|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
My goal is to demonstrate that even an atheist can see through that frilly veil called "gay marriage." It's an in-your-face kind of a demand that resembles a childish tantrum. Let the churches do what they want, but just stay out of the laws with your "gay marriage." To have the laws, the ones I must obey, say that "marriage" is not necessarily a civil union between a man and a woman is to piss off many good people. But "I suspect this is your true intention." As has been pointed out to you many times now, this is an impossible and impractical goal. By aiming for such an impossible goal, in the end nothing gets done and we are back to square one. I suspect this is your true intention. Let's have a national referendum on the matter, Taz. How do you supposed that would turn out? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
Oh, here we go again with this ridiculous comparison between the plight of blacks and the plight of gays. It's B movie. Give it up. Believe it or not, a black person ought to be treated as a fully human being rather than 3/5 of a person. I'm sure you also have a problem with this. So, why aren't you opposed to the 14th amendment and selective incorporation? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
bluescat48 writes:
I have no problem with that. I'm not out to deprive anyone of his or her civil rights under the law. But am out to get "marriage" out of the law. That way the churches could decide who gets married and I don't have to be involved with it. It's so simple it's silly. All are civil unions. Marriage, per your request, is a church entity. All these unions whether done in a church or not are sanctioned governmentally as civil unions with the same benefits to all. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Do you honestly believe the framers of the Constitution had "gay marriage" in mind when they framed it? It is predicated upon Constitutional principles. A prediction: You will reply that the framers of the Constitution didn't have abolition of slavery in mind when they framed it. How you get from abolition of slavery to state-sanctioned "gay marriage" is a queer bit of reasoning, indeed.
Huh? Why the sneer-capitalization? You seem to be indicating that the only purpose for sex is procreation and that sexual activity between people of the same sex is "unnatural."
We're back to that elephant in the room again. Do you really believe that same-sex sexual activity is natural? It seems unnatural to me because if you take a closer look at the equipment you can see that NATURAL EVOLUTION has not provided for sexual intercourse between gays, only straights. If you can't see that then we need to talk and the birds and bees.
It is patently ridiculous just how much are you fighting a process that doesn't affect you.
Whatever is specified in the law affects me.
Just what does the neighbor's marriage have to do with you? Be specific. You're obviously obsessed about something, so spit it out. What exactly are you afraid will happen if the neighbor's get married?
Yes, I'm obsessed about protecting the rights and interests of heterosexuals who feel that "gay marriage" is not something the law should sanction. And I'm obsessed about giving gays their legal rights to have civil unions. And I'm obsessed about finding a way to accomplish both obsessions. You, on the other hand, are obsessed about forcing your opinion on the majority to accomplish a special-interest goal: "gay marriage." I still remain unconvinced that your POV has any merit. That is my opinion. And that is all anyone can have on this issue.
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a bigot.
If, after what I have written on this thread, you want to tag me as a bigot, go ahead. Your opinions seem just as bigoted to me. You are the intolerant one her, not me. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Meddle writes:
That one left me blinking.
For example, we don't discriminate against Jews, does that mean we get to discriminate against Christians because they did not experience the horrors of the holocaust? As for the whole 'civil union' thing, how exactly would that work? If everyone, heterosexuals and homosexuals, simply got a civil union would they all just refer to themselves as married, because that is basically what it is regardless of what the state puts on a piece off paper; or would they have to go through some sort of marriage service?
I don't care what anyone refers to himself or herself as, so long as I don't have to be a part of it. But if the state should should decide to make such references a matter of law, then I care, because it affects me directly.
Could this be construed as discriminatory against atheists? Would people dismiss a couple as not being married because they did not recognise the church they used for the ceremony?
Atheists are discriminated against. An atheist has about the same chance of being elected POTUS as a homosexual does. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Kooties.
But what has been asked of you is how you would be affected by the neighbors getting married. What are you so afraid of?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes: If you don't want to be a part of it, then you are the one that needs to come up with a new name. From Message 291:
Hoot Mon writes:
So then you'll go for "garriage"? Isn't that what you asked for?
Hey, why can't we invent a new word for civil unions between same sexes? We need a dignified word that honors their special arrangement. I submit the word "garriage" to serve as an efficient replacement for "gay marriage." "I heard Herb and John got garried the other day. It was a delightful garriage ceremony. And did you know that Ralph and Sarah got married last Saturday? Well, their cerimony was as lovely as Herb and John's. Gosh, aren't marriage and garriage wonderful things!" Rrhain writes:
Are you saying that special laws for gays don't affect me? Come on, Rrhain, we've already covered this. Are you reading this thread carefully? Hoot Mon writes:
How? But if the state should should decide to make such references a matter of law, then I care, because it affects me directly. Be specific. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
As a wrap-up statement I’ll repeat the points I’ve been arguing on this thread:
” Gays should be granted civil unions but not marriages under the law. ” Marriage has always meant a civil union between a man and a woman. ” There is no compelling reason to change the meaning of “marriage.” ” If the word “marriage” for heterosexual unions must remain in the law then the word “garriage” should be added for homosexual unions. ” Otherwise, take the word "marriage" out of the law and let the churches decide who gets "married." ” And no one should be called a bigot for opposing “same-sex marriage,” so long as homosexuals are allowed to get civilly united under the law. It’s been a queer thread. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
But I'm not g-g-g-gay. Would you go for "fairied"? As soon as you start saying you were "garried" three times, then we'll know you're sincere. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
Sorry.
If my memory serves me right, you're the one that barged into my thread and used up the post number limit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
AdminNosy writes:
"Gay marriage" is like a handicap parking stall, except handicapped people don't choose to be handicapped. By legalizing "gay marriage" I would feel disenfranchised from my constitutional rights because I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman. That's all I've got, Nosy”just my opinion and feelings on the matter. Who has anything more than that to bring to the table? It's all about opinions and feelings. A good place for HM to list the infringements on his liberties too. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Rrhain writes:
Rrhain, sorry to have to break it to you: In a democracy the majority always discriminates against the minority. Is that why you are so afraid to put it to a vote? Nem Jug writes:
Right...because denial of constitutional rights should be decided by popular vote. I mean, it isn't like the majority ever discriminates against the minority. I think it should then either go down to a vote by the citizens in each state. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
I sense a bigoted move on your part by your use of an upper case "G" for Gays and a lower case "s" for straights. Maybe all the straights should storm their governments and demand equal captalization under the law. No one is required to call it marriage except government workers who are employees of the Gay person as much as they are employees of the straight persons. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
lyx2no writes:
This remark makes me wonder if another thread should be opened to discuss: "Why is it bigotry to oppose "gay marriage"? Oh wow! I'm more worried about being screwed by a bigot than I am by a homosexual. How's that for irony. Nosy, would that be a futile exercise? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5499 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
FO writes:
FO, I'm willing to bet my sailboat against your bicycle that the framers of this country's Constitution had not even the slightest concern over protecting sexual-orientation rights when they framed it. To them "marriage" was always a heterosexual union. And to them gravity always pulled apples down instead of up when they fell out of tree. If you can proved that the framers of the Constitution had "gay marriage" in mind I'll sail my boat all the way around to Michigan and park it in the marina of your choice. Hoot Mon writes:
Which is why in this Country we have the Constitution. In a democracy the majority always discriminates against the minority. ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024