KO on Prop 8
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Friday, November 14, 2008 13:30
VIEWED: 7790
PAGE 6 of 10
Wulf, w/o getting into whether homosexual orientation is a "lifestyle choice" or not (I happen to think not)... But let's assume it IS a "lifestyle choice".... Aren' you all about choices and freedom and keeping the gummint outta stuff it aughtn't be putting it's nose in? What it sounds like you're saying is... you got the freedom to choose as long as I like your choices.
Really, what skin comes off YOUR nose whether gays get married or not?
ETA: Anyway, no need to answer. I think I've beat this horse dead... and then some!
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sigy, you know better. Thats not what I'm saying at all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The people have spoken, and that's not good enough?
I guess we can quote you here whenever you bitch about Obama, right?
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Sigy, you know better. Thats not what I'm saying at all.
Then why not answer that querstion....?
And if marriage is strictly a religious institution, as you claim - why is it okay for the state to dictate the terms at all? Shouldn't it be up to the individual church?
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So, how about next time you think of opening your stupid Pollock mouth.... Don't.
You're doing a REEEEEEEEEEEALLY good job of convincing us that you aren't a bigot, Wulf. Keep it up!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I prefer that you NOT explain to me what you're saying. It's not that I'm not interested, but I don't want to get into an argument. So just color me "clueless" and let it pass.
Sigy, you know better. Thats not what I'm saying at all.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Religion. Which, I'd say, should stay out of politics. This is why I've always taken issue with marriage being a religious institution. If people want to get married in a church, that's their choice, but the dictates of the religion shouldn't rule who can get married. That's not separation of church and state.
Everyone should be able to get married, or everyone should have domestic partnerships. Me, I would be fine with it all being domestic partnership, since marriage is a religious institution an' all. But, you know, marriage has also become a state institution, and it's a tradition, and everyone knows what it means already, that two people who are in love are joining their lives together. Also, it's shorter and easier to say, rolls off the tongue so to speak, and people tend to prefer that in their words and terms. So why not call it all marriage, then? Well, if the Church and their sheeple would stop screaming about it, we could right? Except that again brings up keeping religion out of law... I could just go on in that circle.
Bottom line, calling it something different but claiming it's the same thing is patently ridiculous. Calling it the same thing but saying it was a little different would also be ridiculous. Just let everyone have the same options.
And PR beats me to the punch, completely.
If the STATE is going to define and recognize marriage as a LEGAL institution, which IMHO, it should not - then it should recognize it between any two human beings above age of consent regardless of gender, race, creed, culture or religion.
Or it should simply stay the fuck out of it entire.
This one IS black and white, all or nothing - everyone, or no one.
Anything other than that is pure discrimination of an UnConstitutional form and thus a flagrant violation of the First Amendment.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The people have spoken, and that's not good enough? Looks like Gays are asking to be treated special.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
That is one of the most asinine things you have said on this forum.
Banning gays from getting married IS treating them special - in a negative way.
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
Trolls Against McCain
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I hold with those of the minority opinion that government should have nothing to do with marriage period.
Marriage, in my opinion, is a religious institution. You will invariably find a church somewhere willing to bind two of anybody or anything together under the watch of one or more divinities.
Civil Unions should be available to all adults of either sex who wish to bind together under a legal economic construct.
And thus, I would dissolve marriage as a legal construct, and apply Civil Unions to everybody. No Christians need object, as God and Government deserve a divorce in this country, and it has already been strongly declared that 'Civil Unions are the same as Marriage.'
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You can "declare" them to be the same all you want, but legally, they are NOT. And just saying so doesn't make it so.
and it has already been strongly declared that 'Civil Unions are the same as Marriage.
Now, if what you're proposing is a wholesale change in law at the Federal and State level to make "civil unions" the equivalent of marriage, that's a different story. But that's what if would take.
Frem, a "marriage" is a contract. The advantage of marriage is that the contract is recognized wherever you go.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME