|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
AndyGodLove  Suspended Member (Idle past 5799 days) Posts: 18 From: Wentworth Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gay Marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Please stop it! You'll have every gay person on these boards goin' nuts over this. But at least they won't have to deal with unwanted pregnancies, just unwanted soreness up the ol' wazzu. Go out right now and find someone of the same sex, get massively turned on, and do what you can to eventually wind up in bed with him. When you finally succeed (we can wait through the dating period for you to earn his trust), come back and give us the details of how you got off and how you'll want to do it again and again and again. ”HM Edited by Hoot Mon, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
LinearAq writes:
But where is the inequality if the government got out of the marriage business and issued only civil unions to both gays and straights? Until you can show them to be unequal within the framework defined by the Constitution, you can just stop with the red herring of them being fundamentally different. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
4. The simplest solution is to take the word "marriage" out of the law. So you do agree with changing all the laws concerning this in all the states and federally? Why don't you just say so clearly to avoid any further fuss over it. Why can't you leave all the red herrings out of your posts? Just say: "I have some personal hang-up about the word "marriage" so I want to remove ALL legal issues with regards to this word. I am so hung-up on it that I am willing to go to all the huge cost of changing 1,000's of laws and would gladly remove "marriages" from all those couples who are married now and just tell them that they are "civilly unioned" until they get it sorted out with whatever organization they want." Of course, this is certainly NOT the simplest solution at all. And, lol, it doesn't solve your problem at all either. One day after this is done a gay couple will go to a church and get married. They will also sign the legal civil union documents. They will be just as married as anyone else. The word they will use and their church will use will be "married" so you will have cost a huge amount of time and money and done absolutely nothing about your hang-up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO, what do you care if some church decides to marry squirrels to raccoons? How about old ladies to their cats? Or how about Chuck to Larry? All of that is entirely OK with me. The only problem I have is with the LAW deciding to marry squirrels to raccoons, old ladies to cats, and Chucks to Larrys.
If the government got out of the marriage business there would be no need for discussions like this...and the First Amendment would be upheld. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Nosy, you could be right about everything you say. You take the meaning of "marriage" more liberally than I do. We just don't share opinions on this matter, and neither one of us is a bigot for that. Marriage, to me, is and always will be between a man and a woman. I have not said that gays should not be granted civil unions. Let it be a legal thing for them and leave it there. But why does it need to be a "marriage"? Why, if civil unions do the legal trick?
Answer: Because gays want respectability for disrespecting heterosexual traditions. They're in your grill like an alien pod. What has happened here, effectively, is that the gay movement has degraded the meaning of marriage but denying that it is only a heterosexual affair. When heterosexuals say "marriage" is only between a man and woman, but also say it's OK with them is gay get civilly united, I don't see why they are wrong or bad or bigoted or anything. And I don't see how it relates to blacks and their interracial marriages. To me, it's an insult to black people to make such a comparison. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LinearAq Member (Idle past 4706 days) Posts: 598 From: Pocomoke City, MD Joined: |
HM writes:
The government can't get out of the "marriage business". Even if they only have civil unions they are still in the marriage business, they just don't call it marriage. But where is the inequality if the government got out of the marriage business and issued only civil unions to both gays and straights? You say churches or other religious institutions can "marry" whomever they like. I submit that they cannot. Look at the problems of Warren Jeffs (sp?). He used his position as a religious leader to marry 13 year old girls to 40 year old men. The state and federal governments charged him with a number of crimes but settled for accomplice to statutory rape. He was convicted and sentenced to 10-years in prison because he sanctioned and performed the marriages.Clearly, if a religious organization marries a couple under the auspices of their belief system, the government doesn't have to recognize that as legal. Hence the government wouldn't have to issue the civil union status to that couple. Now you have a real problem. Married but not really. No rights as a couple. The spouse can be compelled to testify against the partner under threat of contempt or perjury...among other things. Edited by LinearAq, : bad spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
BB writes:
Not yet. Not until it is so well understood that it can be "corrected" if one should make that choice. I'm afraid I still suspect that if Chuck and Larry should raise little Bobbie into manhood, then little Bobbie would be more likely to turn out gay. And I have to ask if this is a good thing for little Bobbie. I don't believe there are enough scientific data on this matter to know what really happens to little Bobbie. I think we've given you more than sufficient evidence as to how homosexuality is determined through genetic, developmental, and physiological factors. Interracial marriage is one thing society eventually got used to, but I'm not yet ready to invite Chuck and Larry over to dinner. And I guess that makes me a bigot. However, I'm not yet ready to invite Tom and his three wives over to dinner, or Clarence and his sheep over to dinner, either. That must make me even a bigger bigot. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes: Your reasoning as to why the state should get out of the marriage business has been to be wanting. American's have a right to request the government arbitrate contract dissolution. Are you going to deny Americans that right? But why aren't civil unions enough for legal purposes? After that it's cake all the way down.
I'm thinking Rrhain might have had a question or two you've ignored also.
I can't keep up with Rrhain. He's a rocket scientist. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
My testicles, working in consort with my hypothalamus and a few other delicate parts, caused my heterosexuality. I'm sure of it. Who are you to say they didn't? Gay men have testicles and yet are not straight. Therefore, your explanation fails by simple inspection. Having testicles does not cause heterosexuality. But I can't speak for gays with testicles; they seem a little queer to me. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Some people in this thread seem to be striving for a serious discussion. Others seem more interested in being denigrating, demeaning and derogatory, not to mention salacious.
I lost patience with gay-issue discussion threads a while back. You'll be civil and constructive in such threads or you'll be suspended. No warnings, at least not from me. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
Maybe it is homophobic nonsense. But please tell why it is any less heterophobic nonsense to push "gay marriage" in our faces. Are you kidding me? You haven't answered anything. You have merely spouted homophobic nonsense. You are entitled to your opinion, but we've been asking for factual support of your many homophobic claims...and you have thus far provided none. For a heterosexual person to believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman does not make him or her a homophobic bigot. Otherwise, all those who oppose polygamy are polyphobic bigots. And I suppose there are bestiphobic bigots and incestophibic bigots, too. Where does all this bigotry end? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4746 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
The First Amendment takes the government out of the consecration business, not the marriage business. "Civil union" is otherwise a synonym (euphemism) for "marriage" to appease the desperately stupid.
Kindly There is a spider by the water pipe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4175 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: Nobody is pushing it into your face, Hoot Mon.
But please tell why it is any less heterophobic nonsense to push "gay marriage" in our faces. Hoot Mon writes: Correct...as I have pointed out again and again and again. Having an opinion (even when it's the polar opposite of mine), is NOT what makes you a homophobic bigot. Rather, you are a homophobic bigot because you want to deny homosexuals the right to marry the person of their choice (between consenting adults). You want to deny them the rights afforded them by the 9th and 14th amendments. In addition, you keep using childish terminology when discussing the issue. You are completely hypocritical in your nonsensical bull shit about not having a problem with gays...except when they're married...cuz then they're gonna rape the Social Security system. And when I point out your blatant hypocrisy, you completely avoid the issue and instead call me a bigot...(as if the word really has any meaning to you). That is why I, for one, keep calling you a bigot.
For a heterosexual person to believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman does not make him or her a homophobic bigot. Hoot Mon writes: Hell, Hoot Mon, we cannot even explain to you what bigotry is, so how the hell do you expect us to help you understand where it ends? Where does all this bigotry end? But here's an idea. Quit trying to deny homosexuals the same rights you have (as described by the 9th and 14th Amendments), and as far as your own homophobic bigotry is concerned...you will have gone a long way towards ending it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
LA writes:
I don't ask for anything more than that. The government can't get out of the "marriage business". Even if they only have civil unions they are still in the marriage business, they just don't call it marriage. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
I'm sorry to have to say this again: They already have the same rights I have. The law doesn't say that a gay men can't marry any woman of his choice, just like any straight man. The law says that any man can marry any woman of his choice. The law does not discriminate against the gay man in that regard. But, of course, the gay man says he ought to be able to "marry" any man of his choice. I disagree. That assertion drops in the bin with all the other strange "marriages" people want to have with multiple wives, beasts, siblings, and ghosts. But here's an idea. Quit trying to deny homosexuals the same rights you have (as described by the 9th and 14th Amendments) ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024