Reply to Thread

Post a reply to the thread: Washington Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

Your Message

If you are already a member Click here to log in

What is 10 and 5 added together?

 

You may choose an icon for your message from this list

Additional Options

  • Will turn www.example.com into [URL]http://www.example.com[/URL].

Subscription

Topic Review (Newest First)

  • July 31st, 2006, 02:39 PM
    Front242
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Smalls
    loft & front,

    Those are some good points you have both made and I respect that. font, the name calling issue was not directed at you, I appologize that it came across like that. I am not asking you for facts vs. my opinion. I would value your opinion just as much as what you have posted above. There are many reasons, besides secular, that one would not like gay marriage. Some of my reasons I will not get into at all, and would hope you would try to understand and respect my position there. Other reasons, I don't know of why, honestly. Others I will get into in a second, but not before asking: Why is a secular reason for not wanting gay marriage invalid or discounted with almost every statement? A secular or religious belief is very valid. For many people religion is at the core of their very being and by asking them to ignore that is to tell them is to just be someone whom you are not and answer this question.
    This will also be my last statement on this issue.
    I respect your right to your opinion but the tone of your post seemed argumentative initially.
    As far as a civil rights issue, it becomes a civil rights issue when by law heterosexual marriages are given certain legal benifits over their non-married counterparts. This then moves marriage out of the relm of secular and into law (too late to turn back the clock). Our rights of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness are "Civil" rights. So if one chooses to marry someone of same gender that is of mutual consent, it compels the government to protect their rights.
    The tennents of the Constitution overide our rights to vote on an issue for the very reason of protection of the minority. thus to vote on an issue in which secular ideals are imposed on all impeeds the separation of church and state. This is why Churches are not compelled by law to recognize "legal" marriages. much like the Jewish faith and Catholic faith did not (or still does not) recognize people who are not "evenly yoked" (of like faith).
  • July 31st, 2006, 02:13 PM
    loftezy
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Smalls
    The complete and utter lack of understanding of civil rights and our constitution, both federal and state, is sickening. I respect some of the points made, but others are just downright dangerous and self-centered.
    Sounds to me like you are talking about yourself. :shrug:
  • July 29th, 2006, 12:31 PM
    originel
    So if the outcome supported gay marriage, that would be ok?
    It would be ok in that it would be redundant...it would be like passing a law gauranteeing the right to free speech. It would not be ok in that it would be useless legislation that added to the size of the government.

    For many people religion is at the core of their very being and by asking them to ignore that is to tell them is to just be someone whom you are not and answer this question.
    I do not agree that by not passing a law is to make someone pretend to be someone their not. A person's religeous beliefs are not dictated by law. In fact, to assume so is extremely sacreligeous IMO. A person's beliefs are a person's beliefs, they do not need to be reaffirmed by the government. Also, if a person cannot hold their beliefs int he face of opposition, then they don't deserve to have those beliefs in the first place.

    As far as a non-religious reason against gay marriage. How about we stop thinking about ourselves for a bit and think of future generations that we will be leaving this country to. Marriage is a time tested solid foundation of every society on this planet. Now, because of a few people we have to jeopardize that foundation for future generations? Do they deserve that? Or how about "those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? Does the fall of any great empire ring a bell?
    The fall of the Roman empire was not because of homosexual marriage. It was because they could not defend their empire because of it's size against opposition from what became the ottoman empire from the west and the vikings from the north. If you are going to posit that homosexual marriage will lead to the fall of US society, it would be in your best interest to produce evidence to support it.
  • July 29th, 2006, 10:16 AM
    Derek Smalls
    Quote Originally Posted by loftezy
    The populace should not vote on gay marriage because if the outcome is against gay marriage, lawyers will argue that the law violates the right to the pursuit of happiness.
    So if the outcome supported gay marriage, that would be ok? No offense, but you just told me everything I need to know about your position. By the way, I'm done with this conversation. The complete and utter lack of understanding of civil rights and our constitution, both federal and state, is sickening. I respect some of the points made, but others are just downright dangerous and self-centered.
  • July 29th, 2006, 10:13 AM
    Derek Smalls
    loft & front,

    Those are some good points you have both made and I respect that. font, the name calling issue was not directed at you, I appologize that it came across like that. I am not asking you for facts vs. my opinion. I would value your opinion just as much as what you have posted above. There are many reasons, besides secular, that one would not like gay marriage. Some of my reasons I will not get into at all, and would hope you would try to understand and respect my position there. Other reasons, I don't know of why, honestly. Others I will get into in a second, but not before asking: Why is a secular reason for not wanting gay marriage invalid or discounted with almost every statement? A secular or religious belief is very valid. For many people religion is at the core of their very being and by asking them to ignore that is to tell them is to just be someone whom you are not and answer this question.

    I see nothing wrong with people having, believing and following their religion, regardless of what the religion is. I also see nothing wrong with people not liking something, for any reason and no reason. I can't, for the life of me, see any correlation between sexual orientation and race/religion/creed, and find it very reckless and short-sighted to say they are equal. Also, marriage is NOT a civil rights issue, so let's get off of that train of thought. If you think it is, then prove it to me.

    As far as a non-religious reason against gay marriage. How about we stop thinking about ourselves for a bit and think of future generations that we will be leaving this country to. Marriage is a time tested solid foundation of every society on this planet. Now, because of a few people we have to jeopardize that foundation for future generations? Do they deserve that? Or how about "those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"? Does the fall of any great empire ring a bell?

    Now, I feel compelled to give my opinion on divorce since I know that will be brought back up as a smokescreen. Yes, divorce happens. No, I don't condone divorce. I tnink divorce is the instant gratification coward's way out. That tells me that the vows and promises at the beginning of the marriage were pointless lies. I think people rush into marriage too quickly and need to slow down and figure out what they want/don't want/how to compromise/how to let petty things go before comitting to marriage.

    I guess that would be another non-religious reason: I take marriage very seriously and when I see gays and appologists try to spin it into "just marriage", I see it as an insult.

    The fact is, you will never change my stance on this. I am not trying to change yours. I just think it's insulting and that the citizens have a right to be heard on the issue. That is not a civil rights issue and if you think it is, prove it to me. Where is the seperation of church and state here? By making it law here, they have put all religions in the position of recognizing gay marriage, thus forcing some religions to walk away from certain services or face lawsuits from the Attorney General. Is that fair? No. Since when can the state come in and mandate what any particular religion's services can and can't be???? Now that is ia violation of civil rights........
  • July 28th, 2006, 05:44 PM
    Front242
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Smalls
    Because that is the issue at hand. Do not cloud the issue by introducing factors that have nothing to do with it.

    It's pretty ironic that a lot of people that pride themselves on tolerance of alternative lifestyles and ideas have no tolerance for anyone else's standpoint, unless it supports theirs. I have every right to not like anyone for any reason, or every reason. I don't owe anyone any examples or reasons of where my opinions come from, yet others discount that because they don't understand that. What a great group of open-minded thinkers we have here. So how about we stick to the facts in this conversation rather than name calling and eroneous statements?

    Once again, I will ask: Why does the Massachusetts legislature, or any state for that matter, not want to let the citizens vote on gay marriage? Heck, for all they know we could actually vote to support it.
    Okay, let me spell out why this is the issue at hand.

    1. The State Supreme Court determined that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. It cannot go to the vote of the people. For the same reason that limiting the legal benefits of people who belong to, what some would call, unpopular religions is unconstitutional. They determined that the legal benefits accorded to you should be accorded to all people regardless of race, religion, creed (that would be you) or sexual orientation. I used religion as an example because that is a choice one makes and eliminates the argument of choice among gays.
    You have every right to believe the way you do and express it with or without explanation but so do I. If I choose to do that with some semblence of logic that is my right. If you choose to believe what you believe with no explanation that is your right.
    I do not recall calling you a name, I just pointed out where your logic was faulty.

    2. I would not call it tolerance of alternate lifestyles as much as supporting peoples rights. Honestly the thought of that kind of act does not appeal to me. Unless someone can point out to me how gay marriage hurts the country as a whole (away from secular arguements) I will continue to speak out for other peoples benefits.

    You say that your ideals are based in opinion yet you insist mine need to be based in fact?
  • July 28th, 2006, 05:21 PM
    loftezy
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Smalls
    Once again, I will ask: Why does the Massachusetts legislature, or any state for that matter, not want to let the citizens vote on gay marriage? Heck, for all they know we could actually vote to support it.
    The populace should not vote on gay marriage because if the outcome is against gay marriage, lawyers will argue that the law violates the right to the pursuit of happiness. As an analogy: If the citizens voted to restrict freedom of speech, it would be ruled unconstitutional because freedom of speech is a right given to us by being a US citizen and no one can take it away.

    (save your breathe, I have already heard the arguments you are going to make)

    So, the fix to all of this is for the government to stop recognizing marriages. The government should only recognize unions. If two people want a religious "marriage," let them go to their church and let the church recognize their marriage.
  • July 28th, 2006, 04:55 PM
    Derek Smalls
    Quote Originally Posted by Front242
    Why limit this to people who define themselves by sexual orientation.
    Because that is the issue at hand. Do not cloud the issue by introducing factors that have nothing to do with it.

    It's pretty ironic that a lot of people that pride themselves on tolerance of alternative lifestyles and ideas have no tolerance for anyone else's standpoint, unless it supports theirs. I have every right to not like anyone for any reason, or every reason. I don't owe anyone any examples or reasons of where my opinions come from, yet others discount that because they don't understand that. What a great group of open-minded thinkers we have here. So how about we stick to the facts in this conversation rather than name calling and eroneous statements?

    Once again, I will ask: Why does the Massachusetts legislature, or any state for that matter, not want to let the citizens vote on gay marriage? Heck, for all they know we could actually vote to support it.
  • July 28th, 2006, 04:05 PM
    Front242
    Why limit this to people who define themselves by sexual orientation. Lets limit those who define themselves by religious orientation from the same benifits we accord ourselves as well. Such as Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists. We can turn back the clock to the turn of the 19th century and refuse to employ Catholics.
  • July 28th, 2006, 03:33 PM
    osprey4
    Quote Originally Posted by Knothead
    I'm gonna tell your wife you said that!
    Please, I'm in enough hot water as it is.
  • July 28th, 2006, 03:09 PM
    Derek Smalls
    Quote Originally Posted by Gomer
    Not being able to marry wouldn't have kept your mother from being able biting a pillow or two either. What does that have to do with it?

    Oh, you just wanted to pass along some local news. My bad. To me it appeared you wanted to add something disparaging of homosexuals so as to let the homophobe within you feel a little better.

    If you were trying to make a point, instead of doing a little gay bashing, I still wonder what it was.
    Wow. That was incredibly low to say that about my mother. What does that have to do with anything in this conversation. Next time you come to Massachusetts, let me know and I'll give you my home address and I'll finish that comment that you started.

    Back on topic. I was not gay bashing. If you took it that way, then you need a thicker skin. Heck, if you show up on my door step you'll need more than that. Lest we forget, we ARE talking about a group of people whom define themselves by their sexual practices. So why does that get them the benefit of being recognized by an institution or group of people? Why does their agenda need to be forced on everyone else, especially through the government??

    Back to my original question: Why don't the people have a right to vote on whether to change their state's constitution for a minority (your word, not mine) whom defines themselves by a sexual preference/practice?? I am tired of things getting forced on us by an ever-increasing and bloated government. I am also tired of appologists who turn to name calling and slurring someone (yes, this means you Gomer) when they don't have anything valid to say. I would've thought that would be left on the elementary school playground.......
  • July 28th, 2006, 02:34 PM
    Knothead
    Quote Originally Posted by osprey4
    So if the government has nothing to do with marriage, then what meaning does marriage have?
    I'm gonna tell your wife you said that!
  • July 28th, 2006, 02:28 PM
    osprey4
    Not to pop anyone's balloon, but what else is marriage other than a legal (i.e., government recognized) status? So if the government has nothing to do with marriage, then what meaning does marriage have?
  • July 28th, 2006, 02:22 PM
    Front242
    The problem is the pundets tend to cloud the issue with irrelevent garbage. Too many people vote the TV ad's with no concern as to the veracity of the accusations. Go to www.factcheck.org for a few examples. I have said this before and I will say it again. If you want to protect the sacred institution of marriage, ban divorce not gay marriage. At a whopping 60+% divorce rate it is dissingenious for DOMA supporters to point to one gay couple's separation to support thier biases. I have yet to hear a good argument not based on secular ideals as to how gay marriage is going to affect my 15 year heterosexual relationship with my first and current wife.
  • July 28th, 2006, 02:20 PM
    Knothead
    Quote Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

    Here's an idea...figure out how to get out of the Middle East and get rid of our friggin' debt.
    Heh, yeah, buddy, now THERE'S a novel idea!
  • July 28th, 2006, 02:12 PM
    The Real Bingo
    You mean to tell me the courts and the government has nothing better to do than decide who is allowed to marry who? And all this time I thought the church was separate from the state...

    Here's an idea...figure out how to get out of the Middle East and get rid of our friggin' debt.
  • July 28th, 2006, 02:07 PM
    Knothead
    Quote Originally Posted by originel
    ...my personal belief is that the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage, heterosexual or otherwise. My personal opinion is that marriage is between a man, a woman, and God, not a man, a woman, and the government. Seriously, how sacrilegious is that?
    Bingo! Thanx, Originel.

    Another good argument for dis-entangling Gummint from our personal lives at any opportunity!

    I still can't believe those peckerheads attempted a Constitutional Amendment to deny gay marriage. Yeeesh.

    I guess this issue will just take a long time before the gay folks get a decent and humane resolution.
  • July 28th, 2006, 01:39 PM
    originel
    Do you really believe this? Personally the less government does the better off the majority is imo. There is no point in voting anymore since 99% of encumbants are re-elected and pass laws making it near impossible for anyone besides themself to get elected. Our government hoots and hollars about how we are a democracy but we are not(even though the majority of americans belives this garbage).
    Unfortunately you are correct. We are left with a situation where the public at large is too stupid to govern itself, and politicians who are too greedy to govern us fairly. Pretty much a lose-lose situation.
  • July 28th, 2006, 12:03 PM
    rockpile
    [QUOTE=originel]However, a government is supposed to look after the welfare of its consituents, therefore they decided not to allow the seat belt law to be repealed because it was keeping the best interests of its consituents in mind.

    Do you really believe this? Personally the less government does the better off the majority is imo. There is no point in voting anymore since 99% of encumbants are re-elected and pass laws making it near impossible for anyone besides themself to get elected. Our government hoots and hollars about how we are a democracy but we are not(even though the majority of americans belives this garbage).
  • July 28th, 2006, 11:44 AM
    Gomer
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Smalls
    What does the approval or denial of marriage have to do with someone practicing gay sex? Not being able to marry doesn't stop them from being able to go bite a pillow or two, so don't be so disingenuous as to compare an inconvenience with basic human rights, okay?
    What does practicing sex have do with it, homo, hetero, or otherwise? Not being able to marry wouldn't have kept your mother from being able biting a pillow or two either. What does that have to do with it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Smalls
    Gomer, what's the matter? You didn't read it right the first time, so you had to type it twice? Or is that just your way of dramatic effect? Yes, "On a side note". MEANING that after I edited my post for spelling, I remembered a news article from this week that the poster couple for the advancement of gay marriage through the SJC of Massachusetts is getting divorced. I figured not everyone has access to local news here, so I posted it. You okay with that?
    Oh, you just wanted to pass along some local news. My bad. To me it appeared you wanted to add something disparaging of homosexuals so as to let the homophobe within you feel a little better.

    If you were trying to make a point, instead of doing a little gay bashing, I still wonder what it was.
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Copyright 2014 All Enthusiast, Inc