Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before I can reply to this, you need to reduce your points (and I do too) a bit more. This is getting too lengthy.
I disagree. Feel free to consolidate some of them but do reply to them please.
Quote:
To quickly address the one chosen to remain, is to ask just "how" do our laws reflect what you say? In EVERY instance where it has been put to a vote of the people, the "people" reject homosexual "marriages".
Once again I welcome you to America, the land which is not a pure democracy and the government of which recognizes that a simple majority vote can still be unconstitutional. This is why we have the Judicial branch of government. Did you take Govt. 101?
Quote:
The courts -- in whacko areas of the country -- overturn the same of cours.
Courts interpret state Constitutions. Would you rather they ignored their state Constitutions in favor of your religious position?
Quote:
But that hardly supports your point. In other words, if it has to be rammed down your throat, it is tyranny, and there is no other way to define it.
Ah, but ramming it down gays' throat that they may not marry the consenting adult partner of their choice due to their sex is not tyranny?
Quote:
"Gays" declare a victory in California? A cause for celebration? Naw, it isn't. It just mean nine unelected people on the 9th Circuit Court decided to overtun what people REALLY wanted.
Let's put it all to a vote. Why not?
Because, as I explained it several times already, this is a CONSTITUTIONAL matter. Until the CA Constitution is amended accordingly, the result will remain the same. Again, welcome to America!
You really have no room to complain about people taking biblical passages out of context because you are doing precisely the same with legal issues.
Once again I welcome you to America, the land which is not a pure democracy and the government of which recognizes that a simple majority vote can still be unconstitutional. This is why we have the Judicial branch of government. Did you take Govt. 101?
Yeah, I took Govt. 101...part of the requirment to get my major in Political Science...so I will match sheepskins with you...
A word to the wise? Don't go confusing "America" with what prevails in California or Massachusetts.
Judicial Branch? It is there to INTERPET the law...not make it nor overrule the legislative process nor the vote of the people. In even California, the people voted to disallow homosexual marrigage. Is your position that the courts have that authority? If so, hell, abolish the legislature and the petition process, and be honest about it.
Quote:
Courts interpret state Constitutions. Would you rather they ignored their state Constitutions in favor of your religious position?
Don't drive the argument into the ditch. The fact is, the PEOPLE of California rejected homosexual marriage.
Quote:
Ah, but ramming it down gays' throat that they may not marry the consenting adult partner of their choice due to their sex is not tyranny?
No, it isn't. Because homosexual marriage is not something traditionally recognized in any society, anywhere, at any time. It is not as if some previous "right" is being repealed....but that a newly found "right" is being crammed on society in the name of a "right"
Quote:
Because, as I explained it several times already, this is a CONSTITUTIONAL matter. Until the CA Constitution is amended accordingly, the result will remain the same. Again, welcome to America!
You explain? What the heck do you think...that I am going to roll over and play dead because you "explain"? LOL (see again above about "America'}
Earth to you: The people of California spoke on the issue quite a while back. Nine (or whatever) of the Nut (most overruled court in history) overrule it by judicial mandate. Who wins? Millions of people seem to reject homosexual marriage...nine say it is ok and screw (no pun intended) what the former say...
Quote:
You really have no room to complain about people taking biblical passages out of context because you are doing precisely the same with legal issues.
Legal issues above. Biblical passages? If you truly believe in the authority of the Bible as a source, then quote away and we will discuss it.
if I said something like "lets the HETEROSEXUAL community stop reproducing, and see how long the GAY community will last"
I am denied basic civil rights that you take for granted. For some gay people, they are denied to practice their religious beliefs since marriage for many is a religious union. And I am sure there are some constitutional lawyers that would be able to write pages upon pages about what rights gay people are denied.
If the heterosexual community stopped reproducing, reproduction would not cease. That's funny that you assume this! Gay women have kids all the time. As a matter of fact, I know several gay women that really want to have kids, and many would probably function as surrogates for gay men. You don't need to have sex to reproduce anymore and having children is not a desire only reserved for straight women. However, if the heterosexual community stopped reproducing, the world's population might actually stop spiraling out of control and this would have IMO a significantly positive effect on the quality of life for all due to the extent of the consequences.
Anyways, you really haven't stated how gay marriage takes away from your life, the rights you enjoy even if you don't realize exactly what they are, or society.
Because it threatens the moral fabric that holds society together. No matter what this day and age might like to think, "society" is held together, ultimately, by shared moral values. Laws simply reflect such.
Worse than all the adultery? You've got to be kidding?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Is there anything "threatening" in your opinion, as to polygomy in relation to society?
None what-so-ever. We're only worried about polygamy now because many of the Christian groups who practice it do so with minors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
I do and I have. I find it lacking in everything from dawn to dark. It isn't natural, and historically, all societies have shunned it in the sense of recognizing it on the same plane as man and woman, in just about every way possible.
Actual Greece placed homosexuality on a higher plane than heterosexual marriage. Women were for breeding. Males were for loving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
This country was largely founded on Judeo/Christian morals/ethics/belief. So let's not go there. The evidence is self-evident.
You couldn't be more wrong. Many, maybe most, of the intellectual leaders of the founding fathers were Deists not Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
See above on Christianity (which, by the way, I absolutely DO NOT seek to impose on others...I just note it when applicable!) Anyway, it is not victimless. Taxpayers pay the price of homosexual promiscuity. It is a matter of record that homosexual men are far and away the most likely to have numerous partners and etc, etc. Everybody know that. And no matter how CNN and the NYT try to censor it, the so-called "gay days" or "parades" are sick with the public displays of perversion and filth for no other reason than to rub it in others faces. And AIDS is rampant for that very reason. Bottom line is, it is NOT victimless....
I thought we were talking about marriage or does marriage equal promiscuity to you? That revealing isn't it. Does your wife know? You can't have it both ways. If you want monogamy you should be pro marriage.
Everybody where you live may "know it" but you'd be amazed at how much you think you "know" that just isn't so. We have a great "gay day" parade called the "17th street drag races." It pulls crowds from 3-4 states. It's great fun and I've never seen a victim. The homophobes seem to have enough sense to stay home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
I dont know, are they? I don't know about Spain, but Canada's existence depends on the fact the United States will militarily protect them. Otherwise, would it be worth it, a crack regiment of the Werhmacht could wipe out Canada in a heartbeat. As it is, taxes are so high as to be obscene, and there is no concept of true freedom anymore. No, Canada is not a coherent society...it simply exists.
Oh horsechit. The last group to invaded Canada was the United States. BTW we got our butts kicked and Washington burned as payback. We can't even pacifly Iraq. The Canadians would rip us a new anus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb
Because if all things are equal, then none has value. A sanctioning of the one man/woman union is natural and good and right.
Now then, time for a beer!
"It is because it is" appears to be your argument. Not very persuasive. Don't attempt law school.
I am denied basic civil rights that you take for granted. For some gay people, they are denied to practice their religious beliefs since marriage for many is a religious union. And I am sure there are some constitutional lawyers that would be able to write pages upon pages about what rights gay people are denied.
WHAT civil right, constitutionally speaking, are you denied because you are gay? Are you officially prohibited, from free speech, owning a gun, a trial by jury...? What, for gawds sake?
Now if you are inventing something under the term of a "right" then it is a different story. Sorta like the screwy notion someone has a "right" to free medical care. PROBLEM is, it imposes an obligation on others time and money to PROVIDE it. In THIS case, homosexual marriage, it DEMANDS, an obligation that others ACCEPT it as morally equivilant to a marriage between a man and woman.
Oh, hell, I am SURE there would be tons of lawyers who could write page after page of stuff "proving" the case you cite. Big deal. There are lawyers who can make a good case that someone is entitled to a million dollars because they spilled hot coffee on themselves. If people are crazy enough to buy into it. The country has a low opinion of lawyers anyway, and with good reason.
Q: How do you know if a pile of mess on the highway was a lawyer or a skunk?
A: If it was a skunk, there will be skid marks...hee hee
Quote:
If the heterosexual community stopped reproducing, reproduction would not cease. That's funny that you assume this! Gay women have kids all the time. As a matter of fact, I know several gay women that really want to have kids, and many would probably function as surrogates for gay men. You don't need to have sex to reproduce anymore and having children is not a desire only reserved for straight women. However, if the heterosexual community stopped reproducing, the world's population might actually stop spiraling out of control and this would have IMO a significantly positive effect on the quality of life for all due to the extent of the consequences.
So once we cut thru the rind and get to the melon, it is impossible to have children without a man and woman in some form or fashion, correct? (pssssst..I will refrain from asking the tempting question of if you ever had Biology 101).
Quote:
Anyways, you really haven't stated how gay marriage takes away from your life, the rights you enjoy even if you don't realize exactly what they are, or society.
Yes, I did. I answered it, and have answered it many times before. Go back and read it. I don't feel like repeating it again...
That privilege flies in the face of Equal Protection Clause (constitutional matter) and flies in the face of reality on 2 counts:
1- same-sex couples also establish family units and produce offspring of their own as well as take care of offspring of irresponsible or unfortunate heterosexuals. Do they not deserve the same benefit as heterosexuals when they form these family units? Are the offspring of homosexuals less important than the offspring of heterosexuals?
2- producing offspring is not a requirement for marriage in this country: those tho have no intention of producing offspring or adopting and those who simply cannot produce children are not excluded from marriage.
How do homosexuals produce offspring other than using artificial insemination?
They already get the benefits as far as kids go, can they not claim them as tax exemptions?
Marriage is between one man and one women. End of story.
It's a royal pain to do tax returns for people whose marriages are recognized by their state(s) but not by the fed...so much adjustment, so much room for error.
Hey, I'm a gay accountant, so this doesn't bother me in the least.
I am denied basic civil rights that you take for granted. .
This is so tiresome! and you guys wonder why people dont take you serious! You have every right that every other person in this country has! What you want is typical liberalism New and special rights, to fit your needs and desires. If you want to be a Lesbian, great be a Lesbian but stop pissing and moaning because everyone else isn't down with your Lesbianism!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
