Don't you fvcking sit there and tell me who I hate and who I don't. This is not about your value as a person.
But this IS about his value as a person. If his person was of equal value to you, you would fight for equal rights and equal freedoms. There's time to change your position on this one SDW, and I suggest you try.
Equality in law is far more important than marriage, civil unions, you, me or anyone. Our society is founded on a document that strives to bring equality to all human beings regardless of anything else.
As a member of this society that should be your primary social concern. Your religion can still be your primary private concern, but an amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with your religion. Keep those issues separate and I think you'll more easily see the difference between right and wrong on this issue.
Christians have done much more damage to the family and to social morals with their acceptance of "any reason" divorce even though Jesus is very specific about the proper rules for divorce.
But queers, oh no! OH NO! They will tear apart society! The very fabric of American existence is held together by the subjugation of homsoexuals!
We have two things here:
1 - Marriage is a fundamental right. (Read: Loving v. Virginia)
2 - Americans are to be equally protected under the law. (Read: 14th Amendment)
Marriage between men and women is a foundation of our society. You can argue all you want about whether being gay is a choice or not, but there IS a debate about it. Not everyone agrees that all gays are "born" that way, and until they do, you won't see society as a whole make accomodations and changes they way it did with minorities throughout the last century. One does not choose ot be black. One MIGHT choose to be gay. That's the difference.
Because society JUMPED to accommodate african-americans. Hundreds of years of slavery, a major secession from the union followed by a bloody civil war, jim crow laws, 50 years of "separate but equal" followed by 7 consecutive Supreme Court affirmations of that principle, Governors being forcefully removed by the Guard to allow for desegregation, and at least 30 years of reluctance to fund the structural changes needed to redress the aftermath of all that.
Don't you fvcking sit there and tell me who I hate and who I don't. This is not about your value as a person. I've known many gay people, and the last thing in the world I am is a biggot. I oppose marriage for gays because I believe that particular bond is supposed to be between a man and a woman.
One MIGHT choose to be gay. That's the difference.
What law do you get this idea from?
I have noticed a lot of the anti's using this, and I can never get any kind of legal backing for it. Is the anti movement just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?
"It's a choice... uh... the family ... ancient definitions ... traditions...uhh... disease.... economic disaster.... uhhh... Jesus said... uhh"
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith."
George Bush, revealing he knows **** all about the history of marriage, American jurisprudence or the history of human experience.
Quote:
"Slaves were prohibited from legal marriage, but most did enter into formal unions solemnized either in church weddings before black or white preachers or through simple ceremonies such as jumping over a broomstick.
For people of European origin in colonial America, marriage was an act of practicality. Although a respectful love was supposed to develop in the course of the union, neither sexual attraction nor romantic love was the basis for wedlock. Marriage, as in England, was a form of alliance between families, stemming from considerations of property, religion, and complementary abilities"
"Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.
In 1563 the Council of Trent required that Catholic marriages be celebrated at a Catholic church by a priest and before two witnesses. By the eighteenth century the wedding was a religious event in all countries of Europe."
Anyone who opposes my equality under the law and my right to marry the man I love hates me, regardless of how they couch their bigoted arguments.
A filth religion that has no place in a civilized country. A Christian Taliban religion.
Kirk [/B]
OK, now you're pissing me off. Telling someone he hates you because he DISAGREES with your position is TOTAL BULLSHIT. I don't support gay marriage and I never will. Period. I also don't deny your right to "be gay" or live the "gay lifestyle". How you live your life is up to you...but don't expect me to agree and support the benefits of marriage for you.
As BRussell posted, those are many of the benefits. So I, as a taxpayer, am supposed to support your gay lifestyle (which is not a majority or mainstream behavior, no matter where you stand) by including your "spouse" in social security, tax benefits, estate planning and the like? And I'm supposed to do this for someone that lives in way that goes against my religous and moral belief? I don't think so.
That's utter trash. The Constitution is the foundation of our society. Lump it or leave it.
Homosexuality exist naturally all over the world, across many species of animals, just as heterosexuality does. While some 'straights' may choose a gay lifestyle, some gays choose a straight lifestyle too. The bottom line is some if not most, but most likely not all, can't make a choice. They're as gay as Jessie Owens was black, and as not heterosexual as Jesus wasn't white.
You can't change that with an amendment.
There are many things that are woven into the fabric of our society that are not part of the Constitution. Marriage happens to be one of them.
You can't support your statement on "most cannot choose". It can be debated, but not supported (by anyone at this time). I agree "some" cannot choose....but it's not ALL. The position that being gay is as unchangeable as race is absurd. It's debatable...and therein lies the problem with giving gays all of the rights and privleges straights have.
I have noticed a lot of the anti's using this, and I can never get any kind of legal backing for it. Is the anti movement just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?
"It's a choice... uh... the family ... ancient definitions ... traditions...uhh... disease.... economic disaster.... uhhh... Jesus said... uhh"
goverat, what I'm saying is that "some" people CAN choose to be gay or not gay. You can't possibly disagree with that. Not all, but some. And that's the key distinction between this issue and the race issue.
But this IS about his value as a person. If his person was of equal value to you, you would fight for equal rights and equal freedoms. There's time to change your position on this one SDW, and I suggest you try.
Equality in law is far more important than marriage, civil unions, you, me or anyone. Our society is founded on a document that strives to bring equality to all human beings regardless of anything else.
As a member of this society that should be your primary social concern. Your religion can still be your primary private concern, but an amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with your religion. Keep those issues separate and I think you'll more easily see the difference between right and wrong on this issue.
Then where, bunge, is the line drawn for what society accepts? Can anyone do anything at anytime and avoid all negative consequences or inconveniences? Is that what you're saying? I'm not comparing being gay to the following act, but hear me out: Can I decide that I want to be a bigamist and have the state recognize me too? I mean after ALL, God made me that way! And, if you disagree...then you must hate me! You hateful hater! What other groups should we recognize? Surely, there are lots of folks that believe they were "made" a certain way. Hell, some child molesters think they don't have a choice either (and no, I'm not comparing the two). Should we let them marry too?
SDW, you're a bigot. Kirkland is pissing you off is he? Oh you poor ikkw man. What makes those ni**ers / queers so uppity, eh?
Why can't he see that all you're trying to do is limit his rights? I mean, what could possibly be wrong with that?
Once more:
There are no millenia of religious involvement in marriage.
The US jurisprudence Bush is proud of included denying black people's right to marry (but a civil union was OK).
Gay marriage does NOTHING to the institution of marriage.
You do hate Kirkland; you're denying him equal rights with straight people. And Bush's statement (with which you share logic) is at difference with history.
Hell, some child molesters think they don't have a choice either (and no, I'm not comparing the two). Should we let them marry too?
Last time I checked child molesters *are* allowed to get married. Kind of takes away from the sanctity of the thing doesn't it? (And do you want your tax money supporting them?)
Oh wait, you mean gays getting married is like allowing sexual predators of minors to marry their underage victims against their will. Great point.
What legal implications are there if a church that opposes homosexuality refuses to marry two gays in a jurisdiction where gay marriage is legally allowed?
If the church is punished by the state, isn't that a violation of the Constitution?
If it's allowed, isn't that church breaking the law?
It seems to be a Catch-22. Any attorneys here who'd be willing to give some legal insight?
Just for the sake of argument...you do realize there's other religions in this country don't you? Where does it say that our laws are based on the bible?You are a perfect example of what's wrong with organized religions. Why don't you go cry about the 50% divorce rate of the country or something. Surely you bible thumpers must be worried about that?
Why do you guys call names and try to marginalize those you don't agree with? It is so obvious it is silly.
Anyway... I am not promoting any particular religion. Christianity is what I am familiar with, so that is what my comments are based on. Christianity is based on the Bible as a guide and the example of Jesus. Believing wether homosexuality is a wrong or not is a religious issue for most people. One cannot be discussed without the other. That is why I bring it up.
If you believe in a God, then you have to believe that their is punishment to going against his rules and that in fact he makes the rules, not some church or individual or government. I said if you believe in a God. If not then that is a different issue.
As far as the divorce rate, it is disgraceful and I also think divorce is wrong, but that is off the topic at hand. Right?
Let's say Terry belongs to a branch of the Christian church that has a different interpretation of the bible, or is a Buddhist, or doesn't belive in any God.
Should he be denied marriage because your or Bush's religion, which he has nothing to do with, say so?
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Don't you fvcking sit there and tell me who I hate and who I don't. This is not about your value as a person.
But this IS about his value as a person. If his person was of equal value to you, you would fight for equal rights and equal freedoms. There's time to change your position on this one SDW, and I suggest you try.
Equality in law is far more important than marriage, civil unions, you, me or anyone. Our society is founded on a document that strives to bring equality to all human beings regardless of anything else.
As a member of this society that should be your primary social concern. Your religion can still be your primary private concern, but an amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with your religion. Keep those issues separate and I think you'll more easily see the difference between right and wrong on this issue.
But queers, oh no! OH NO! They will tear apart society! The very fabric of American existence is held together by the subjugation of homsoexuals!
We have two things here:
1 - Marriage is a fundamental right. (Read: Loving v. Virginia)
2 - Americans are to be equally protected under the law. (Read: 14th Amendment)
Just let it go, moral nannies, let it go
Originally posted by SDW2001
Marriage between men and women is a foundation of our society. You can argue all you want about whether being gay is a choice or not, but there IS a debate about it. Not everyone agrees that all gays are "born" that way, and until they do, you won't see society as a whole make accomodations and changes they way it did with minorities throughout the last century. One does not choose ot be black. One MIGHT choose to be gay. That's the difference.
Because society JUMPED to accommodate african-americans. Hundreds of years of slavery, a major secession from the union followed by a bloody civil war, jim crow laws, 50 years of "separate but equal" followed by 7 consecutive Supreme Court affirmations of that principle, Governors being forcefully removed by the Guard to allow for desegregation, and at least 30 years of reluctance to fund the structural changes needed to redress the aftermath of all that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Don't you fvcking sit there and tell me who I hate and who I don't. This is not about your value as a person. I've known many gay people, and the last thing in the world I am is a biggot. I oppose marriage for gays because I believe that particular bond is supposed to be between a man and a woman.
Ayye buhleive in states ruh-ights!
One MIGHT choose to be gay. That's the difference.
What law do you get this idea from?
I have noticed a lot of the anti's using this, and I can never get any kind of legal backing for it. Is the anti movement just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?
"It's a choice... uh... the family ... ancient definitions ... traditions...uhh... disease.... economic disaster.... uhhh... Jesus said... uhh"
"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization.
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith."
George Bush, revealing he knows **** all about the history of marriage, American jurisprudence or the history of human experience.
"Slaves were prohibited from legal marriage, but most did enter into formal unions solemnized either in church weddings before black or white preachers or through simple ceremonies such as jumping over a broomstick.
For people of European origin in colonial America, marriage was an act of practicality. Although a respectful love was supposed to develop in the course of the union, neither sexual attraction nor romantic love was the basis for wedlock. Marriage, as in England, was a form of alliance between families, stemming from considerations of property, religion, and complementary abilities"
Source.
"Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony.
In 1563 the Council of Trent required that Catholic marriages be celebrated at a Catholic church by a priest and before two witnesses. By the eighteenth century the wedding was a religious event in all countries of Europe."
Source.
Originally posted by Kirkland
Anyone who opposes my equality under the law and my right to marry the man I love hates me, regardless of how they couch their bigoted arguments.
A filth religion that has no place in a civilized country. A Christian Taliban religion.
Kirk [/B]
OK, now you're pissing me off. Telling someone he hates you because he DISAGREES with your position is TOTAL BULLSHIT. I don't support gay marriage and I never will. Period. I also don't deny your right to "be gay" or live the "gay lifestyle". How you live your life is up to you...but don't expect me to agree and support the benefits of marriage for you.
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/a...9395985EE7E825
As BRussell posted, those are many of the benefits. So I, as a taxpayer, am supposed to support your gay lifestyle (which is not a majority or mainstream behavior, no matter where you stand) by including your "spouse" in social security, tax benefits, estate planning and the like? And I'm supposed to do this for someone that lives in way that goes against my religous and moral belief? I don't think so.
Originally posted by bunge
That's utter trash. The Constitution is the foundation of our society. Lump it or leave it.
Homosexuality exist naturally all over the world, across many species of animals, just as heterosexuality does. While some 'straights' may choose a gay lifestyle, some gays choose a straight lifestyle too. The bottom line is some if not most, but most likely not all, can't make a choice. They're as gay as Jessie Owens was black, and as not heterosexual as Jesus wasn't white.
You can't change that with an amendment.
There are many things that are woven into the fabric of our society that are not part of the Constitution. Marriage happens to be one of them.
You can't support your statement on "most cannot choose". It can be debated, but not supported (by anyone at this time). I agree "some" cannot choose....but it's not ALL. The position that being gay is as unchangeable as race is absurd. It's debatable...and therein lies the problem with giving gays all of the rights and privleges straights have.
Originally posted by groverat
What law do you get this idea from?
I have noticed a lot of the anti's using this, and I can never get any kind of legal backing for it. Is the anti movement just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks?
"It's a choice... uh... the family ... ancient definitions ... traditions...uhh... disease.... economic disaster.... uhhh... Jesus said... uhh"
goverat, what I'm saying is that "some" people CAN choose to be gay or not gay. You can't possibly disagree with that. Not all, but some. And that's the key distinction between this issue and the race issue.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Ayye buhleive in states ruh-ights!
fvck you shawn. Here we go again: Anyone who disagrees with your radical extreme, minority position is labeled a bigot or a moron or worse.
Originally posted by SDW2001
fvck you shawn. Here we go again: Anyone who disagrees with your radical extreme, minority position is labeled a bigot or a moron or worse.
I didn't say that. But now I will:
You're a bigot, a moron, or worse.
Originally posted by bunge
But this IS about his value as a person. If his person was of equal value to you, you would fight for equal rights and equal freedoms. There's time to change your position on this one SDW, and I suggest you try.
Equality in law is far more important than marriage, civil unions, you, me or anyone. Our society is founded on a document that strives to bring equality to all human beings regardless of anything else.
As a member of this society that should be your primary social concern. Your religion can still be your primary private concern, but an amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with your religion. Keep those issues separate and I think you'll more easily see the difference between right and wrong on this issue.
Then where, bunge, is the line drawn for what society accepts? Can anyone do anything at anytime and avoid all negative consequences or inconveniences? Is that what you're saying? I'm not comparing being gay to the following act, but hear me out: Can I decide that I want to be a bigamist and have the state recognize me too? I mean after ALL, God made me that way! And, if you disagree...then you must hate me! You hateful hater! What other groups should we recognize? Surely, there are lots of folks that believe they were "made" a certain way. Hell, some child molesters think they don't have a choice either (and no, I'm not comparing the two). Should we let them marry too?
On the Maryland and Pennsylvania border.
Why can't he see that all you're trying to do is limit his rights? I mean, what could possibly be wrong with that?
Once more:
There are no millenia of religious involvement in marriage.
The US jurisprudence Bush is proud of included denying black people's right to marry (but a civil union was OK).
Gay marriage does NOTHING to the institution of marriage.
You do hate Kirkland; you're denying him equal rights with straight people. And Bush's statement (with which you share logic) is at difference with history.
Originally posted by SDW2001
How you live your life is up to you...but don't expect me to agree and support the benefits of marriage for you.
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/a...9395985EE7E825
Did you even read your own link? Why wouldn't you want to support these?
Medical Benefits
* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Hell, some child molesters think they don't have a choice either (and no, I'm not comparing the two). Should we let them marry too?
Last time I checked child molesters *are* allowed to get married. Kind of takes away from the sanctity of the thing doesn't it? (And do you want your tax money supporting them?)
Oh wait, you mean gays getting married is like allowing sexual predators of minors to marry their underage victims against their will. Great point.
What legal implications are there if a church that opposes homosexuality refuses to marry two gays in a jurisdiction where gay marriage is legally allowed?
If the church is punished by the state, isn't that a violation of the Constitution?
If it's allowed, isn't that church breaking the law?
It seems to be a Catch-22. Any attorneys here who'd be willing to give some legal insight?
Originally posted by Gilsch
Just for the sake of argument...you do realize there's other religions in this country don't you? Where does it say that our laws are based on the bible?You are a perfect example of what's wrong with organized religions. Why don't you go cry about the 50% divorce rate of the country or something. Surely you bible thumpers must be worried about that?
Why do you guys call names and try to marginalize those you don't agree with? It is so obvious it is silly.
Anyway... I am not promoting any particular religion. Christianity is what I am familiar with, so that is what my comments are based on. Christianity is based on the Bible as a guide and the example of Jesus. Believing wether homosexuality is a wrong or not is a religious issue for most people. One cannot be discussed without the other. That is why I bring it up.
If you believe in a God, then you have to believe that their is punishment to going against his rules and that in fact he makes the rules, not some church or individual or government. I said if you believe in a God. If not then that is a different issue.
As far as the divorce rate, it is disgraceful and I also think divorce is wrong, but that is off the topic at hand. Right?
I like the bible thumper comment. Good try.
Let's say Terry belongs to a branch of the Christian church that has a different interpretation of the bible, or is a Buddhist, or doesn't belive in any God.
Should he be denied marriage because your or Bush's religion, which he has nothing to do with, say so?
Why?
Originally posted by CosmoNut
If it's allowed, isn't that church breaking the law?
I'm no expert in US law but can you force a Catholic church/priest to marry you if you and your wife are Jewish? I somehow doubt it.