|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
But it's too simple, as I have said before. Get the government out of the business of "marriage." This is the argument f a petulant child who won't let others play with his football if he can't make all the rules. It amounts to little more than "Screw you guys, I'm going home!". Trying to expunge marriage from legislation would involve descending into a world of ridiculous double-speak, where we have to refer to an arrangement which is clearly a marriage as a "civil partnership" or some such. It achieves nothing. Besides, it's never going to happen. Do you really think that Christians across America are going to stand for being told that the state will no longer recognise their wedding ceremonies? Its a pipe dream that serves no purpose.
Question for you Granny: Why isn't a CIVIL UNION between same sexes enough to make them happy? Because it's patronising."Civil Partnership" is a ridiculous euphemism. The implicit suggestion is that gay marriage can't be spoken of out loud, that it must exist under cover. It makes civil partnership a second-rate version of marriage. Homosexuals don't want pretend marriages; those have been around for years. What is required here is equality; genuine equality. Equal but separate is not equal. Mildred Loving died a couple of weeks ago, but it seems that the lessons of Loving v. Virginia have still not filtered through. Civil partnerships are unconstitutional in the US and I wish they were in the UK as well (I wish we actually had a constitution over here, but that's another argument...).
Answer: Because they want to push their agendas all the way up the noses of those straight sons-a-bitches. Wow. Did you actually watch the video that Taz posted at the start of this thread? Do you really think that the women in that tape were leaping about and crying and phoning all their friends because they had just been given license to annoy some Christians? Seriously? Do you really imagine that the whole gay marriage movement is aimed at irritating you? Are you insane? This much effort, just to annoy some bigots? Wouldn't it be simpler just to knock on their doors and run away leaving a bag of burning poop on their doorsteps? Do you think this is a game? This isn't motivated out of spite, but out of a genuine desire for equality. I'm still finding hard to tell whether you are really serious, because I'm finding it hard to believe that anybody other than IamJoseph could promote an argument this absurd and wrong-headed. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Gay bigotry is another word for in-your-face, same-sex french kissing on the ferry while you're commuting home from work at night. Bigotry by gays is done all the time to offend people for their out-of-the-closet pleasure. OH MY GOD! Hoot Mon has to WATCH MEN KISSING?! In public?! The horror! Well, that changes everything. Let's round gays up and put them in giant "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" camps, so that poor Hoot Mon isn't forced to witness any more such shocking scenes. Maybe we could allow a few gays to walk the streets, on the express condition that they don't kiss each other and that they wear little pink triangles to warn Hoot of their approach. It's the only way to defend Hoot Mon's delicate sensibilities. Hmmm... Does this only apply to men, or is it OK for women to kiss in public? Only if they're hot right? Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4745 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Hmmm... Does this only apply to men, or is it OK for women to kiss in public? Only if they're hot right? I am so ok with that that it's ridiculous. Kindly Ta-da ≠ QED
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
DrJones writes:
So is that a good thing? I've been married three times and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. And when gay marriage allowed you'll still have the same rights as them. Both you and a homosexual will have the right to marry a person of either sex. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz, what balls you have!
Black people already had every single right that white people had under the law. They could get married, just like any white person, to any member of their own race.
But they were slaves. They had a bigger problem to deal with, and it wasn't one of their choosing.
Jesus christ, hoot. Are you senile? Remember that long conversation we had about how a research group was able to "cure" animal homosexuals via hormonal and chemical treatments?
Not sure I do. Well, if therapeutic measures become available then the gays can get straightened out if they want to. It will be a clearer matter of choice for them. So why do our laws need to flex with their whims and free choices? Maybe we need to enact other laws guaranteeing other peoples' free choices, too, like the freedom to raise dogs for food. Some cultures allow it.
I asked you then if to you this was an indication of homosexuality being more than just choice and you admitted that you agreed that it was an indication that it had something to do with biology. Now, you're either a liar or just senile. Which is it?
Possibly senile. I'm old, you know. But I don't recall that discussion. Furthermore, why couldn't biology have something to do with choice? Which is it? I think it's probably biology, and it think it probably can be fixed. And if it can, then it's choice. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
GM writes:
Funny thing, Granny, but I've never seen a man stick his tongue down the throat of his wife while riding home on the Bremerton ferry. But I've seen men do that to each other, and even stick their hands down each other's pants and fumble around, just to entertain and insult the straight folks. And I've seen it more than once. Hmmm... Does this only apply to men, or is it OK for women to kiss in public? Only if they're hot right? Gosh, maybe they would behave most decently if we let them get married and have babies...oops, forget the babies. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
How long are you going to ignore this simple question?
quote: Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
subbie writes:
Only one, the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." there's really nothing particularly wrong with the way that the institution of marriage is a blend of religious and governmental consequences. You can get married by a judge or by a minister/priest/rabbi/etc. So what? What's the problem with that? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot writes:
Uh... I wasn't referring to the time before the Emancipation Proclamation.
But they were slaves. They had a bigger problem to deal with, and it wasn't one of their choosing. Not sure I do. Well, if therapeutic measures become available then the gays can get straightened out if they want to. It will be a clearer matter of choice for them. So why do our laws need to flex with their whims and free choices? Maybe we need to enact other laws guaranteeing other peoples' free choices, too, like the freedom to raise dogs for food. Some cultures allow it.
Again, are you senile? We also had a long discussion about this in which you also admitted after I pointed out that if a "cure" could be found for homosexuality then being straight is also a choice.
Possibly senile. I'm old, you know. But I don't recall that discussion. Furthermore, why couldn't biology have something to do with choice? Which is it? I think it's probably biology, and it think it probably can be fixed. And if it can, then it's choice.
Yup, I'd say you're senile. This is the only explanation to why you forgot a whole conversation and went back to your old misconceptions. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3321 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hoot writes:
I just find it interesting that the very people who are biggets opposers to gay marriage are also the very people that have gone through many marriages and divorces. Rush Limbaugh, for example, I think have lost count on how many marriages and divorces he's been through. All the while the gay couple I know who have been together for 15 years can't even get recognized by the law. So is that a good thing? I've been married three times and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
subbie writes:
subbie, for me the answer is simple: I don't see a good reason why the government should be in the business of marrying people. Let it do its job of granting civil unions to couples for their legal protection. Then let religion do its job and take care of marrying people. If the government doesn't discriminate against same-sex civil unions then who cares if the churches want to marry them? It's none of my busines because it's none of the government's business. And I don't see why the definition of marriage should end there, either. If Frank wants to marry his pooch in the privacy of his own home and out of my sight, I don't care. Why should I? It doesn't bother me. I only care what my government is in the business of doing. How long are you going to ignore this simple question?
quote: Why do you insist that the government should be in the marriage business. Tradition, perhap? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Taz writes:
Any children yet?
All the while the gay couple I know who have been together for 15 years can't even get recognized by the law.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Hoot Mon writes: I'll sum it this way: I believe gay couples should have all the legal rights that straight couples have in the area of state-sanctioned civil unions. Beyond the government's legal interests, "marriages" should be the exclusive domain of free enterprise. Just take the word "marriage" out of the law. Yes, this is the ideal you're hiding behind. But it's obvious that this isn't the forefront of your position. If this is what you were worried about... you'd do what you say. You'd be working on removing the word "marriage" from the law. But you're not doing that. You're here, in a gay-rights thread, arguing against gay rights. You're hiding behind what you think is a neutral cause. But it's not working. Your actions give you away. If getting the government out of the marriage business is your goal, then start acting like that's your goal. Once that's accomplished, and only once that's accomplished, can you actually argue your 'neutral ground' against gays getting married. Before then, like now, your anti-gay sentiments come across for exactly what they are: bigoted actions. You're not fooling anybody.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1284 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
For the third time in this thread alone, I'd accept your solution.
What you keep ignoring, as I and others have told you, is the practical fact that that's not going to happen in our society. It's a complete dodge for you to insist on one particular solution that you know full well will never happen and refuse to address the actual situation as it exists, and is likely to for at least the rest of our lifetimes. What's more, it's also dodging to refuse to answer the question that is actually posed by our real world:
quote: Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
subbie, come with me across the Heartland of America, from sea to shining sea, and let's visit every farmhouse together and ask those fine people one question: Mr. and Mrs. Jones, do you believe that the institution of marriage, "holy matrimony," would suffer if gays were allow to get married?" And then let's have a beer in New York and tally up the results. Any bets on what they might be?
This issue makes bigots out of a lot of good people. ”HM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024