavior....ALL the time.

Surely you know that.
Not something so basic as to be able to be assoicated with the pursuit of happiness...

|Zach|
03-13-2005, 12:01 AM
Jason, you can cut-and-paste with the best of 'em, man. :thumb:

Is that your own, or activist talking points/propaganda? :hmmm:
Translation: My box of bullshit is empty...excuse me while I stall to refill it.

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:02 AM
Jason, you can cut-and-paste with the best of 'em, man. :thumb:

Is that your own, or activist talking points/propaganda? :hmmm:


That is what the court said in those cases hence the name of the case at the end of the statement :doh!:

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2005, 12:03 AM
Not something so basic as to be able to be assoicated with the pursuit of happiness...

You really need to read more, if you truly believe that.... :shake:

You may believe that's the way it SHOULD be; but the courts have NOT, thus far, agreed with you. It allows distinctions between groups of people in such matters ALL the time....

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:03 AM
That is simply not true; the government makes distinctions between various groups of people based on behavior....ALL the time.

Surely you know that.


Uh criminals and non-criminals

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2005, 12:04 AM
That is what the court said in those cases hence the name of the case at the end of the statement :doh!:

I don't dispute that; only your citation of them at the drop of a hat.... :shrug:

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:05 AM
Translation: My box of bullshit is empty...excuse me while I stall to refill it.
ROFL

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:05 AM
I don't dispute that; only your citation of them at the drop of a hat.... :shrug:


all were in lawrence....if you read it you would know that :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2005, 12:05 AM
Uh criminals and non-criminals

Many, many others as well.

Rational Basis Test, Strict Scrutiny Test.....heh. (Damn, sorry I know about those...heh.)

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:06 AM
It allows distinctions between groups of people in such matters ALL the time....

Between Criminals and Non-Criminals...what other groups are there?

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2005, 12:06 AM
all were in lawrence....if you read it you would know that :thumb:

Lawrence attempts to weave a web; but it's a tangled web indeed.

Of course, the amendment is the fall-back position to judicial fiat. Heh. :thumb:

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:07 AM
Many, many others as well.

Rational Basis Test, Strict Scrutiny Test.....heh. (Damn, sorry I know about those...heh.)


those are not groups of people...what are we talking about standards of testing law or groups of people?

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:08 AM
Lawrence attempts to weave a web; but it's a tangled web indeed.

Of course, the amendment is the fall-back position to judicial fiat. Heh. :thumb:


those quotes I provided were in 5 other cases decided by the court...hardly a one case/justice standard you claim
One justice's majority opinion in one case does not make "case law."

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:11 AM
That is simply not true; the government makes distinctions between various groups of people based on behavior....ALL the time.

Surely you know that.


agian what groups of people besides criminals and NON-criminals?

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2005, 12:22 AM
agian what groups of people besides criminals and NON-criminals?

The rational basis and strict scrutiny tests are, as I would hope you know, designed to determine whether or not government classification of "groups of people" are permissable under particular circumstances.

This is HOW the courts determine whether or not a distinction between groups of people can be made: between men and women, whites and non-whites, and other "suspect classifications." They must survive "strict scrutiny," but distinctions (even on THOSE basis) are allowed in certain circumstances.

The "rational basis test" is less rigorous, requiring only a reasonable attempt to achieve some legitimate government purpose--even if some minorities may not view that purpose as legitimate, the courts may: smoking and non-smoking (for insurance purposes), young and old in particular circumstances, pre-adult females from adult females (statutory rape laws), and many others.

I'd love to continue this....but, I do have to go to bed.

Thanks for the cognitive disonance. :)

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:31 AM
The rational basis and strict scrutiny tests are, as I would hope you know, designed to determine whether or not government classification of "groups of people" are permissable under particular circumstances.

This is HOW the courts determine whether or not a distinction between groups of people can be made: between men and women, whites and non-whites, and other "suspect classifications." They must survive "strict scrutiny," but distinctions (even on THOSE basis) are allowed in certain circumstances.

The "rational basis test" is less rigorous, requiring only a reasonable attempt to achieve some legitimate government purpose--even if some minorities may not view that purpose as legitimate, the courts may: smoking and non-smoking (for insurance purposes), young and old in particular circumstances, pre-adult females from adult females (statutory rape laws), and many others.

I'd love to continue this....but, I do have to go to bed.

Thanks for the cognitive disonance. :)


the government makes no distinction between smokers and non-smokers ...nor does it in race matters ...affirmative action being the lone exception and another topic alltogether....so you have a second group of people I will give you adults and juveniles....what other groups are treated differently based upon thier behavior?

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2005, 12:39 AM
the government makes no distinction between smokers and non-smokers ...nor does it in race matters ...affirmative action being the lone exception and another topic alltogether....so you have a second group of people I will give you adults and juveniles....what other groups are treated differently based upon thier behavior?

Really? Is that so?

Smokers will be happy to hear this; their life insurance premiums can no longer be higher.....affirmative action doesn't count, eh? How convenient. Adults and juveniles, you concede.

What about high-risk drivers? People who are charged more for insurance, because of health or hobbies? Rock climbers, skydivers, and hang gliders are charged more for health insurance? Why? Because of a riskier lifestyle choice.... :hmmm:

Non-citizens and Citizens, women and men (for purposes of association--women are permitted to exclude men, not vice-versa), men and women (for alimony and child custody). mentally challlenged from non-mentally challenged.

Alcoholics from non-alcoholics; drug users from non-drug useers....

I really DO have to go to bed.....heh. :banghead:

Taco John
03-13-2005, 12:52 AM
I've seen the literature: "anyone you can't convince, is a bigot or worse. Brand them as 'homophobic' to send a message to others that their intolerance will not be welcomed either.'

You've learned the talking points and propaganda well. Heh. :thumb:



You're so pathetic.

Taco John
03-13-2005, 12:54 AM
TJ's title tells you why: this is unanswerable in the minds of those who support gay marriage because they don't like the answers they are given. The differing opinions and arguments on this issue are really irreconcilable. It's a simple as that.

Russ is just smarter than those of us who waste our time and breath tellin' you guys WHY we believe what we do--even though it's something you'll apparently never, ever accept.

Homosexuality is immoral, unnatural, and deviant.

You don't think it's the governments place to characterize it as such. In most Americans minds it is not the governments place to sanction and approve of a lifestyle that a majority of citizens do not want cast as 'normal'--and before you trot out the race and gender comparisons, this is NOT the same in our minds....not even close. No amount of repetition or screaming on your part will convince us otherwise.

You don't like that answer, but it's really that simple.



You are ******* teaching kids!?

HOLY SHIT!

Public schooling sucks.

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:54 AM
Really? Is that so?

Smokers will be happy to hear this; their life insurance premiums can no longer be higher.....affirmative action doesn't count, eh? How convenient. Adults and juveniles, you concede.

What about high-risk drivers? People who are charged more for insurance, because of health or hobbies? Rock climbers, skydivers, and hang gliders are charged more for health insurance? Why? Because of a riskier lifestyle choice.... :hmmm:

Non-citizens and Citizens, women and men (for purposes of association--women are permitted to exclude men, not vice-versa), men and women (for alimony and child custody). mentally challlenged from non-mentally challenged.

Alcoholics from non-alcoholics; drug users from non-drug useers....

I really DO have to go to bed.....heh. :banghead:


Once again Insurance companies are not the government.....non-citizens and citizens is very interesting as far as the law goes there is only one distinction and that is deportation otherwise non-citizens are treated the same as citizens.....so Augusta golf club was forced to include men? The government doesn't make a distinction between alcoholics and non-alcoholics but it does make a distinction between someone who was drunk and committed a crime and someone who wasn't but again we are back to the basic criminal vs non-criminal label ( Drug user = Criminal, non-drug user = non-criminal)

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 12:56 AM
You are ******* teaching kids!?

HOLY SHIT!

Public schooling sucks.


Thats why I approve vouchers I don't want my kids learning from someone who got their teaching cert from a cracker jack box ...no offense Rob

Taco John
03-13-2005, 12:58 AM
I love these jackasses who are so quick to piss all over the Constitution while singing about their superior morality.

And Russ is a pussy for not having the backbone to at least conceed the point.

Taco John
03-13-2005, 01:11 AM
The only rational these idiots can come up with for denying homosexuals the same rights as a heterosexual couple is "for the Bible tells me so." The reason Russ is a pussy is that he won't come out and say it. He doesn't even have the strength of his own convictions to come in here and stand up for what he believes in.

I busted him. I found the common ground we share. We both agree that "Civil Unions" are a fair solution, as apposed to "Gay Marraige" (as if there's a difference, but it's that kind of political correctness I need to tip toe around in this discussion, so I'll yeild to them their PC phrasiology).

But when cornered on the issue of the government's justification for discriminating between these unions, the guy flat out disappears off the face of the conversation. He can't even stand up for his religious bent. Of course, he knows that's where his side of the argument is a loser. But I could at least respect a loser who stands up for what he believes in.

What a puss.

Taco John
03-13-2005, 01:31 AM
The other thing that I'll note is that none of the high ranking "moderate" leuitenants are speaking up on this one. It's like they abandoned the discussion to the moonbat dipsh*ts who don't really grasp the concept of what it means to have a representative republic, and who really aren't very good at this whole following a thought all the way through to its conclusion thing...

Color Red
03-13-2005, 01:46 AM
So this is an old discussion. Well, let me weigh in briefly with a couple of points. Obviously many or most of these issues have some cross over of relevance and consideration.

Government has an interest in some oversight and regulation if you will of these relations of marriage and civil union because of their interest in offspring--or children (by adoption). The issue is muddied because the government and governments allow homosexual couples to adopt.

Historically, marriage has been strongly, if not most strongly rooted in a religious context or frame of mind (I'm not an expert on this. This point may be stronger or weaker than I've suggested. But practically, this is largely so.). For us in America this has traditionally, most strongly been of a Judea-Christian frame of mind. So when persons or people want to take hold of an institution like marriage, they are going to butt heads with a people with an adverse mind set to homosexuality (Nothing to argue here. Homosexuality is forbidden by original and ancient Judeo-Christian authority. Only Judeo-Christian movements that have okayed homosexuality are those that have abandoned or disregarded this authority.). Homosexual interest for marriage is a threat to a sacred, ancient Judeo-Christian institution. This is not a problem for government, but for religious people. But this religious people expects government to be responsible to maintain social equilibrium and order.

Not just anyone can get married, can they? Consenting adults? So then what's wrong with polygamy? Or any arrangement of any number of men and/or women? So again, when and why should government get involved? Equilibrium and order, and consideration of children.

I would expect that government would allow homosexuals a civil union--an arrangement that accomodates sustaining personal relationships of people. I suspect that a religious populace with great regret would accept that. But I think many homosexuals want marriage and not just civil unions. Partly because they want a social legitimacy that marriage brings.

It's exciting, isn't it?

Michael Michigan
03-13-2005, 01:50 AM
I love these jackasses...

And Russ is a pussy...

...these idiots

...Russ is a pussy

...But I could at least respect a loser

...moonbat dipsh*ts

Quite an argument.

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 01:50 AM
Partly because they want a social legitimacy that marriage brings.

It's exciting, isn't it?


I just want to file a joint federal tax return :harumph:

Michael Michigan
03-13-2005, 01:52 AM
I just want to file a joint federal tax return :harumph:

Marry a chick.

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 01:52 AM
Marry a chick.
why? so I gotta smell her pussy farts all day....no thanks

Michael Michigan
03-13-2005, 01:55 AM
why? so I gotta smell her pussy farts all day....no thanks

Keep filing single.

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 01:58 AM
Keep filing single.
why are you so dead set against it? Think about the economic boom....$800,000 in about 3 weeks for San Franciso businesses who catered to same sex weddings....another 300K for the City alone ($80 a pop for a license times about 3000 licenses) talk about untapped tax revenue...but you would rather not get money that way....

Michael Michigan
03-13-2005, 02:01 AM
why are you so dead set against it? Think about the economic boom....$800,000 in about 3 weeks for San Franciso businesses who catered to same sex weddings....another 300K for the City alone ($80 a pop for a license times about 3000 licenses) talk about untapped tax revenue...but you would rather not get money that way....

Weren't those illegal?

Taco John
03-13-2005, 02:04 AM
Quite an argument.



Those aren't arguments. Those are taunts you jackoff...


Nice diversion anyway.

Michael Michigan
03-13-2005, 02:05 AM
Those aren't arguments. Those are taunts you jackoff...


Clever.

I see why you are in PR.

Taco John
03-13-2005, 02:16 AM
Government has an interest in some oversight and regulation if you will of these relations of marriage and civil union because of their interest in offspring--or children (by adoption). The issue is muddied because the government and governments allow homosexual couples to adopt.

Actually, the issue ISN'T muddied, BECAUSE the government allows homosexual couples to adopt. If the government DIDN'T allow that to take place, THEN you could say that the issue is muddied.

It's only a matter of time before Gay Marraige or Civil Unions, (whatever you want to call them, it's the same thing), happen. The justification against them doesn't hold up constitutionally.

You won't catch me at a gay marraige. My religious beliefs prohibit me from participating in something like that. But you also won't catch me beating gays over the head with my religious beliefs. I figure I've got enough of my own sins to worry about without running around legislating against other people's sin that has nothing to do with me.

If gay couples can adopt, then what's the point of keeping them from legally committing themselves to eachother and gaining the same rights and protections as a married couple that a straight couple benefit from?

Taco John
03-13-2005, 02:18 AM
Clever.

I see why you are in PR.



I can see why you are in writing... As a writer, you don't have to do shit but talk about what other people are accomplishing. It must be nice to ride through life on other people's coattails...

Taco John
03-13-2005, 02:22 AM
Just out of curiosity, what is your fascination with my job anyway? You must be used to PR people kissing your ass or something and are baffled that I'm not puckering up and begging you to deliver my message in your column.

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 03:04 AM
Weren't those illegal?


Still being debated in the California court system...the constitutionality thereof anyway....what does that have to do with the untapped tax revenue anyway?

Taco John
03-13-2005, 03:08 AM
Still being debated in the California court system...the constitutionality thereof anyway....what does that have to do with the untapped tax revenue anyway?



Nothing. He was just letting you know that as a straight male, he is your moral superior, and that you live a deviant lifestyle. Praise be to God.

|Zach|
03-13-2005, 03:18 AM
Nothing. He was just letting you know that as a straight male, he is your moral superior, and that you live a deviant lifestyle. Praise be to God.
Go easy on these guys they are having a way of life FORCED UPON THEM!

ROFL

Baby Lee
03-13-2005, 07:21 AM
The other thing that I'll note is that none of the high ranking "moderate" leuitenants are speaking up on this one. It's like they abandoned the discussion to the moonbat dipsh*ts who don't really grasp the concept of what it means to have a representative republic, and who really aren't very good at this whole following a thought all the way through to its conclusion thing...
Maybe, just maybe, it's in your approach.
YOu've taken a common sense position that most reasonable people have been circling around for quite some time now, formed it into a phrase and immediately started with the.

Ahmm the WINNAR!!!
You're the Suxxors!!!
Suck my cock, as you cannot penetrate my glorious and immutable logic!!!!

I haven't weighed in on this, as it looks a lot like you've spent weeks poring over the equation 2+2=

And triumphantly announced.

FOUR!!! Bitches!!!!!!
I am the Math GOD!!!!!!

Michael Michigan
03-13-2005, 09:31 AM
I can see why you are in writing... As a writer, you don't have to do shit but talk about what other people are accomplishing. It must be nice to ride through life on other people's coattails...

Perhaps if you ever accomplish anything, I can ride yours.

Michael Michigan
03-13-2005, 09:34 AM
Just out of curiosity, what is your fascination with my job anyway? You must be used to PR people kissing your ass or something and are baffled that I'm not puckering up and begging you to deliver my message in your column.

I don't know what your "job" is.

I've seen you drop this generic "I'm in PR" line several times in an attempt to gain cred.

But you are so awful at communication, I almost find it hard to believe.

Michael Michigan
03-13-2005, 09:41 AM
Still being debated in the California court system...the constitutionality thereof anyway....what does that have to do with the untapped tax revenue anyway?

Nothing. I just wondered if it had been settled.

I'm not clear on the "untapped tax revenue" angle. I'd guess that money would be spent anyway and find its way into the tax base.

As far as the $80 for a license for any municipality, I'd just as soon see those dollars stay in the private sector.

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2005, 11:05 AM
"Give 'em an inch, they'll demand a mile...."

Many of "us" that TJ is attempting to pigeonhole and provoke have conceded the civil union question--just don't call it marriage, and we are on your side. I've been on record since the beginning of this whole debate, with that postion.

BL is right; it's condescending, grandstanding and elitist "demands" for equality in a matter there is simply significant disagreement on....that causes some of us to say: "Fugg it; if they are unwilling to compromise. Why should we? Screw 'em."

WoodDraw
03-13-2005, 11:34 AM
So why do heterosexuals get the term "marriage"? Give everyone "civil unions" and leave marriage for the churches and I'll be fine with that. You can't seperate two classes of people into superior and inferior classes based on the opinions of a group of people.

go bowe
03-13-2005, 11:47 AM
Go easy on these guys they are having a way of life FORCED UPON THEM!

ROFLROFL ROFL ROFL

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 11:50 AM
"Give 'em an inch, they'll demand a mile...."



yeah cause those blacks are demanding they be allowed to marry fish now...:spock:

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2005, 12:13 PM
yeah cause those blacks are demanding they be allowed to marry fish now...:spock:

No, like gays insisting the analogy between a genetic condition is the equivalent of behavior and a lifestyle choice. :)

WilliamTheIrish
03-13-2005, 12:26 PM
Originally Posted by Taco John
The other thing that I'll note is that none of the high ranking "moderate" leuitenants are speaking up on this one. It's like they abandoned the discussion to the moonbat dipsh*ts who don't really grasp the concept of what it means to have a representative republic, and who really aren't very good at this whole following a thought all the way through to its conclusion thing...

Moderate leuitenants?

I think you need to take into account that we've gone over this argument time and time again.

My position has changed on this subject. At first I was against it. But as time went along I kept asking myself: "Why?" After some introspection, I could really think of no reason. I'm not a religious guy. I believe there is a God, but commit to no particular religion.

What really changed my mind was seeing people, normal, working, feeling individual, express genuine happiness over a ceremony I take for granted.

It opened my eyes. Most of my stereotypes were shot to hell. Instead of seeing flaming, pixie dust spreading, flitting about like a moth around a lamp,queens or Dykes On Bikes San Franciscans, I saw what I really should have been seeing all along.*

*and if it keeps Rosie O'Donnell's ugly mug off the nightly news it can't be all bad. Right?

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 01:04 PM
Moderate leuitenants?

I think you need to take into account that we've gone over this argument time and time again.

My position has changed on this subject. At first I was against it. But as time went along I kept asking myself: "Why?" After some introspection, I could really think of no reason. I'm not a religious guy. I believe there is a God, but commit to no particular religion.

What really changed my mind was seeing people, normal, working, feeling individual, express genuine happiness over a ceremony I take for granted.

It opened my eyes. Most of my stereotypes were shot to hell. Instead of seeing flaming, pixie dust spreading, flitting about like a moth around a lamp,queens or Dykes On Bikes San Franciscans, I saw what I really should have been seeing all along.*

*and if it keeps Rosie O'Donnell's ugly mug off the nightly news it can't be all bad. Right?

:thumb:

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 01:07 PM
No, like gays insisting the analogy between a genetic condition is the equivalent of behavior and a lifestyle choice. :)


oh you mean like religious folk insisting there is not? without any proof? I think both sides lose that argument until science says otherwise...but I'm sure you will call any scientist that finds a gay gene just a crackpot anyway because well he doesn't agree with you

Taco John
03-13-2005, 01:30 PM
Moderate leuitenants?




I wasn't referring to genuine moderates.

Taco John
03-13-2005, 01:33 PM
"Give 'em an inch, they'll demand a mile...."

Many of "us" that TJ is attempting to pigeonhole and provoke have conceded the civil union question--just don't call it marriage, and we are on your side. I've been on record since the beginning of this whole debate, with that postion.

BL is right; it's condescending, grandstanding and elitist "demands" for equality in a matter there is simply significant disagreement on....that causes some of us to say: "Fugg it; if they are unwilling to compromise. Why should we? Screw 'em."



So to you, it's just about protecting your polically correct sensibilities? You're all for giving them the same tax and property benefits of any other married couple, so long as the official term is "Civil Union?"

Something tells me you're lying.

Taco John
03-13-2005, 01:45 PM
Maybe, just maybe, it's in your approach.
YOu've taken a common sense position that most reasonable people have been circling around for quite some time now, formed it into a phrase and immediately started with the.

Ahmm the WINNAR!!!
You're the Suxxors!!!
Suck my cock, as you cannot penetrate my glorious and immutable logic!!!!

I haven't weighed in on this, as it looks a lot like you've spent weeks poring over the equation 2+2=

And triumphantly announced.

FOUR!!! Bitches!!!!!
I am the Math GOD!!!!!!



Ha! This is great because it villainizes me, while letting the idiots who didn't come up with 4 from 2 + 2 off the hook. I have no problem with being condescending to condescending hypocrites who use their religion as a justification for persecution.

I'm fully aware that I have the common sense position. I've had it all along. There is no constitutional justification for the Government to discriminate against homosexual or heterosexual marraiges and treat them differently.

I also find it funny that you use your "moderate" stance to come out against me, instead of the "unreasonable people" who *aren't* circling around the "common sense" position. But then, I'm sure the minute that a liberal mis-steps and says something untoward about the gay community, you conjure up some outrage to put that liberal in their place, er, I mean gloriously defend the plight of homosexuals.

Baby Lee
03-13-2005, 02:00 PM
Ha! This is great because it villainizes me, while letting the idiots who didn't come up with 4 from 2 + 2 off the hook. I have no problem with being condescending to condescending hypocrites who use their religion as a justification for persecution.

I'm fully aware that I have the common sense position. I've had it all along. There is no constitutional justification for the Government to discriminate against homosexual or heterosexual marraiges and treat them differently.

I also find it funny that you use your "moderate" stance to come out against me, instead of the unreasonable people who *aren't* circling around the "common sense" position. But then, I'm sure the minute that a liberal mis-steps and says something untoward about the gay community, you conjure up some outrage to put that liberal in their place, er, I mean in glorious defense of homosexuals.
People aren't opposing you. They are ignoring you. What have you asked, 18 bajillion times, for Wolfman to come over here and suck your cock . . . because what? You managed to make a poopie?

Taco John
03-13-2005, 02:01 PM
People aren't opposing you. They are ignoring you. What have you asked, 18 bajillion times, for Wolfman to come over here and suck your cock . . . because what? You managed to make a poopie?

ROFL

Yep. Right on his plate.

Taco John
03-13-2005, 02:03 PM
As though I'm doing anything Russ doesn't do himself... You're such an awesome "moderate" luitenant. I wish I had one of you in my back pocket.

Baby Lee
03-13-2005, 02:04 PM
As though I'm doing anything Russ doesn't do himself... You're such an awesome "moderate" luitenant.
Oh, that reminds me of the other reason I hadn't jumped to congratulate you on your Super Amazing Intellectual Checkmate. You're a f*cking asshole.

Taco John
03-13-2005, 02:06 PM
You say that like that isn't a celebrated thing to be around this place...

Baby Lee
03-13-2005, 02:19 PM
I also find it funny that you use your "moderate" stance to come out against me, instead of the "unreasonable people" who *aren't* circling around the "common sense" position. But then, I'm sure the minute that a liberal mis-steps and says something untoward about the gay community, you conjure up some outrage to put that liberal in their place, er, I mean gloriously defend the plight of homosexuals.
Again, unable to argue my positions, you insist that I don't actually hold them.
Sounds to me like residual guilt over 'feigning' outrage over being called a beaner, vowing never to post here again, and being shown for the backtracking b!tch you are.
That, or you know I don't like you, and you know you don't like me, and feel compelled to battle me at every turn, yet find difficulty in engaging me in debate because I make so much d@mn sense.
YET! Every time you think you make a reasonable point, you ask where I am to validate it. :hmmm:
Don't throw your own baggage over on me Mr. Pathetisad. If I post something that isn't my heartfelt position, I'll make it clear that I'm playing devils advocate.
'til then, a hearty 'f*ck your mother' to insinuations to the contrary.

Mr. Kotter
03-13-2005, 03:39 PM
....Something tells me you're lying.

That you cannot accept or understand my position, means I'm lying. Come on man, you aren't like that....are you?

Tax and property benefits, I'd be okay with. Other "benefits" should be determined by state and local governments as they see fit....no one size fits all approach should be applied by the feds, because as I have said....gays do not qualitfy as a suspect group, as do blacks and women, IMHO.

DenverChief
03-13-2005, 03:42 PM
That you cannot accept or understand my position, means I'm lying. Come on man, you aren't like that....are you?

Tax and property benefits, I'd be okay with. Other "benefits" should be determined by state and local governments as they see fit....no one size fits all approach should be applied by the feds, because as I have said....gays do not qualitfy as a suspect group, as do blacks and women, IMHO.


nobody says they have to be a suspect group...just citizens that should be able to enjoy the rights others take for granted :thumb:

Taco John
03-13-2005, 11:58 PM
Again, unable to argue my positions, you insist that I don't actually hold them.
Sounds to me like residual guilt over 'feigning' outrage over being called a beaner, vowing never to post here again, and being shown for the backtracking b!tch you are.
That, or you know I don't like you, and you know you don't like me, and feel compelled to battle me at every turn, yet find difficulty in engaging me in debate because I make so much d@mn sense.
YET! Every time you think you make a reasonable point, you ask where I am to validate it. :hmmm:
Don't throw your own baggage over on me Mr. Pathetisad. If I post something that isn't my heartfelt position, I'll make it clear that I'm playing devils advocate.
'til then, a hearty 'f*ck your mother' to insinuations to the contrary.



I don't even know how to respond to this much disillusionment...

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 09:49 AM
nobody says they have to be a suspect group...just citizens that should be able to enjoy the rights others take for granted :thumb:

Without the "suspect classification," judge's individual discretion becomes paramount....and would lead to a patchwork of contradictory decisions. From your perspective, you should WANT the courts to use the strict scrutiny test, rather than the rational basis test.

I'm convinced that if the issue is decided on the rational basis test, that the SC will find it very difficult to strike down state laws forbidding gay marriage. go bo and others disagree. It will be interesting... :hmmm:

Baby Lee
03-14-2005, 10:05 AM
I don't even know how to respond to this much disillusionment...
Disillusionment: n : freeing from false belief or illusions.

Thanks for recognizing the clarity and truth of my post.
ROFL - you are a first class 'tard.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 10:10 AM
Disillusionment: n : freeing from false belief or illusions.

Thanks for recognizing the clarity and truth of my post.
ROFL - you are a first class 'tard.

Your criticism is not irrelevant to your point. ;)

Probably just a typo; it WAS late...

Taco John
03-14-2005, 12:39 PM
Eh. Overthought "delusion."

No biggie. Russ still doesn't have any balls.

recycle
03-14-2005, 01:50 PM
I have no problem with a civil unions as long as they carry equal weight with a marriage. Without that, its useless. I don't want it called a marriage because to me that is a religious ceremony.
So marriage is a religious ceremony. And "marriage" is an official union recognized by and permitted by the state government. So you're saying the government should be involved in religious ceremonies.
Most religions do not support homosexuality and if they are forced to marry homosexuals that would be against the constitution's freedom of religion.
perhaps there should be a separation between church and state. Yes, I'm quite sure I read that somewhere before.

I'm joking of course because I'm illustrating to you the problem with believing that a religious ceremony, marriage, be controlled by the govt.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 02:15 PM
... Russ still doesn't have any balls.

Not true; he brought a baseball & glove, AND a football to the 37Forever festivities last fall. :)

picasso
03-14-2005, 03:17 PM
As far as Donger's question goes, I think the simple answer is no. I think the US Government should protect the rights of society to grow and change without forcing ANY SINGLE "tradition" upon all.

In other words "Freedom", correct? A freedom of action which is a birth right of this country.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Makes since doesn't it?

picasso
03-14-2005, 03:32 PM
[QUOTE=with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.[/QUOTE]

In other words the Bush Administration is preaching its own divine providence that homomsexuality is wrong, thus they shouldn't have union. Not from christian beliefs but from Catholicism. That is the only place you will find reference to divine providence. We are pledging to each other, our fortunes, our lives and our sacred honor that we all believe in divine providence. This is the only part of the declaration of independence that contradicts itself from its previous declarations. We are only equal if we believe in God and rely on it's protection.
In God we trust.

I'd say it's time for an updated version.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 04:29 PM
In other words "Freedom", correct? A freedom of action which is a birth right of this country.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Makes since doesn't it?

Your realize this is from the Declaration, NOT the Constitution....and that "happiness" in Jefferson's vernacular actually referred to ownership of property?