If you could...
Has anyone ever heard of seperation of church and state? If marriage is soooo religious get the government the f*** out of it. If it's something the government is involved in saying who can and who can't, then get the religous the f*** out of it!
I think everyone should have the right to marry. There was a time when black people couldn't marry white people and that was evidently a "religous" issue as well. When i hear people say things like civil union and take a general stance against gay marriage they can never recover most of heir respect in my eyes.
I think everyone should have the right to marry. There was a time when black people couldn't marry white people and that was evidently a "religous" issue as well. When i hear people say things like civil union and take a general stance against gay marriage they can never recover most of heir respect in my eyes.
Putting the P in Pweb since 2001
- Wil
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
- Title: Not the mama!
- Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Derwyddon: Some people believe in a thing called COMPROMISING. Maybe you've heard of it? It's where two groups of people with two different ideals meet in the middle so an agreement can be made and both sides are happy?
A "Civil Union" is that very thing.. a compromise for both sides. See, you can take the religion out of the government but you can't take the religion out of the people that make up our government. As Bean said, religion and religious people would get mad if marriage because civil union, or if a civil union between two gay people were to become marriage. So, it's between them and your group. You're just as bad as the other side with that attitude, to be honest.
In an ideal world, civil union would encompass EVERYONE and marriage would only be used where you are (er..) civilially unioned?.. by a priest or within the church. World is not ideal. You're right, however, that the black-white marriage is pretty damn comparable to this. If you'll notice, many more of today's youth are a lot more accepting of same-sex couples. Soon enough I'm sure it'll be acceptable. Until then, people need to stop being so stubborn and bitchy.
A "Civil Union" is that very thing.. a compromise for both sides. See, you can take the religion out of the government but you can't take the religion out of the people that make up our government. As Bean said, religion and religious people would get mad if marriage because civil union, or if a civil union between two gay people were to become marriage. So, it's between them and your group. You're just as bad as the other side with that attitude, to be honest.
In an ideal world, civil union would encompass EVERYONE and marriage would only be used where you are (er..) civilially unioned?.. by a priest or within the church. World is not ideal. You're right, however, that the black-white marriage is pretty damn comparable to this. If you'll notice, many more of today's youth are a lot more accepting of same-sex couples. Soon enough I'm sure it'll be acceptable. Until then, people need to stop being so stubborn and bitchy.
Don't talk down to me about compromise, a civil union is not a compromise. It's tossing a bone to the dogs. A civil union is not equal rights, and is insulting.
What if they told you because of your heritage or something about you that you can't control that you can't get married, that's not for you. Instead, you can have a civil union now leave us alone. The only people who think civil unions are okay are the people who would never need one. They don't want "those gays" getting married, that would just be disgusting.
Yes, I will always be stubborn and bitchy about this subject. Just as you would be if they were telling you that you couldn't have basic rights under the government because you are who are.
(and ps. if marriage is so religous, please tell me why atheists are allowed to marry? if this is the reason for denying gay marriage, then why don't we have to fill out declarations of religion when we go get a f****** marriage license from the STATE GOVERNMENT who is supposed to be non religous?? and if its SO religous, why does again the federal law say we can only marry one person which is against the relgious beliefs of many immigrants from places like africa [not talking about the crazy cults])
What if they told you because of your heritage or something about you that you can't control that you can't get married, that's not for you. Instead, you can have a civil union now leave us alone. The only people who think civil unions are okay are the people who would never need one. They don't want "those gays" getting married, that would just be disgusting.
Yes, I will always be stubborn and bitchy about this subject. Just as you would be if they were telling you that you couldn't have basic rights under the government because you are who are.
(and ps. if marriage is so religous, please tell me why atheists are allowed to marry? if this is the reason for denying gay marriage, then why don't we have to fill out declarations of religion when we go get a f****** marriage license from the STATE GOVERNMENT who is supposed to be non religous?? and if its SO religous, why does again the federal law say we can only marry one person which is against the relgious beliefs of many immigrants from places like africa [not talking about the crazy cults])
Putting the P in Pweb since 2001
I'm going to start here with one of my favourite "bitchy" and "stubborn" quotes of all time:
Now, Seeing as both these sides have EQUALLY extreme positions, neither can be right! So why don't we compromise?
I've got another one, some people say that 2+2 is four, others say it's eleven. Now these are both SCARILY extreme positions! Why can't we just agree to compromise on seven?
Or another? Some people say slavery is wrong, some people say it's a natural fact of life. Why do these EXTREMISTS dominate the conversation?? Can't we just compromise on an equal number of slave and free states?
If people hadn't be 'stubborn' and 'bitchy' this world would be a pretty s***** place to live and in my opinion there's still a whole lot to be bitchy about. Of course people are always going to find the middle most reasonable, but if all the bitchy people gave up and let wonderful wonderful moderation rule, then the middle doesn't move at all. The successful changes have been those that were stubborn and fought hard to move where that middle was.The world needs more "bitchy" and "stubborn" people and If you're not going to be one of them that's fine, but don't sit there and feel like you're better than them because you've got your precious, precious moderation.
Wil, you've neatly pinpointed the exact problem of people who think Civil Unions are a good idea, it's another example of the stupid and just plain wrong notion that compromise and moderation is ALWAYS the best option. Here we have one group saying that gay couples should be given the same rights and protections as straight ones, and we have another group saying that doing so would cause the end of society as we know it and possibly the end of the world...you know just like they have about every progressive social change of the last century."I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD."
—William Lloyd Garrison, inaugural editorial in the anti-slavery journal The Liberator, 1 January 1831
Now, Seeing as both these sides have EQUALLY extreme positions, neither can be right! So why don't we compromise?
I've got another one, some people say that 2+2 is four, others say it's eleven. Now these are both SCARILY extreme positions! Why can't we just agree to compromise on seven?
Or another? Some people say slavery is wrong, some people say it's a natural fact of life. Why do these EXTREMISTS dominate the conversation?? Can't we just compromise on an equal number of slave and free states?
If people hadn't be 'stubborn' and 'bitchy' this world would be a pretty s***** place to live and in my opinion there's still a whole lot to be bitchy about. Of course people are always going to find the middle most reasonable, but if all the bitchy people gave up and let wonderful wonderful moderation rule, then the middle doesn't move at all. The successful changes have been those that were stubborn and fought hard to move where that middle was.The world needs more "bitchy" and "stubborn" people and If you're not going to be one of them that's fine, but don't sit there and feel like you're better than them because you've got your precious, precious moderation.
Yebra: A cross between a zebra and something that fancied a zebra.
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
- Title: Stayin' Alive
- First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
- Location: Evansville, IN
Baby steps. You may think it's a no-brainer, but they obviously think you're either evil or simply insane. "Civil unions" are better than nothing at all and it gets your foot in the door. Take it for now and let a generation that's grown up with gays getting more or less married bicker over the wording.
The enemy's fly is down.
- Olhado_
- Soldier
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:16 pm
- Title: Just Another Chris
- Location: Titusville, FL
- Contact:
Since this topic has turned into a debate on gay marriage or civil unions or whatever you want to call it I do not mind commenting on that.
I have to say I am for same-sex unions. I call them unions (short for civil unions) because it is all about semantics. Marriage just has too much hidden connotation, in the language (not the law), of being a union between two people in the eyes of a higher power. This is one reason I think many people become sickened, when they here the phase "same-sex marriage" because they hear "marriage" and think white dress and walking down the aisle, where the spokesperson of that religion recites their rites. It is the same way how the word "gay" use to mean "a cheery person"; but now almost entirely means homosexual (except for a few smartass' myself included ).
I say this as someone who considers themselves a liberal; but also someone who considers themselves religious. I am ok with seeing two people getting married via the Justice of the Peace, ONLY. Yet, I will feel uncomfortable if I ever see two people of the same sex getting married by walking down the aisle, in the building I call my church.
In short, call it whatever you want, "marriage" or "civil unions"; but I - presently - only ever want to see two people of the same sex married under the eyes of the government, not my personal god.
I have to say I am for same-sex unions. I call them unions (short for civil unions) because it is all about semantics. Marriage just has too much hidden connotation, in the language (not the law), of being a union between two people in the eyes of a higher power. This is one reason I think many people become sickened, when they here the phase "same-sex marriage" because they hear "marriage" and think white dress and walking down the aisle, where the spokesperson of that religion recites their rites. It is the same way how the word "gay" use to mean "a cheery person"; but now almost entirely means homosexual (except for a few smartass' myself included ).
I say this as someone who considers themselves a liberal; but also someone who considers themselves religious. I am ok with seeing two people getting married via the Justice of the Peace, ONLY. Yet, I will feel uncomfortable if I ever see two people of the same sex getting married by walking down the aisle, in the building I call my church.
In short, call it whatever you want, "marriage" or "civil unions"; but I - presently - only ever want to see two people of the same sex married under the eyes of the government, not my personal god.
Not
Even
Remotely
Dorky
Professor Frink
-The Simpsions
Even
Remotely
Dorky
Professor Frink
-The Simpsions
- Wil
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
- Title: Not the mama!
- Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
What he said.Baby steps. You may think it's a no-brainer, but they obviously think you're either evil or simply insane. "Civil unions" are better than nothing at all and it gets your foot in the door. Take it for now and let a generation that's grown up with gays getting more or less married bicker over the wording.
Srsly guiez.
Oh, and civil unions get gay people the exact same treatment as a married couple under the law. To not piss off any religion fanatics and get it past the religious within the government they simply name it differently. Maybe one day it'll be how it should! But, would you rather wait a generation (because you're not getting anything past those old, grumpy, stuck-in-their-ways politicians) or get something MUCH MORE FAIR NOW, and then continue to argue your point and have it refined later?
Also: my stubborn and bitchy comment. Good for them! I agree that if people hadn't been that way the world would be different. The thing is, though, that when you have two groups of people (right, left) being as stubborn as they are, nothing gets done and then it leads to bitchy people. Compromise is good! It means both sides get something they wanted, which automatically reduces the bitchiness, and then it leaves them to fight another day where they can both reach another compromise or agreement!
It's not like one day blacks were just suddenly being treated exactly as whites in the 1800 and 1900's. It was a process. A long process that eventually lead to a black man having a real chance at running this country. Change usually isn't made in one huge leap without war.
Bullshit. Let's just go with US figures here, Marriage: 1,400+ state and federal rights, Civil Unions: 300+ state benefits and protections, no federal benefits, no recognition outside certain states.
Oh, and civil unions get gay people the exact same treatment as a married couple under the law.
Let's do examples: Civil Unions are only recognized in certain states and hence vanish at the state line. They are not recognized by the federal government so goodbye tax breaks and joint-returns (this also includes a lack of Social Security and veteran benefit payments upon the death of a spouse). Medical visitation rights may not accepted out of state.
Unlike marriage, in a civil union large gifts and transfers between partners are subject to a federal tax. An American with a non-American spouse can sponsor them for immigration, no such joy for civil unions. Medical plans that would cover spouses rarely also cover civil unions. Go google if you want more.
Civil Unions are more than just a semantic difference, there is an real and important difference between the two. Accepting current Civil Unions over marriage wouldn't be so much a compromise as a capitulation.
Last edited by Yebra on Sat May 03, 2008 3:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yebra: A cross between a zebra and something that fancied a zebra.
- Wil
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
- Title: Not the mama!
- Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Current Civil Unions in the United States are a joke. I was talking about national Civil Unions, mostly in other countries. If you look up you'll see that I said that the only reason people should argue against a Civil Union is if they're being low-balled. Arguing against the wording is just an idiotic thing to do.
Well marriage also has fairly recent roots as something that only happens with someone of your own race, something that regards woman as property and really not that long as something that married off young ladies to a fair deal older men. We have been really flexible in redefining marriage in the past, I see no reason why this one is an impossible hurdle.I have to say I am for same-sex unions. I call them unions (short for civil unions) because it is all about semantics. Marriage just has too much hidden connotation, in the language (not the law), of being a union between two people in the eyes of a higher power.
I don't think it's the 'marriage' part of 'same sex marriage' that has some people "sickened".This is one reason I think many people become sickened, when they here the phase "same-sex marriage" because they hear "marriage" and think white dress and walking down the aisle, where the spokesperson of that religion recites their rites. It is the same way how the word "gay" use to mean "a cheery person"; but now almost entirely means homosexual (except for a few smartass' myself included ).
I really wish I believed sometimes- it's really annoying having to come up with reasons to feel uncomfortable around various "people", it'd be so much easier if I had a god to blame for it.I say this as someone who considers themselves a liberal; but also someone who considers themselves religious. I am ok with seeing two people getting married via the Justice of the Peace, ONLY. Yet, I will feel uncomfortable if I ever see two people of the same sex getting married by walking down the aisle, in the building I call my church.
In short, call it whatever you want, "marriage" or "civil unions"; but I - presently - only ever want to see two people of the same sex married under the eyes of the government, not my personal god.
Yes they are.Current Civil Unions in the United States are a joke.
You really weren't. Here's what silly about this whole thing, it'd not like those opposed are stupid: They know a civil union is the same thing. In 13 states there are prohibitions against gay marriage written into the constitution, and most of those cover civil unions at the same time. Talking about 'Civil Unions' instead of 'Marriage' isn't going to make a lot of difference, the common factor here IS THEY DON'T LIKE GAY PEOPLE.I was talking about national Civil Unions, mostly in other countries.
How's that relevant to what you've been saying? If I'm to accept your retcon of your previous statements, you've been arguing for a perfect version of Civil Unions, which are exactly the same as marriage.... but called something different so the bigots don't notice. Those opposing know that Civil Unions are a stepping stone to gay marriage, they literally wrote the book on the "wedge strategy", they have been and will continue to oppose Civil Unions every step of the way. Perfect Civil Unions are almost exactly as hard to bring about as gay marriage whilst at the same time further developing a system that for a long time would treat gays as second class citizens.
Remember, the original purpose of this thread was "let's pretend". Why on earth in this make believe world are you arguing for a segregated system?
No, you never said that. [EDIT: So it turns out he did, that's embarrassing]If you look up you'll see that I said that the only reason people should argue against a Civil Union is if they're being low-balled.
Yes, yes it is.Arguing against the wording is just an idiotic thing to do.
Last edited by Yebra on Sat May 03, 2008 4:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Yebra: A cross between a zebra and something that fancied a zebra.
- Wil
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
- Title: Not the mama!
- Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
Yes, yes I did.Yeah, I see where you are coming from. Then again, I see no reason why two people of the same sex can't say they're married even if the law calls it a 'civil union'.
I'd hope the reason gay couples would oppose the idea of a civil union is because they're being more legally 'low-balled' than a married couple rather than them just trying to force the word 'marriage' upon the law. I believe it is their right to have the same governmental perks of a married couple, however calling it marriage is just going to grind against a lot of people and cause more problems than solve. Those that wish it to be called marriage and have no real interest in it simply being a governmental thing are really being closed-minded and stubborn.
I do agree with you, however, that those not married within a church should also be considered to be within a civil union. It would be the most fair, and it would be ideal. However, that's not likely to happen, and then you'd just have stubborn people from the opposite side in opposition.
Wouldn't passing a law nationally to allow two people of the same sex to get married or "civilally unioned" (there has GOT to be a better way to say that!) overrule state based laws? They should.
Gorram it!Yes, yes I did.Yeah, I see where you are coming from. Then again, I see no reason why two people of the same sex can't say they're married even if the law calls it a 'civil union'.
I'd hope the reason gay couples would oppose the idea of a civil union is because they're being more legally 'low-balled' than a married couple rather than them just trying to force the word 'marriage' upon the law. I believe it is their right to have the same governmental perks of a married couple, however calling it marriage is just going to grind against a lot of people and cause more problems than solve. Those that wish it to be called marriage and have no real interest in it simply being a governmental thing are really being closed-minded and stubborn.
I do agree with you, however, that those not married within a church should also be considered to be within a civil union. It would be the most fair, and it would be ideal. However, that's not likely to happen, and then you'd just have stubborn people from the opposite side in opposition.
Yebra: A cross between a zebra and something that fancied a zebra.
- Olhado_
- Soldier
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:16 pm
- Title: Just Another Chris
- Location: Titusville, FL
- Contact:
That is just because the act of two people, who are the same sex, pledging to spend the rest of their lives together is not acceptable to the federal government and to certain states. If it was, then what it is called will be a moot point, civil unions and marriages will be identical, in the eyes of the government.
Let's do examples: Civil Unions are only recognized in certain states and hence vanish at the state line. They are not recognized by the federal government so goodbye tax breaks and joint-returns (this also includes a lack of Social Security and veteran benefit payments upon the death of a spouse). Medical visitation rights may not accepted out of state.
Unlike marriage, in a civil union large gifts and transfers between partners are subject to a federal tax. An American with a non-American spouse can sponsor them for immigration, no such joy for civil unions. Medical plans that would cover spouses rarely also cover civil unions. Go google if you want more.
Again, I think it should be recognize by the federal government and all states.
I really wish I believed sometimes- it's really annoying having to come up with reasons to feel uncomfortable around various "people", it'd be so much easier if I had a god to blame for it.
You make me out to be some sort of monster and religious fascist if I was, then I would be completely against same sex relationships. I do not care who loves who and who recognizes it. This goes for governments and religion. It is just my religion does not.
It was not long ago, when I was known around here as a god-less liberal.
Not
Even
Remotely
Dorky
Professor Frink
-The Simpsions
Even
Remotely
Dorky
Professor Frink
-The Simpsions
I don't think I made you out to be monster, I've just always found something faintly amusing about liberals that naturally don't have any personal problems with same sex relations... but worship a god that does. That's probably a matter for another thread though.You make me out to be some sort of monster and religious fascist if I was, then I would be completely against same sex relationships. I do not care who loves who and who recognizes it. This goes for governments and religion. It is just my religion does not.
It was not long ago, when I was known around here as a god-less liberal.
Yebra: A cross between a zebra and something that fancied a zebra.
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 2539
- Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 12:11 pm
- Title: Stayin' Alive
- First Joined: 17 Aug 2002
- Location: Evansville, IN
- Syphon the Sun
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2218
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
- Title: Ozymandias
Mmmm, I love the smell of ad hominems in the morning.Hey wil, if everytime you talk people find horrible fault with your logic and general rational, maybe its you and not them. just a thought
For the record, I understood Wil perfectly. It's really not his fault if someone doesn't actually read his post and then pretends that he said something entirely different. Really, I swear. But, I figured that much was settled when, you know, he quoted the exact line that he was accused of not saying.
On the gay marriage issue: I don't care. I'm a libertarian, so I think that if two members of the same sex should wish to be granted a legal contract binding them under a law by a State, then by all means, let them have it.
I do have a problem with the claim that gay people are being denied legal rights that straight people are afforded, but I've been over that countless times in the past and don't feel like digging up that horse just to beat it, right now.
As far as a federal law regarding same-sex marriage goes, our federalist system was designed to allow the states to retain significant power. Education, police enforcement, marriage, etc. were all strictly in the reign of the States for most of our history. Recently, the 14th Amendment has been used to justify the federal government taking more and more power away from the states. I'm not a big fan of that.
The DoMA is a federal law (created in 1996) that acknowledges that the right to restrict marriages (for a number of reasons) is retained by the state. And, if my reading of McCulloch v. Maryland is up-to-snuff, the state's actions may not impede the federal government's constitutional exercise of power. The federal government, unless an Amendment is passed, holds no real constitutional power to override the state's individual decisions on the matter.
-
- Commander
- Posts: 8017
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:32 pm
- Title: Ewok in Tauntaun-land
I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but can I just say I never understood your take on that? I still do not understand how you can think a gay person's ability to marry someone of the opposite sex for legal rights they should get when marrying a person of the same sex really equals a straight person's ability to marry another straight person and all that comes with that. One gets to marry someone out of love and the other gets to marry out of convenience (not to say straight couples don't marry for convenience, I'm just generalizing to make a point). It's really not the point that they can marry if they choose to; it's that they can't marry who they want.I do have a problem with the claim that gay people are being denied legal rights that straight people are afforded, but I've been over that countless times in the past and don't feel like digging up that horse just to beat it, right now.
Don't feel like you have to spell it out for me, now or later, because I'll bitch slap you if you talk down to me for refusing to agree that technicalities actually mean anything in this case.
I'm just expressing some confusion on my part.
Se paciente y duro; algún día este dolor te será útil.
-
- Commander
- Posts: 2741
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
- Title: 01111010 01100111
- First Joined: 0- 8-2001
- Location: Where you least expect me.
- Contact:
Isn't tobacco chemically addictive, whereas marijuana and milk are not?The fact of the matter is this: pinning the "gateway drug" label on tobacco is at least as silly as pinning it on marijuana (or milk).
How is the idea of enacting civil unions in general somehow against the LBG crowd? If you got rid of marriages in the legal system and replaced it entirely with civil unions, would you be against that?When i hear people say things like civil union and take a general stance against gay marriage they can never recover most of heir respect in my eyes.
I remember this argument, though I thought it was with someone else... At the time, it was rather confusing, because everyone else in the thread was talking about something else (a different definition of "a right"), and one person was arguing for something else without clarifying. Er, ahem.I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but can I just say I never understood your take on that?I do have a problem with the claim that gay people are being denied legal rights that straight people are afforded, but I've been over that countless times in the past and don't feel like digging up that horse just to beat it, right now.
As I recall, he agreed that it was certainly discriminatory, just not in the legal sense. That is, there is no legal right to "marry whomever you want", so there can be no revocation of that right. The only confusion I had after understanding this was why anybody cares; it's still wrong either way.It's really not the point that they can marry if they choose to; it's that they can't marry who they want.
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.
dgf hhw
dgf hhw
- Syphon the Sun
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2218
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
- Title: Ozymandias
Except, not so much. That discussion, if you recall, stemmed from the claim that homosexuals were being denied the same legal rights afforded to heterosexuals, and as such, homosexuals were having their Fourteenth Amendment rights trampled upon.I remember this argument, though I thought it was with someone else... At the time, it was rather confusing, because everyone else in the thread was talking about something else (a different definition of "a right"), and one person was arguing for something else without clarifying. Er, ahem.
Two of us had been discussing the legal issue of rights, then, when others (Steve, Jota, et al) decided the argument should be something else. It wasn't that I wasn't clear in my stance, nor that I was off arguing something that nobody else was talking about. It was those who came later that changed the focus of the discussion, issuing that as a kind of rebuttal. Really. I've got the thread saved. PM me and I'll e-mail you the file, if you want it.
I cared because it was a discussion of legal rights, when I entered it. The fact that it then changed into something else doesn't negate that. And, yes, I noted that it was discriminatory (not in the legal sense), just as any restriction on marriage is.As I recall, he agreed that it was certainly discriminatory, just not in the legal sense. That is, there is no legal right to "marry whomever you want", so there can be no revocation of that right. The only confusion I had after understanding this was why anybody cares; it's still wrong either way.
- Syphon the Sun
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2218
- Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
- Title: Ozymandias
It's a matter of everyone being granted the same rights, with the same restrictions. I can't marry my brother, or my mother, but I'm not being denied a right that is afforded to other individuals.I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but can I just say I never understood your take on that? I still do not understand how you can think a gay person's ability to marry someone of the opposite sex for legal rights they should get when marrying a person of the same sex really equals a straight person's ability to marry another straight person and all that comes with that.
And I never touched the topic of "should." As a libertarian, I'm all for gay couples entering legal contracts. I do not, however, believe that they're going about it the right way (court circuits, rather than legislatures), nor do I believe that their legal argument holds any weight. I'm fine with them wanting new rights; I'm not fine with them trying to manipulate the legal system to get them. I've never liked legislation by gavel.
Which is a fine argument for pushing for new rights (or for less limitations, I suppose). But not for the idea that they're being denied something that already exists.It's really not the point that they can marry if they choose to; it's that they can't marry who they want.
If the gays get marries good for them but as long as i dont have anything to do with it.But they have my vote anyway.
Can the moderators change the number of posts you have because i would like to do an experiment and if suddenly my posts go to 10,000 I think the mods should be abel to change it back to what ever it was.
Can the moderators change the number of posts you have because i would like to do an experiment and if suddenly my posts go to 10,000 I think the mods should be abel to change it back to what ever it was.
Never go to bed angry....
Stay up and plot your revenge.
Stay up and plot your revenge.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:48 pm
- Title: Actually, I'm Fred (and a monster)
- First Joined: 16 Mar 2004
- Location: Singing on Krikkit.
- Contact:
I'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing at this post.If the gays get marries good for them but as long as i dont have anything to do with it.But they have my vote anyway.
Can the moderators change the number of posts you have because i would like to do an experiment and if suddenly my posts go to 10,000 I think the mods should be abel to change it back to what ever it was.
Member since March 16th, 2004.
And there will come a time, you'll see, with no more tears.
And love will not break your heart, but dismiss your fears.
Get over your hill and see what you find there,
With grace in your heart and flowers in your hair.
And there will come a time, you'll see, with no more tears.
And love will not break your heart, but dismiss your fears.
Get over your hill and see what you find there,
With grace in your heart and flowers in your hair.
-
- Commander
- Posts: 2741
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:29 pm
- Title: 01111010 01100111
- First Joined: 0- 8-2001
- Location: Where you least expect me.
- Contact:
Please do (although I shudder to think of reading my own old posts...). Wasn't I one of those who you said was debating with you about the legal rights?Two of us had been discussing the legal issue of rights, then, when others (Steve, Jota, et al) decided the argument should be something else. It wasn't that I wasn't clear in my stance, nor that I was off arguing something that nobody else was talking about. It was those who came later that changed the focus of the discussion, issuing that as a kind of rebuttal. Really. I've got the thread saved. PM me and I'll e-mail you the file, if you want it.
Proud member of the Canadian Alliance.
dgf hhw
dgf hhw
Just wondering what was so funnyI'm sorry, but I can't stop laughing at this post.If the gays get marries good for them but as long as i dont have anything to do with it.But they have my vote anyway.
Can the moderators change the number of posts you have because i would like to do an experiment and if suddenly my posts go to 10,000 I think the mods should be abel to change it back to what ever it was.
Never go to bed angry....
Stay up and plot your revenge.
Stay up and plot your revenge.
-
- Commander
- Posts: 8017
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:32 pm
- Title: Ewok in Tauntaun-land
3nder...you are the embodiment of the Chewbacca defense; you don't make sense.
Se paciente y duro; algún día este dolor te será útil.
-
- Speaker for the Dead
- Posts: 4027
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:32 pm
- Title: Queen Ducky
- First Joined: 25 Feb 2002
- Location: The Far East (of Canada)
No and No.
Can the moderators change the number of posts you have because i would like to do an experiment and if suddenly my posts go to 10,000 I think the mods should be abel to change it back to what ever it was.
And stop triple posting.
One Duck to rule them all.
--------------------------------
It needs to be about 20% cooler.
--------------------------------
It needs to be about 20% cooler.
- Wil
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1373
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:07 pm
- Title: Not the mama!
- Location: 36° 11' 39" N, 115° 13' 19" W
He was trying to use a script that would cause him to post that many posts on the forum. Or, that's what I got from it. Thus the triple post because it failed.No and No.
Can the moderators change the number of posts you have because i would like to do an experiment and if suddenly my posts go to 10,000 I think the mods should be abel to change it back to what ever it was.
And stop triple posting.
Return to “Milagre Town Square”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 2 guests