"Gay Day" in Schools officially signed into CA Law? (Montclair: sex offender, how much)

[Rhenzanite]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend it are trampling on civil rights.


In other words, you want to have yer cake and eat it too.

There is no 'foundation' of marriage. Do you want to go back to what marriage really meant? Ya know, forced childhood marriage, exchanges of dowry, promises of land, trading your daughter for a few goats and a cow? We've already 'changed' marriage over the years and it's not concrete, it's ever evolving to what we want it to be.

I was on your side regarding civil unions not too long ago, but I'm going to have to use the common 'slippery slope' argument that is so prevalent on your side... CA said no to gay marriage...now they want to stop civil unions AND make those marriages done during the 'ok' period null and void. How's that for a slippery slope? It works both ways.

And this has nothing to do with 'having my cake and eating it too'...it has to do with religion getting their fat noses out of civil business. To me, this also includes marriage since it's historically NOT a religious based ceremony.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

There is no 'foundation' of marriage. Do you want to go back to what marriage really meant? Ya know, forced childhood marriage, exchanges of dowry, promises of land, trading your daughter for a few goats and a cow? We've already 'changed' marriage over the years and it's not concrete, it's ever evolving to what we want it to be.

Yes. So please don't say a damn word when men want to marry their siblings and their animals.

Okay, then let's put it to a vote.

Oh wait, we've done that already.

TWICE.

I was on your side regarding civil unions not too long ago, but I'm going to have to use the common 'slippery slope' argument that is so prevalent on your side.

The only slippery slope we are on is one that leads us to an assault on religious freedom. We can already see seeds of that being planted around the world and even here in the US.

Not to far from now, churches are going to be sued to marry gays whether they want to or not. Whether its against their basic doctrine or not.

And the same people who today cower to the demands of this group will then rationalize to themselves in their small minds why its okay to attack religion inside the church house.

How's that for a slippery slope?

And this has nothing to do with 'having my cake and eating it too'...it has to do with religion getting their fat noses out of civil business.

No, its about a bunch of pacifist weaklings who have decided that since God is no longer valid in their lives, that they will then facilitate the erroneous and misguided desires of a fringe group to force their way into a state of perceived 'normalcy' by taking upon themselves the ability to marry.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Clarks

Sure it is, check the list of abortion doctors killed by them, checkout the census worker in Kaintuck or Tennessee that was hung in the woods.

That is just a start, how about the 4,000 young black men lynched in Mississippi between 1900, and 1940,

How about the murdered civil rights workers?

Heck, this is just a start, I will finish now the the conservative murderer that shot up the Holocaust Museum.

Now, I am not picking on Conservatives here, just pointing out well established facts.

Those were not conservatives. At least not in the Burkian sense. They were Jacobin revolutionary freaks, in every case.

[Rhenzanite]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Yes. So please don't say a damn word when men want to marry their siblings and their animals.

Okay, then let's put it to a vote.

Oh wait, we've done that already.

TWICE.


The only slippery slope we are on is one that leads us to an assault on religious freedom. We can already see seeds of that being planted around the world and even here in the US.

Not to far from now, churches are going to be sued to marry gays whether they want to or not. Whether its against their basic doctrine or not.

And the same people who today cower to the demands of this group will then rationalize to themselves in their small minds why its okay to attack religion inside the church house.

How's that for a slippery slope?


No, its about a bunch of pacifist weaklings who have decided that since God is no longer valid in their lives, that they will then facilitate the erroneous and misguided desires of a fringe group to force their way into a state of perceived 'normalcy' by taking upon themselves the ability to marry.

I don't care if someone wants to marry their sibling or an animal, honestly. Did you know that in

Regarding religious freedom... how does it feel??? The church DESTROYED my ancestors religions and forced them into conversion. If they didn't convert, they were killed. The church took over their holidays, put an end to their feasts and celebrations and ruined entire cultures in the name of your 'god'. Finally, people are rising up against the destructiveness of religion and people are surprised?

Practice whatever religion you want, but the minute you get involved in politics or making laws is when the church should be required to pay taxes and 'come out of the closet' as the business they truly are.

People dont' get pissed at Pagans or Wiccans or most other religions (that coincidentally have been around longer than the abrahamic religions) and you want to know why? They don't try and turn the country into a theocracy where everyone is forced to believe the way they do.

I used to be a lot more passive when it came to religion...that has all changed in the past few months. But let's be honest, you're not changing my mind and I'm not changing yours, so let's call it a truce. As if it really matters anyway...it's an anonymous message board after all

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by City Boy

Gay's should get their rights, but please stop comparing it to the civil rights struggle.

It's not the same, but there are similarities.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

I used to be a lot more passive when it came to religion...that has all changed in the past few months. But let's be honest, you're not changing my mind and I'm not changing yours, so let's call it a truce. As if it really matters anyway...it's an anonymous message board after all

True.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by LateNight

More like Barney Frank's push to leave no child's behind behind. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Thanks for pushing that lame stereotype. I'm sure the anti-gay crowd loved it.

On topic though, Harvey Milk may have done some good work, but it doesn't constitute a national day of recognition, especially in schools.

No one's talking about a national day of recognition, as far as I know. This applies to California only.

When the school system is targeted for a holiday, you know somebody is looking to influence young minds, and that's not the government's job to do no matter what they're trying to push.

Actually, it is the government's job to educate young people, and part of that education is learning about the different types of people in the world, and addressing bigotry. That's what this is about. I'm all in favor of influencing young minds in that respect.

If the people of California are upset about this, they can vote their legislators out of office. I doubt that will happen, however.

[Clarks]

Those were not conservatives. At least not in the Burkian sense. They were Jacobin revolutionary freaks, in every case.

they were conservatives, in the modern sense of the term, there are few today who consider themselves "true conservatives" who would condemn them.

The modern conservative, and reason, long ago parted company.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The only slippery slope we are on is one that leads us to an assault on religious freedom. We can already see seeds of that being planted around the world and even here in the US.

This is such a red herring, it's laughable.

How about if someone's religion says that blacks don't deserve to be treated equally to whites. The law disagrees with them. Do you believe the law should make room for the beliefs of any religion, no matter his discriminatory they are?

Our laws are not based on religion. I don't know of any judges who keep a Bible by their side to help them judge a court case.

[Steve97415]

The Foundation of Marriage

before 500 A.D.: A polygamous chattel relationship between a man and however many wives he had enough goats and camels to pay for.

500 A.D. to 1800 A.D. A monogamous contract between the families or a boy and a girl, made by the parents, and that determined the nuptial future of their kids without their consent.

1800 A.D. to 1950 A.D. A monogamous consensual contract between a man and a woman of the same race for the purpose of procreation that created a role of servitude for the woman and conferred communal property rights to the man.

after 1950: All hell breaks loose. People of different races and different faiths are gradually allowed to marry as miscegenation laws fall. Women can even say "no." Birth control is legalized and companionship marriages without kids become common.

The "Foundation of Marriage" is always changing