Page 54 of 56
Re: Re:
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 3:26 pm
by black elk speaks
PLAYER57832 wrote:black elk speaks wrote:
I don't think so. I think the issue is mainly based on the fact that homo's want to be recognized in the same way with regards to hetero's in terms of matrimony. In a lot of cases, homo lovers can have power of attorney over their homo lover, but that is only a legal standing. Largely, I think that they want to have homo marriage so that they can say that they are married... so that he can say, "this is my husband" and she can say "this is my wife." They really just want equality, or so I think.
There certainly are some who want to be on equal terms with heterosexuals, but you are wrong about the power of attorney solving things. Most people don't carry their papers with them when traveling, for one. Also, when it comes to child custody issues, states vary considerably on how they deal with this. Florida apparently won't even allow homosexuals to adopt .. at all.
A lot of this was covered in depth pages ago. I won't reiterate, but there are many, many very practical things that married people get without a thought. At some point we just have to ask, if our society is to be free, why NOT?
I don't necessarily "agree with" homosexuality. But, I also don't believe in telling others what to do unless it is necessary for our general protection (or plain practicality .. when it comes to building permits and such).
These. like abortion rights, are best decided at the state level in my opinion. The point being, if you live in California, and the democratically adopted law of no gay marriage is allowed, leave the state for Maine or wherever it is allowed. the other option is to lobby for it again the next go around. Marriage is an institution that is currently controlled by the state. Each has the freedom to grant marriage status for people as they see fit. At least, that is how I feel about it.
Re: Re:
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 9:53 pm
by PLAYER57832
black elk speaks wrote: These. [deleted] are best decided at the state level in my opinion. The point being, if you live in California, and the democratically adopted law of no gay marriage is allowed, leave the state for Maine or wherever it is allowed. the other option is to lobby for it again the next go around. Marriage is an institution that is currently controlled by the state. Each has the freedom to grant marriage status for people as they see fit. At least, that is how I feel about it.
Skip abortion ... it has its own thread and I said all I will there.
But the point is these are basic human rights. There is no reason to deny homosexuals the basic right to have a legally recognized union. The government should not be in the business of morality
at all. The government is to protect individual rights,
except when they interfere with others rights. And, no, your "right" to think homosexuals are "yucky" or "against your religion" is very firmly trumped by their right to just live and be how they wish.
It does not harm you, so NO government has the right to limit it ... only to protect it the same as any other individual right.
States can decide things that are optional, not things that are basic rights, and by definition not optional.
Re: Re:
Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:10 pm
by black elk speaks
PLAYER57832 wrote:black elk speaks wrote: These. [deleted] are best decided at the state level in my opinion. The point being, if you live in California, and the democratically adopted law of no gay marriage is allowed, leave the state for Maine or wherever it is allowed. the other option is to lobby for it again the next go around. Marriage is an institution that is currently controlled by the state. Each has the freedom to grant marriage status for people as they see fit. At least, that is how I feel about it.
Skip abortion ... it has its own thread and I said all I will there.
But the point is these are basic human rights. There is no reason to deny homosexuals the basic right to have a legally recognized union. The government should not be in the business of morality
at all. The government is to protect individual rights,
except when they interfere with others rights. And, no, your "right" to think homosexuals are "yucky" or "against your religion" is very firmly trumped by their right to just live and be how they wish.
It does not harm you, so NO government has the right to limit it ... only to protect it the same as any other individual right.
States can decide things that are optional, not things that are basic rights, and by definition not optional.
Since States have the authority to grant marriage, they then have the right to determine what a marriage is. there is no historical precedent regarding the matter. No one (that I am aware of) in ages past ever wanted homo marriage before now. Homosexuality may have been accepted by cultures, but homo marriage hasn't been up for consideration. It should be up to the state to allow recognition of a marriage. Just as is the case for bigamy. Are you suggesting that if a man wanted two wives that he should have that and that the state should allow it?
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:38 am
by Skittles!
If all parties consent, then why not?
I hear that somewhere in the states there's a whole city of people doing just that and getting along fine.
Tell me BES, why is a right-wing "Smaller Government Always!!!" advocate like yourself doing encouraging the state to interfere into the romantic affairs of private citizens? If they consent to unionised status, then let them at it, why use the state's legal machinery to dictate their morals to them?
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:38 am
by black elk speaks
Skittles! wrote:If all parties consent, then why not?
I hear that somewhere in the states there's a whole city of people doing just that and getting along fine.
Tell me BES, why is a right-wing "Smaller Government Always!!!" advocate like yourself doing encouraging the state to interfere into the romantic affairs of private citizens? If they consent to unionised status, then let them at it, why use the state's legal machinery to dictate their morals to them?
I am opposed too a Federal Goliath. The Constitution was written in a way that suggests to me that States should have more power to govern over their people than should the Fed. Furthermore, I believe that the locality of the state should have the right to decide what a legal marriage is and to define that because the state is more adequately affiliated with its people than a Federal government. People in Texas, aught not be deciding what people in California do in their daily lives and so on.
I have a reason for asking the question, so, if you would be so kind to allow PLAYER to answer it, I would be vastly grateful.
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:30 am
by Snorri1234
At least gay people don't have abortions!
Re: Re:
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:37 am
by Backglass
black elk speaks wrote:I think the issue is mainly based on the fact that homo's want to be recognized in the same way with regards to hetero's in terms of matrimony. In a lot of cases, homo lovers can have power of attorney over their homo lover, but that is only a legal standing. Largely, I think that they want to have homo marriage so that they can say that they are married... so that he can say, "this is my husband" and she can say "this is my wife." They really just want equality, or so I think.
Yup. And really, where is the harm in that?
(wait...we AGREE on something?!
)
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:15 pm
by mpjh
Snorri1234 wrote:At least gay people don't have abortions!
As much as I hate to say this, your wrong. Lesbians are raped, or abused by relatives and have had abortions. Also some "gay" people are bi-sexual and can have unwanted pregnancies.
I think what gay people want is to be treated as everyone else is treated -- to be included in our civil society without exception.
Re: Re:
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:01 pm
by PLAYER57832
black elk speaks wrote:
Since States have the authority to grant marriage, they then have the right to determine what a marriage is. there is no historical precedent regarding the matter. No one (that I am aware of) in ages past ever wanted homo marriage before now. Homosexuality may have been accepted by cultures, but homo marriage hasn't been up for consideration. It should be up to the state to allow recognition of a marriage. Just as is the case for bigamy. Are you suggesting that if a man wanted two wives that he should have that and that the state should allow it?
What distinguishes bigamy is that they tend to produce a LOT more children, which government can say they have a legitmate concern about. Also, a lot of the flack about polygamy is not so much that a man want to have several wives, it is the marrying twelve year olds bit.
I covered all of this pretty well in earlier posts... I don't see a reason to reiterate .. again (and again...)
Regarding the state's authorizing marriages. Yes, they do, but the real question is not the constitutionality, the question of this thread was what reason is there to
oppose homosexual marriage. Saying that "its up to the states" does not answer that question.
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:02 pm
by PLAYER57832
mpjh wrote:
I think what gay people want is to be treated as everyone else is treated -- to be included in our civil society without exception.
Which seems to be what everyone wants .. and why not?
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:49 pm
by DaGip
Snorri1234 wrote:At least gay people don't have abortions!
That's because they want to have sex with children...
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:21 pm
by mpjh
An adult who wants to have sex with children is not gay but is a pedophile. Pedophile's come in all genders and have all sexual preferences. Gay people are attracted t adults of the same sex, or both sexes. Pedophiles are engaging in an illegal act because they are taking advantage of minors. It is not a goal of those seeking marriage for gays and lesbians that pedophiles be freed from their legal constraints.
Re:
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:31 pm
by redhawk92
the_fatty wrote:1. Because ur posting this, ur gay
2. The bible doesnt lie
3. if everyone was gay, then humans would be extict (no reprodution)
4. Gays are scary
5. Because ur posting this, ur gay
there are some good reasons. choose ur favorite
a very good answer
Re: Re:
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:37 pm
by mpjh
kylegraves1 wrote:the_fatty wrote:1. Because ur posting this, ur gay
2. The bible doesnt lie
3. if everyone was gay, then humans would be extict (no reprodution)
4. Gays are scary
5. Because ur posting this, ur gay
there are some good reasons. choose ur favorite
a very good answer
1. whether I am gay or straight is irrelevant to this discussion
2. the bible was written by men for the poliical purpose of providing a history of a people and a written description of a culture -- it is only as good as the purpose to which it is applied
3. gays are more often funny than scary, and most often intelligent, generous people
4. irrelvant
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:46 pm
by JBlombier
I can only say that I'm shocked by the results of this poll.
The Netherlands, where I live, is very open in gay marriage (it is allowed here) and it does not harm anyone. I know more than one gay couple that are happily married.
To all the people that voted 'No': Are you going to sleep a second less tonight, knowing this?
I won't.
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:02 pm
by TheLucas
JBlombier wrote:I can only say that I'm shocked by the results of this poll.
The Netherlands, where I live, is very open in gay marriage (it is allowed here) and it does not harm anyone. I know more than one gay couple that are happily married.
To all the people that voted 'No': Are you going to sleep a second less tonight, knowing this?
I won't.
^^This post will probably be worth at least 5 more no votes
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:17 pm
by mpjh
TheLucas wrote:JBlombier wrote:I can only say that I'm shocked by the results of this poll.
The Netherlands, where I live, is very open in gay marriage (it is allowed here) and it does not harm anyone. I know more than one gay couple that are happily married.
To all the people that voted 'No': Are you going to sleep a second less tonight, knowing this?
I won't.
^^This post will probably be worth at least 5 more no votes
You have to understand JB that the no vote is largely an ideological vote cloaked in religion. In the US many people think that Obama is a socialist. In that ignorant context, fear governs and hate nourishes.
What is really interesting is that a very substantial portion of the base that elected the "socialist" is opposed to gay marriage. This antagonism to gays in the black community is largely why you have "low riders" in the black community, who are deep, deep in the closet and married -- and contributing to the heterosexual spread of aids because they cannot admit the the reasons for the need for safer sex.
A lot of education and a long struggle is ahead of us.
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:57 pm
by Backglass
DaGip wrote:Snorri1234 wrote:At least gay people don't have abortions!
That's because they want to have sex with children...
You are confusing your stereotypes. It's the southern rednecks that inbreed.
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 10:46 pm
by black elk speaks
mpjh wrote:TheLucas wrote:JBlombier wrote:I can only say that I'm shocked by the results of this poll.
The Netherlands, where I live, is very open in gay marriage (it is allowed here) and it does not harm anyone. I know more than one gay couple that are happily married.
To all the people that voted 'No': Are you going to sleep a second less tonight, knowing this?
I won't.
^^This post will probably be worth at least 5 more no votes
You have to understand JB that the no vote is largely an ideological vote cloaked in religion.
In the US many people think that Obama is a socialist. In that ignorant context, fear governs and hate nourishes.What is really interesting is that a very substantial portion of the base that elected the "socialist" is opposed to gay marriage. This antagonism to gays in the black community is largely why you have "low riders" in the black community, who are deep, deep in the closet and married -- and contributing to the heterosexual spread of aids because they cannot admit the the reasons for the need for safer sex.
A lot of education and a long struggle is ahead of us.
He is a socialist. No question. Corporate welfare, expansive social programs and wealth re-distribution are socialist ideas. You are the one that needs education if you can't see that he is a pinko communist / socialist.
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:03 pm
by mpjh
I never said he was a socialist. I said the people that oppose him accuse him of being a socialist, and that such beliefs comes from ignorance. Maybe too subtle for you.
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:05 pm
by black elk speaks
mpjh wrote:I never said he was a socialist. I said the people that oppose him accuse him of being a socialist, and that such beliefs comes from ignorance. Maybe too subtle for you.
Genius! I was debating your ignorant point. You are too fucking numb in the skull to understand that or that BO is a pinko Socialist. It must very much sucks to be so stupid.
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:19 pm
by mpjh
Oh, I see, because you think Obama stands for all the things that the Bush administration is doing then Obama must be a socialist. That is the ignorance I am talking about. Oh, and by the way, you are not in FW so cool the language.
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:26 pm
by black elk speaks
mpjh wrote:Oh, I see, because you think Obama stands for all the things that the Bush administration is doing then Obama must be a socialist. That is the ignorance I am talking about. Oh, and by the way, you are not in FW so cool the language.
What are you talking about? BO stands for nothing that Bush stands for. and you have been more verbally abusive than I have in the past, so don't get on about how this isn't flame wars.
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:33 pm
by mpjh
Ooohhhh, great logic, but unfortunately you missed the entire point. Maybe it was too subtle for you again. Bush is nationalizing banks, giving money to corporations to cover for their mistakes, redistribution wealth (remember the $600 check you got), and raising a tax to do it (through the inflation with will eventually occur). By your definition of socialism, Bush is the socialist. Obama hasn't done anything yet, except win the election fy over 7 million votes. What have you done lately except try to insult those that disagree with you?
Re: Gay marriage
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 12:53 am
by Simon Viavant
Obama is definitely a socialist. This country is way too socialist already. Why do we have to pay for defense for poor people? Private defense contractors work much better and why should people be punished for success? And for everyone who voted no, ur gay.