 | | 
11-04-09, 03:14 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: March 2004 Location: Summerville,SC missing South Fl. weather :(
Posts: 5,050
| | Quote: |
If the majority of Americans wanted to bring back slavery would you be ok with that? If the majority of Americans wanted to make stoning gays legal?
| Yeah thats the same. |
11-04-09, 03:14 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: tucson,az/luray,va
Posts: 3,438
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimann  So you think it is ok for a group to be oppressed as long as the majority is ok with it?  If the majority of Americans wanted to bring back slavery would you be ok with that? If the majority of Americans wanted to make stoning gays legal? "What's right isn't always popular. What's popular isn't always right." | first any law reinstituting slavery would be immediately struck down as unconstitutional since there is a constitutional amendment against the practice.
as for the marriage deal, lets say that the gay lobby succeeds in getting the majority to pass a law allowing gay marriage. what is next? do we now pass laws to allow minors to marry adults? would you allow your nine year old child to marry a 35 year old adult? and then what? beastiality? where does it stop? do we then start saying rape is ok? how about arraigned marriages? where do we draw the line just because it doesnt affect us individually? |
11-04-09, 03:16 PM
|  | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| |
And now, apparently, you know what is right and wrong. And your voice is more important that those who voted.
Can't bring back slavery. There is a law against it. Can't stone gays. It's called murder. Those are some pretty piss poor examples to use.
So, Reimann, are there any other things that were put to a vote that you know better on? Perhaps we can overturn them too. In fact, why let people vote at all? Why not just let you decide what is right and wrong? |
11-04-09, 03:27 PM
|  | Cuthbert catcher | | Join Date: May 1999 Location: Anywhere except the Unemployment Line
Posts: 1,050
| |
I think humanity is like tossing salad. I mean every now and then a baby carrot is gonna land in the wrong bowl. Just sayin. Sometimes there are chunks in the dressing. Nothing inherently wrong with tossing a salad as long as you know what kind of dressing you're getting. I mean some people don't like salad. Some people don't like their salad tossed. Some people don't like dressing on their tossed salad. If you like your salad tossed then I say go for it. If you need a law saying "Hey it's okay to get your salad tossed" then I say toss away. Me? I'd rather have a cream pie. But I like to make my own cream. That's totally irrelevent however.
Continue.
Last edited by Strype; 11-04-09 at 03:30 PM.
|
11-04-09, 03:50 PM
|  | Banned by Troll | | Join Date: January 2003 Location: Tampa
Posts: 400
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimann Sorry DEW, I read something into your post that wasn't there. | No prob. Reimann..................  Quote:
Originally Posted by Reimann I personally think that the concept of "legal marriage" should be redefined. It shouldn't have anything to do with religion or sexuality but simple a legal contract legally binding two people together. That way one could make decisions for the other (if one was in a comma for example), share insurances, and provide all the other rights that "married" couples have. These unions should be easy to make and be broken. In fact, they should probably have an expiration date and the couples have to renew them occasionally. They way I see it, two heterosexuals can enter into one of these unions and choose to end it should one of them find spouse. All of this would be a legal thing and have absolutely nothing to do with religion. | Right back where we started. They (the gay community) doesn't want what you propose. Why???????
They don’t want equal rights, they could’ve had a union with all the rights granted marriage years ago. They want a fundamental change in society.
I have a sudden craving for salad????????   |
11-04-09, 03:58 PM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by dew22 I have a sudden craving for salad???????? | At least you aren't hungry for a creampie.. |
11-04-09, 04:13 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Strype I think humanity is like tossing salad. I mean every now and then a baby carrot is gonna land in the wrong bowl. Just sayin. Sometimes there are chunks in the dressing. Nothing inherently wrong with tossing a salad as long as you know what kind of dressing you're getting. I mean some people don't like salad. Some people don't like their salad tossed. Some people don't like dressing on their tossed salad. If you like your salad tossed then I say go for it. If you need a law saying "Hey it's okay to get your salad tossed" then I say toss away. Me? I'd rather have a cream pie. But I like to make my own cream. That's totally irrelevent however.
Continue. | 
Strype for president!! |
11-04-09, 04:18 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| |
Check this out. Some idiot Judge is refusing to marry two people because they aren't of the same race. Quote:
In 1883, the Supreme Court declared that states could ban mixed marriages, finding that this did not break the constitutional requirement to treat everybody equally, arguing that white people and black people were punished in equal measure for breaking the miscegenation laws. That ruling stood until the 1967 Loving case. Louisiana did not repeal its anti-miscegenation laws until it was forced to change by the 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision.
Read more: City Brights: Yobie Benjamin : Louisiana judge refuses to wed interracial couple. Is it any different for gays? | I hope the Judge is disbarred.
Anyway, check it out, how does being gay mean you can't be covered by "the constitutional requirement to treat everybody equally" that's in the constitution and reiterated in the 14th amendment?
No I think eventually the supreme court will hear a case on the gay marriage ban and when that happens all the states will have the bans struck down as unconstitutional. At least I hope I live in a country where we value justice over cultural tradition.
Last edited by jikelly; 11-04-09 at 04:19 PM.
|
11-04-09, 04:56 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: MAINE
Posts: 11,480
| |  That was good strype |
11-04-09, 05:30 PM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly No I think eventually the supreme court will hear a case on the gay marriage ban and when that happens all the states will have the bans struck down as unconstitutional. At least I hope I live in a country where we value justice over cultural tradition. | Cool.. What else can we decide that we know better than the proles that vote?
IMHO, the job of the supreme court is not to be activists from the bench, rather to uphold the existing laws. |
11-04-09, 06:01 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: June 2003 Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 1,511
| |
As far as I see it, marriage is a creation of the church. The state should not be allowed to marry people, but rather unionize them (since the state is not a religious body). The state should not be allowed to determine who is allowed to be unionized; any two adults that want to be unionized can be. In addition, the state should not be able to tell the church's who they can and cannot allow to get married. |
11-04-09, 07:32 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 IMHO, the job of the supreme court is not to be activists from the bench, rather to uphold the existing laws. | You know what, I agree with you. The constitution is clear on this one. Equal treatment. Posted via Mobile Device |
11-04-09, 07:34 PM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly You know what, I agree with you. The constitution is clear on this one. Equal treatment.
Posted via Mobile Device | Just out of curiosity, are you differentiating between civil union and marriage? |
11-05-09, 04:28 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: October 2005 Location: st. louis, mo
Posts: 218
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 6Stang7 As far as I see it, marriage is a creation of the church. The state should not be allowed to marry people, but rather unionize them (since the state is not a religious body). The state should not be allowed to determine who is allowed to be unionized; any two adults that want to be unionized can be. In addition, the state should not be able to tell the church's who they can and cannot allow to get married. | i was trying to think of a way to word that out last night, but couldnt do it. im glad someone did though. |
11-05-09, 06:35 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by 6Stang7 As far as I see it, marriage is a creation of the church. The state should not be allowed to marry people, but rather unionize them (since the state is not a religious body). The state should not be allowed to determine who is allowed to be unionized; any two adults that want to be unionized can be. In addition, the state should not be able to tell the church's who they can and cannot allow to get married. | I think we call "civil unions" marriages. People just call it that because it is the strongest bond we make between two people. It's essentially just a contract as far as the state is concerned. I'd be fine if we allowed civil unions with the same rights we give to officially married couples.
I do think many people are hung up on the word and the meaning they associate with it. |
11-05-09, 11:06 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: August 2002 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 344
| |
Ahhh, but when a "word" is offensive to some, there is nothing more scared that that "word" Other's must not use it. Other's must respect it. For it is OUR word...
But when a mere "word" is in the way of achieving something you want, but the thought of redefining the "word" offends others, they are just "hung up" on the word...and it's trivial.....
I get it now.... |
11-06-09, 08:22 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by RookieOne Ahhh, but when a "word" is offensive to some, there is nothing more scared that that "word" Other's must not use it. Other's must respect it. For it is OUR word...
But when a mere "word" is in the way of achieving something you want, but the thought of redefining the "word" offends others, they are just "hung up" on the word...and it's trivial.....
I get it now.... | And it would be trivial if not for the laws that deny people rights because to do so would infringe upon the meaning of the word marriage.
There are people who want to defend "marriage" and then there are people who want to punish people who choose to live the abnormal homosexual lifestyle. |
11-06-09, 09:07 AM
| | the HIV ct | | Join Date: June 2006 Location: Previously from Dirty Jerzey exit 7a
Posts: 626
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly And it would be trivial if not for the laws that deny people rights because to do so would infringe upon the meaning of the word marriage.
There are people who want to defend "marriage" and then there are people who want to punish people who choose to live the abnormal homosexual lifestyle. | Since we are ignoring the will of the people, and speaking of rights, what about the rights of the unborn child? |
11-06-09, 09:56 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by strtrcr50 Since we are ignoring the will of the people, and speaking of rights, what about the rights of the unborn child? | The rights of the unborn child.
Well that should be in a whole other thread. Please feel free to start one and I will gladly share my thoughts. |
11-06-09, 10:04 AM
| | Banned by Troll | | Join Date: January 2003 Location: Tampa
Posts: 400
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly I'd be fine if we allowed civil unions with the same rights we give to officially married couples. | See, that's reasonable...............unfortunately it's not what they want. Why?
& Why do you keep ignoring this fact? |
11-06-09, 10:28 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by dew22 See, that's reasonable...............unfortunately it's not what they want. Why?
& Why do you keep ignoring this fact? | You are saying they want their unions recognized as a marriage, by the church? |
11-06-09, 10:32 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2009 Location: Maine & Indiana
Posts: 65
| |
I am so glad, maybe now I wont see those F@g's walking down the boardwalk holding hand's. Talk about the gayest thing you ever did see.
Just remember kiddie's it's Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. |
11-06-09, 10:34 AM
| | Banned by Troll | | Join Date: January 2003 Location: Tampa
Posts: 400
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jikelly You are saying they want their unions recognized as a marriage, by the church? | No. what I'm saying is that they don't want something with all the rights of marriage, they want marriage. |
11-06-09, 10:41 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: July 2003 Location: Lubbock Tx
Posts: 1,064
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by dew22 No. what I'm saying is that they don't want something with all the rights of marriage, they want marriage. | I don't care what they call it, but understand that many do.
I'm sorry but I oppose any law that forbids anyone "marrying" the person of their choice (as long as they are both consenting adults) or curtails the rights of those who form such a bond with another.
Course my opposition doesn't mean much. What does matter is such laws are unconstitutional and that's why I hope they will eventually reach the supreme court and be struck down. |
11-06-09, 10:51 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2009 Location: Maine & Indiana
Posts: 65
| |
The next thing you know people will think it's ok too marry dog's and cat's too.  | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Rate This Thread |  Linear Mode | | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
| | | |
| |
Allena
Allena
the ghost
