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.
How about the "fact" that homosexual priests in the Catholic Church molested little boys and teenagers for years?
So if a few homosexuals do something wrong, everyone of them is wrong? A black person robs a bank and shoots the teller...do we stop letting all black people into banks?
I just love how people bring these issues up. Oh well GAYS have molested people!!111!!!... well.. so have straight people.... But we totally ignore that because if we admit to that, the argument would lessen agaisnt the gays.
Did you forget that there are plenty of racists in the gay community as well.
Why do the gays constantly try to associate anyone who doesn't agree with same sex marriage as racist bigots?
The state of California already allows domestic partnerships, but as we all know that's not good enough for the gays who want to call it "marriage". So if you think that a public hearing on the issue needs to be had, then bring it on. I would take time off work to go to Sacramento to sit in on one of those hearings.
"Domestic partnerships" and "civil unions" do not approach offering the same thousand plus rights and privilages that my wife and I automatically recieved the moment we both said "I do".
Seperate-but-equal, besides being an oxymoron, is already a Failed social experiment in this country. How anyone can advocate these carrot-on-a-stick distraction attempt generated by the anti-gay community is beyond comprehension.
Not only do these absolutely disgusting attempts to pacify and keep a US minority oppressed not contain the same right and privlages, if a couple enters an area of this country, or a foriegn nation, that does not recognize their meager rights under domestic partnerships or civil unions, each and every one of those severaly limited rights evaporates instantly.
How about the "fact" that homosexual priests in the Catholic Church molested little boys and teenagers for years?
How about the fact that homosexuality and pedophilia are two completely unrelated concerns that you are attempting to relate in a clearly unfounded appeal to emotion?
Homosexuals find the same exact things in a relationship that we do, towards adults just as we do. Gay isn't illegal and harms no one.
Pedoes fixate on the AGE of the child, not the gender. Pedophilia is certainly illegal and harms children on every level of their being.
Your "War on Gay" propeganda also completely ignores the plain fact that, by far, more girls are attacked by men.
How about the "fact" that homosexual priests in the Catholic Church molested little boys and teenagers for years?
I'm not sure how that's an indictment of gay men. The fact is that most people who are sexually interested in children are interested in both boys and girls. Having adult homosexual interests has nothing to do with being interested in children.
It NEVER should have been put up for vote in my honest opinion.
Just because the majority thinks it is oh-so-evil does not mean it is. And I could see if it harmed someone. But if I married a woman, how would it harm you? How would you even know?
That is what I am not seeing.
I have to agree with you, I myself never did get the reasoning why such a touchy subject as gay marriage should be put before the voters in the first place. Makes me wonder what the outcome will be say had issues like abortion, inter-racial marriages, should unmarried hetrosexual couples be living together, even rock music would be placed before the voters? Afterall abortion is still a very touchy subject and as recently as the mid 80's I can remember the polls at the time saying that more people were against the idea than were in favor and it was the same with those so-called "living in sin" as well...remember the outrage back in the 70s over the TV show "Three''s Company"? Anyway chances are if any of those issues would had been put before the voters...chances are many of them would be voted against..even rock music. Want proof on the latter? Check out if you can those old black & white films from the 50s of preachers, even local goverment officials bashing rock & roll wishing they could "stop it"...had the issue been put forth by the voters in the 50's, chances are even Elvis Presley would had been banned in much of Tennessee. Just don't see how gay marriage is..so well different?
I'm not sure how that's an indictment of gay men. The fact is that most people who are sexually interested in children are interested in both boys and girls. Having adult homosexual interests has nothing to do with being interested in children.
Old myths die hard, I guess.
Indeed, sir, I agree with you perfectly. Old myths, and new spin, make it all but impossible for the majority of Americans to make educated decisions when such subject are put up to a vote.
Some polls indicate that a majority of Americans don't "believe" in Evolution. Throw in the misinformation spouted by the anti-gay among our fellow C-D.com membership...
Well, this should tell everyone how effective religious propeganda is, and why Civil Rights should never be exposed to the Tyranny of the Majority in an open democratic process.
Not really. You can't base anything on progeny, as has been pointed out by others, and "marriage" grants rights and privileges by the government that have nothing to do with said progeny. Rights and privileges that it CHOOSES to grant and which can absolutely be granted to homosexual couples without anything else or anyone else being effected. Those would be civil rights.
The right to enter into contract is one thing, a government granted privilege is another.
People are endowed with certain inalienable rights - life, liberty, property ownership, etc. Governments are instituted to secure those rights. . . and govern those who consent. Though not stressed in Socialist indoctrination, 99% of what government is legislating is not to secure rights, but to govern the consenting parties.
Government protects rights, with specially delegated powers.
Government grants privileges, also known as civil and political liberties (i.e., civil rights).
A marriage contract (I stress CONTRACT) is for specific reasons in law, such as joining two property rights into one, as well as recognizing certain property rights associated with that contract.
Unfortunately, most Americans are kept ignorant of law, and thus make fundamental errors in logic.
A homosexual couple (or any number) who wish to merge property, via contract, for the benefit of the survivors (i.e., tontine) is perfectly reasonable. But it is NOT a marriage contract.
It may help clarify things to realize that liberty has four types: natural, personal, civil and political.
Natural liberty = absolute freedom
Personal liberty = right of locomotion upon the public roads and waterways
Civil liberty = permission from government (i.e., license)
Political liberty = participation in government (voting, holding public office)
The former two are part of inalienable rights. The latter two are government granted privileges.
Since 1935, and the Socialist InSecurity Act, the majority of Americans have surrendered their endowment in exchange for access to "entitlements". As you may know, participation is 100% voluntary - there is no law compelling participation. Nor is there any law punishing those who do not participate. If there was a mandatory law, it would be involuntary servitude and unconstitutional. Yet millions believe that there is a law that compels them to join up and get the number, before they can work in their own country.
Americans have lived under a "State of Emergency" since 1933, and incremental national socialism, since 1935. And by their consent, they surrender certain rights, to which this generation has no common knowledge anymore. For example, most believe that they have a right to vote or hold office. That is untrue. It is a government granted privilege.
"The right of holding state office is a civil or political right, which may be surrendered to the government or to society in order to secure the protection of other rights ([State] Bill of Rights, art. 3), or the government may abridge or take away such rights for sufficient cause; for, though such rights may be considered natural rights (Bill of Rights, art. 2) yet they are not of the class of natural rights which are held to be inalienable, like the rights of conscience (Bill of Rights, art. 4)"
- - Hale v. Everett, 53 N.H. 9 (N.H. 1868)
(*translation: the political liberty of holding state office is granted by government and not in the class of natural rights, and may be surrendered in order to exercise inalienable rights that were waived by the exercise of political liberty. Or as Ben Franklin said, public service must be a step DOWN in status, lest the servant becomes the master.)
For an example of the implicit surrender of inalienable rights, one need only consider conscription of the militia. Compulsory military service is certainly a violation of one's inalienable rights - but said service is limited to citizens (subjects).
Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, CITIZENS of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Most American males are unaware that they are or were part of the militia of the United States. Correction - American male CITIZENS.
So be very careful in presuming what a right is. A right granted by your Creator is one thing, a privilege (aka right) granted by government is entirely different. And petitioning for privileges may cause the loss of rights.
So if a few homosexuals do something wrong, everyone of them is wrong? A black person robs a bank and shoots the teller...do we stop letting all black people into banks?
I just love how people bring these issues up. Oh well GAYS have molested people!!111!!!... well.. so have straight people.... But we totally ignore that because if we admit to that, the argument would lessen agaisnt the gays.
A lot of times child molesters care less about the child's gender, it's more about a fascination with children's bodies.
A lot of times it's about power.
Very few child molesters are gay, the majority of child molesters are heterosexuals, a fact that many on the right hate bringing up. They try to make up their own little "scientific reports" or "psychological studies" but it's all bs and they try to twist it to fit their agenda.
They don't want to show their faces because of all the left wing nut cases wondering around. The liberal movement is nasty and juvenile full of pseudo intellectuals who will resort to name calling and violent behavior quickly when forced into a corner.
You have to love this whole thing in California liberals thought it would be a sure thing so they said hey lets vote for gay marriage then when democracy didn't give them what they wanted they went to the courts.
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.
