|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 18, 2008 19:10:59 GMT -5
wow, whrere to begin.....this may take a while: TNG, geez yourself! Like that wasn't a predictable response. well, you should know me by now. now that i've stopped laughing uncontrollably.....that would really shock the piss out of me but i really don't believe people just "wake up gay." i wouldn't think i had a mental illness but i would think i was different, not normal. gays are far from shunned in today's society. they are almost exalted. everywhere you go you find services catering to gays. discounts for gay travel, gay only parties, gay only clubs, gay only this and that. hollywood places gays high on a pedestal. come on, gays are not shunned. the only way they are having children is thru adoption or turkey baster. as for your comments about the social benefits of marriage, crossride did a great job of responding to those for me. that's very nice of you. so do i. i put myself in the shoes of people who don't have a costco membership card and i think since i'm not a member i should NOT get those benefits that members do. know whut ah mean??? marriage, as sanction by gov't is designed to further the natural union of man and woman and to promote the FAMILY. steve and steve, no matter how much they love each other, cannot make a baby. [/color] [/quote] funny you should mention God. can you tell us his opinion on gay marriage? WWJS--what would Jesus say??? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 18, 2008 19:24:54 GMT -5
okay sally. now it's your turn:
no, lefties can do all the same things righties can do. that makes them a bit different but not incompatable or incapable of normality.
again, people of different colors are still people capable of doing normal things like mating. a man and a woman, regardless of skin tone can make babies. homosexuals, regardless of skin tone cannot.
you're gonna need to be a little more specific on this one. what is that supposed to mean?
women who wear pants are just as capable as women in dresses. your really reaching now.
my point, in case you haven't noticed is that people's skin color, clothing, gender, and sexual preference have no bearing on their abilities to do all the things you have listed here. the one thing homosexuality does affect is their ability to procreate.
if gays want to play hide the sausage in the bedroom, great. have at it. but marriage, the union of man and woman with the intent purpose of creating a family and promoting survival of the species is sacred. why can't we have that to ourselves?
|
|
|
|
Post by jbfrenchhorn on Jul 19, 2008 2:20:13 GMT -5
We already voted NO on gay marriage before. Then the court overruled us. We will vote NO again, the media loves gays (tons of gays work in it, that's why. The media also loves Obama, and all Dems as well). I'm sure the left will find a way to take it to court again and overrule the vote of the people. But I will still vote NO on prop 8 in November. www.protectmarriage.com/howtohelp.phpSo you meant you will vote YES on 8, right? |
|
|
|
Post by jbfrenchhorn on Jul 19, 2008 2:37:55 GMT -5
TNG, geez yourself! Like that wasn't a predictable response. Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and "poof" you're gay! Now, lets' pretend your family told you to seek counseling because you have a mental illness, but no matter what you do to become "normal" you’re still GAY. You still have all of the same values, and desires in life that you did prior and the only difference is you prefer someone of the same sex. Does that mean now somehow your life should be worth less, or you should be shunned socially and legally? And, if so why? If people are in committed relationships, and have children I think the legal benefits of marriage are important, well, unless you don't mind footing the bill when some of those partners without legal/financial protection seek financial aid. ...................... Before I shun others (people that don't hurt others etc) I take a moment to try and place myself in their shoes.
There but for the grace of god go I...OK, JustMyOpinion, here's what I think. Gay people are not being shunned legally and socially any more than I am being shunned legally and socially in my unmarried state. Just because there is a rule that only people of the opposite sex can marry doesn't mean that gay people are being socially shunned. There are already multiple laws that tell who I can and cannot marry. I cannot marry my first cousin or any other close relative even if I want to do so. I cannot marry multiple people even if I happen to have a polygamous sexual orientation. Even if I wanted to do one of these things, I would be prevented from doing so. And I would not be being socially or legally shunned. We have certain laws regarding what can and cannot be done. Marriage has for ages been between one man and one woman. That is what marriage is. (Of course, my ultimate argument against gay marriage would come not from tradition but from the Bible. But I will talk about that some other time.) One more thing: Just the fact that homosexuals have a tendency toward a certain type of behavior, or that they prefer that type of behavior, does not make it right. And it does not mean society should change the rules to help accommodate that behavior. There are many laws (and not just marriage laws) that prohibit a behavior or that give preference to a certain behavior. Just the fact that I feel like acting in a different way does not mean we should change the laws. |
|
|
|
Post by jbfrenchhorn on Jul 19, 2008 2:56:00 GMT -5
you're gonna need to be a little more specific on this one. what is that supposed to mean? Maybe it has something to do with the line of reasoning that if animals have emotions, they can love just like people can. Therefore, if a person and an animal love each other, they can have a relationship that is identical to that which two people have. Therefore people and animals should be able to co-marry. JK. I know that's not what she meant. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 19, 2008 12:29:50 GMT -5
i can see it now...........marriage licenses that read:
life form A and life form B or
organism A and organism B or
creature A and creature B
and eventually, party A, party B, C, D, E, and F.
|
|
|
|
Post by jbfrenchhorn on Jul 19, 2008 13:17:29 GMT -5
And finally, it will be Thing A and Thing B.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Jul 20, 2008 13:49:19 GMT -5
How I vote on Prop 8 will be my own choice. I find it troubling when appointed judges go against the will of the people and regulate laws according to their own personal views. The California Supreme Court ruling was based on a 4-3 vote. (We had a similar problem when Prop 187 was over turned by a liberal judge on the 9th Circuit Court) The People of California voted by over a 60% margin to define Marriage as between a man and a woman. The court over ruled this vote. Again, the voters will go to the polls to decide whether to: "add a new constitutional amendment to the California Constitution that will have exactly the following text: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." I for one am in support of this going to a vote only because it gives the People of California (not partisan judges) the power to decide whether this state will allow same sex marriages. In November, the people will decide. _____________________________ Just for those keeping score: [Shortly after Prop. 8 qualified for the fall ballot, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain aligned themselves on opposite sides of the issue, with Obama opposing and McCain supporting it. A reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle described this as "a move that puts gay rights front and center in the 2008 presidential campaign". Obama's statement on the matter said that he opposes "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution", while McCain told the group that worked to put the measure on the ballot that he agrees with their idea of recognizing "marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman."] To add a further twist: [Obama is skating gingerly past his previous position on the issue. The Illinois senator has said repeatedly that he believes marriage should only be between man and a woman. When the California Supreme Court overturned the state's ban on same-sex marriage in May, Obama released a carefully nuanced statement saying he respected the court's decision, believed states should make their own decisions on marriage and "will continue to fight for civil unions as President."] www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/BA8J11I4S1.DTL&tsp=1/So which is it Barry? Do you support Same Sex Marriages or Civil Unions? Sen. Obama: “"I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman. If I was President, however, I would oppose any effort to stifle a state's ability to decide this question on its own. Whether it was a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or a bill like the Defense of Marriage Act, I would oppose such efforts. I think the President should do all he or she can to advance strong families. Whatever the make-up of the family, it is the President's role to provide policies and leadership that enable the family to thrive.” www.adventuresinurbanliving.net/2008/07/obama-opposes-same-sex-marriage.htmla4.g.akamai.net/f/4/19675/0/newmill.download.akamai.com/19677/anon.newmediamill/pdfs/obama.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 20, 2008 13:50:40 GMT -5
There are a few reasons why I support gay marriage:
1) It has made a lot of money for the struggling State of California.
2) It doesn't threaten the sanctity of my marriage.
3) I am not religious.
4) It makes people happy and does no harm to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 20, 2008 14:01:03 GMT -5
the same could be said for legalized gambling a la las vegas. why can't we have that in california?
prostitution could also make lots of money for the struggling state. let's legalize it. it hurts no one and it makes people happy.
illicit drug sales could be made legal also and taxed like cigarettes. that would make a ton of money for california. let's do it!
come on, santurelle. based on your "making money" reasoning these should all be viable options, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 20, 2008 14:09:54 GMT -5
Gambling, prostitution, and drugs have been linked to increased levels of violent crime so it is not fair to lump gay marriage in with those more dangerous activities.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossride on Jul 20, 2008 14:36:22 GMT -5
There are a few reasons why I support gay marriage: 1) It has made a lot of money for the struggling State of California. 2) It doesn't threaten the sanctity of my marriage. 3) I am not religious. 4) It makes people happy and does no harm to anyone. Saunterelle: How does gay marriage make a lot of money for the state? I can't see it myself but I'm sure you can support that claim. Educate me, please. I do think it threatens the sanctity of your marriage. As the "classes" of people who can be married expands, it waters down what it means. No one will care if you are married because.. well, any two people can do that now. Just don't be surprised if another "special interest" tries to legalize marrige for themselves soon. Besides, "sanctity" is a religious word, and although my above thought is more about the social aspects, I think its easier to understand the religious based reasons it threatens the sanctity of marriage, and I can see that even though I'm not religious either. Which brings me to wondering how you can be "not religious" but claim the "sanctity" of your marriage. Were you religious when you got married? |
|
TNG, geez yourself! Like that wasn't a predictable response. well, you should know me by now. 
