Old 15th March 2005, 18:40   #1
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,864
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Gays Win In California

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A judge has opened the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to tie the knot, but both sides in the debate predicted a vigorous court fight first.

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled Monday that while withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians has been the status quo, it constitutes discrimination the state can no longer justify.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

Ushering out a social norm long considered sacred won't happen right away, however. Kramer's decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeals, and conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriages vowed to uphold California's one woman-one man marriage laws.

"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver, whose group represents the Campaign for California Families, one of two organizations that joined the state's attorney general's office in defending California's existing laws.

"This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country," Staver said.

Supporters of same-sex marriage said they are prepared for a lengthy appeal process, but described Kramer's ruling as an unqualified victory. They compared it to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage.

"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/15/ga....ap/index.html

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Don't click this link!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2005, 19:39   #2
k_rock923
\m/
(Forum King)
 
k_rock923's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: /bin/bash
Posts: 7,850
Send a message via AIM to k_rock923
awesome.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
k_rock923 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2005, 19:40   #3
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
Re: Gays Win In California

Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
well by that logic then:
Quote:
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, brother-sister / mother-son / father-daughter marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
Quote:
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, inter-species marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

here's a better idea: seperate fucking church and state.
Let there be a civil union that goes for every/anyone; this is regulated by the state.
Marriages are religious and are performed in religious rituals/ceremonies. Let churches decided who they'll allow or not allow to marry in their church.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2005, 19:44   #4
k_rock923
\m/
(Forum King)
 
k_rock923's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: /bin/bash
Posts: 7,850
Send a message via AIM to k_rock923
But there are lots of non-religious things that go along with marriage that the church cannot regulate. taxes are a good example.

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
k_rock923 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2005, 19:49   #5
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
that's what the civil union is for.
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2005, 20:21   #6
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,236
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
Re: Re: Gays Win In California

Quote:
Originally posted by Mattress
Let there be a civil union that goes for every/anyone; this is regulated by the state.
Marriages are religious and are performed in religious rituals/ceremonies. Let churches decided who they'll allow or not allow to marry in their church.
Actually, marriage is an important thing in legal terms and can have a large effect on how one does their taxes. It helps for dependecy, etc. You do not need any religious figure to get a marriage licence.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2005, 23:37   #7
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Family friends were 2 of the (14?) involved in the lawsuit and I am very proud to say I know them.

It is striking to me that conservatives embrace the idea that gay marriage destroys the moral fabric of a marriage. Where in the bible does Jesus directly speak of gay marriage/relationships. Other than Paul(whom i think is so very conservative) Its never a focus of any story in the Bible. Where in the Ten Commandments does it say Gay marriage/relationships are wrong. The Ten Commandments certainly says you should not commit adultery, but we all know that goes on.

Like the judge said, this case reminds him of brown vs. topeka kansas BoE, this case strikingly resembles "separate but equal" you cannot say civil unions are equal to marriages.

I wonder how many conservatives that dissagree with samesex marriage out there think that interracial marriages are wrong.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 00:56   #8
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,864
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
It is striking to me that conservatives embrace the idea that gay marriage destroys the moral fabric of a marriage. Where in the bible does Jesus directly speak of gay marriage/relationships. Other than Paul(whom i think is so very conservative) Its never a focus of any story in the Bible. Where in the Ten Commandments does it say Gay marriage/relationships are wrong. The Ten Commandments certainly says you should not commit adultery, but we all know that goes on.
This information from several church websites:

Before we look at gay marriage, first we have to remember what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible clearly and consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1Corinthians 6:9). God does not create a person with homosexual desires. A person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Rom 1:24-27), and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.

We also have to remember that homosexuality is just as forgivable a sin as all other sins. God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God’s love and desire to save extends to homosexuals (John 3:16; Romans 5:8). God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1Cor 6:11; 2Cor 5:17).

To give sanction to homosexual marriage would be to give approval to that lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. I belief the Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage. Marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Homosexual marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. God forbids and condemns homosexuality, so He clearly is opposed to homosexual marriage. As Christians, we are to seek to share the love of God and salvation through Christ with homosexuals. We are to be loving and kind to homosexuals, while at the same time not condoning their sinful lifestyle.

http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/hermaphrodites.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-constitutes.html

The verse most commonly cited is Leviticus 20:13 "And a man who lies with a male as one would with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves."

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Don't click this link!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 01:09   #9
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
you're such a concerned liberal, yet a religious biggot? I didn't realize.

what about lesbians?
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 01:18   #10
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,864
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Why of course, I'm not a blindfolded sheep herd like most of the GOP followers

Actually I'm not religious at all. My only issue is the butt pumpers and carpet munchers who demand their little thing be called 'marriage' when for thousands of years that word has meant and says in every dictionary definition "the union of a man and a woman'. Give them their rights and protections that they want - no issue there - but if they want to call it 'marriage' then I can't support it in any way, shape or form.

I don't like fags, I dont like dykes. I think both groups are some of the sickest kinds of people only being beaten out by child molestors. That's a personal opinion. I could care less what they want..fuck give it to them so they can all go fuck each other and die...but when they want to change my language to suit their sick asses that's when I have an issue.

Can't put it much clearer than that.

Seriously, what's next? Legalization of child sex? Maybe we can give rights to the Klu Klux Klan? Maybe Human-Animal marriage? Sorry, but the whole thing just disgusts me to no end and to any civilised person it should. All I can say is I'M DAMN GLAD I DON'T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.

Of course if you REALLY want to know what I think have a mod move this to the bitchlist. I refrained as much as I could here.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Don't click this link!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!

Last edited by MegaRock; 16th March 2005 at 01:42.
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 01:22   #11
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,864
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Shit, double post..

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Don't click this link!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 02:32   #12
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,253
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
....well I can see this thread being closed soon.
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 02:35   #13
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,236
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
dictionary.com has both definitions:

a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
and
d) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

The bible also clearly states it is a sin to touch the hide of a dead pig. Should we stone all the NFL players? and it is also a sin to wear two different fabrics (Leviticus 19:19). Should we burn those ofenders also? And if I want to sell my future daughters, as the bible says I can (Exodus 21:7), should I make sure that she only does womans' work, or is that up to her new owner?

Last edited by dlinkwit27; 16th March 2005 at 02:58.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 02:53   #14
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Mattress how "by that logic" you get same-sex marriages also means inter-species and inter-family marriages. That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 03:01   #15
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
a football is not actually a pig skin. At any rate, I agree with the concept of a civil union as opposed to an actual marriage. Marriage is a religious idea which shouldn't even be considered in government law anyway. This way no matter what you believe you will be able to benefit from a partner relationship with no descrimination based on sexual or religious preference if the law allows.

Everyone has a civil union and a civil seperation as opposed to religious ideas of what is really happening. They also get all the legal breaks. This way civil unions can be defined under law rather then under God.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 03:04   #16
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,236
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
so what about the other two examples? Should we bring back slavery because I can't find a passage that condones it. I actually find quite a few that say it should be done.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 03:06   #17
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
To restate what Mattress was saying, the judge said "get a real argument." Good for him. IMHO real arguments exist against the other ones he mentioned and don't exist against same sex whatever-you-want-to-call-thems.

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 03:09   #18
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally posted by dlinkwit27
so what about the other two examples? Should we bring back slavery because I can't find a passage that condones it. I actually find quite a few that say it should be done.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
are you just going to ignore what I am actually saying or are you going to argue with me over religious bullshit?

To reiterate. I do not think religious concepts should be included in law period. This includes the concept of marriage.

Quote:
Originally posted by bgesley
Mattress how "by that logic" you get same-sex marriages also means inter-species and inter-family marriages. That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
What he is saying is that if you remove social norms for who can be involved in a civil union then the examples he gave could occur.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 03:38   #19
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,236
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
damn double post.
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 03:40   #20
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,236
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
i'm talking mostly to MegaRock

and to what extent should religion be removed from state? The bible, Koran, etc, say to not murder, should that not be a law? Marriage, while is a religious act, is also a governmental one, hence, special taxes for marriages.

@ your last post. homosexuality isn't exactly abnormal anymore. There are TV shows on basic cable about it, and the FCC isn't comming down on anyone for obcenities (the OC comes to mind).
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 03:55   #21
ertmann|CPH
Forum Viking
(Forum King)
 
ertmann|CPH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The North
Posts: 3,541
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Seriously, what's next? Legalization of child sex? Maybe we can give rights to the Klu Klux Klan? Maybe Human-Animal marriage? Sorry, but the whole thing just disgusts me to no end and to any civilised person it should. All I can say is I'M DAMN GLAD I DON'T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.
I just can't comprehend this line of thought, no matter how much i try, i just can't get it....

A gay couple are two consenting people who love each other, and mutualy choose that they want to have a relationship, they have the same responsibilities as all other citizens, so why shouldn't they be granted the same privileges?

A goat can't choose if it wants to have some redneck dick up it's arse, a child can't choose if some adults are sick and abusive .... how does those two lines connect?

And how does two men or woman living in a marriage, make the marriage you choose, with the man/woman you hopefully love, less worth? If you met a dutch couple would you find their marriage less worth than yours, because in their country gays can also be married? if so, then you sir are a complete and utter asshole!

And how can marriage be a sacred thing with the rampant divorce rate of western nations?
ertmann|CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 04:04   #22
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by MegaRock
Sorry, but the whole thing just disgusts me to no end and to any civilised person it should.
That's the most fucking hypocritical thing I've read all year.

But then, I consider tolerance a nuance of "civility". I didn't realise its true nature was pig-headedness, ignorance, and hatred.

You don't hate gays for any rational reason. You hate them because it makes you uncomfortable, and you don't like it.

Closer to the topic, if civil unions are brought into law, then marriage should be specifically removed from law. If it's "marriage" for man/woman things, it should be for gays. If it's "civil unions" for gays, it should be the same for straight people.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 04:23   #23
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
If it's "civil unions" for gays, it should be the same for straight people.
Pretty much what I said.

I am not against homosexuality. Two consenting adults should be able to have a union if they live together for a large period of time and support each other financially. At the same note, incest should be removed from the law books, these people are consenting adults as well and as such should be allowed a civil union.

Marriage should be strictly observed in a religious setting.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 04:54   #24
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Yeah, I'm more for the solution that "marriage" is the universal legal term myself, though, simply because it's an accepted term, and it's already been seperated from religion by law.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 04:57   #25
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
Unfortunately by using "marriage" you rile up the church. It is far faster and easier for the law to be rewritten to say "civil union" then to continue fighting over the definition and tradition of marriage.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 05:21   #26
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Indeed. They will still be referred to as marriages though, regardless, that's what bothers me. You're effectively saying that you need to be religious to get married, which will rile up a whole different crowd.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 07:17   #27
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
Ok, let me get my two cents in hear:
Quote:
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
This is absolutely the dumbest thing I have ever heard, especially coming from someone who's not supposed to be stupid.
The entire US court system is built on a system called precedent
Quote:
prec·e·dent (prĕs'ĭ-dənt) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
2. Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The President followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet.
But hey, throw that out just because, huh?


This is gonna be real unpopular of me to say, but I'm gonna say it.

The pursuit of "freedom" and "rights" the people seem to put above everything else is completely controlling. This unabtainable pursuit has the exact same kind of characteristics as everything else that has ever destroyed a society.

Now I know you all are thinking, "oh man, a Christian posting crap like this in a thread about gay marriage," but look deeper than that. The denial of individual liberties creates society. The ussage of them destroys it.

Strange thing for a libertarian to say, huh?

I do think everyone has the right to make choices for themselves, and that no institution, beit church, state or education has the right to limit an individuals freedom. I voted against Ohio's marriage admendment. However, I do think that just because someone has that right doesn't mean that they need to or even should execute upon it.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 07:22   #28
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
well I am just basing this on the arguement that homosexuals wish to benefit from the same legislation that helps married couples. If it isn't about the label then it shouldn't be a problem. In a court of law they could proclaim you a civil union at the end of a ceremony. Whereas a church ceremony would proclaim you married but in the end you'll have a civil union certificate as opposed to a marriage certificate. Either way both couples benefit from the same tax cuts and considerations in work place and law. In this scenorio the heterosexual couple can no more say they are married then the homosexual couple unless they belong to a religious sect that labels them as "Married".

What I am trying to say is that in the eyes of the law you are not married either way. Your arguement suggests that labels matter when they should not.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 07:53   #29
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,864
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Unlike zootm I think that's why I am against most of it. If the term marriage is used to describe any union then you pretty much make it accepted and the gay and lesbian lifestyles have never been and probably never will be considered acceptable. The only difference between thirty years ago and now is people put up with it or ignore it and the rest just don't give a crap anymore. So long as you keep your lifestyles out of my face I don't care what they do. Just leave my language alone. If you want a word to mean something other than what it has for hundreds of year write your own dictionary and call it the Gay and Lesbian Dictionary.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Don't click this link!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 08:53   #30
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
Look, two guys or two girls being married doesn't change one thing in my day-to-day lifestyle. And that marriage will obviously not snowball into inter-species marriage.

Honestly now...are you guys arguing because you think two consenting adults being married is actually causing harm to your way of life? are you arguing because their "benefits" in any ways affects your "benefits"? or are you actually arguing because its a slight break from traditional values?

If you can't actually show me how a man and another man being married actually affects your life then we shouldn't even be having this conversation.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 10:58   #31
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by shakey_snake
The denial of individual liberties creates society. The ussage of them destroys it.
Interesting quote, that one. I'd say that, although strictly in an extremist sense you're correct, the practice of finding the perfect society is only restricting the liberties that are necessary to leave society coherent -- those where another is harmed, or there is other such knock-on effects. I just can't see how the topic of same-sex marriage affects the smooth running of society.

Absolute liberty is, clearly, anarchy. But how far do you restrict liberties before you're done? I'd argue that, especially in a young society such as in the states, that as minimal a restriction as possible is ideal.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 15:56   #32
ShyShy
Amazon Bush Woman
Forum Queen
 
ShyShy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Sticks, Queensland
Posts: 8,067
Quote:
Originally posted by zootm
Indeed. They will still be referred to as marriages though, regardless, that's what bothers me. You're effectively saying that you need to be religious to get married, which will rile up a whole different crowd.
*raises hand*

jaz is an atheist and I'm agnostic, but, I still call our "union" a "marriage". And I guess we shouldn't have invited our families and friends to our "wedding", but, instead to our "civil ceremony".

-> is for all the retardedness, can't we all just get along?
ShyShy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 16:05   #33
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Apparently not.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 19:12   #34
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,864
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
Originally posted by bgesley
Look, two guys or two girls being married doesn't change one thing in my day-to-day lifestyle. And that marriage will obviously not snowball into inter-species marriage.

Honestly now...are you guys arguing because you think two consenting adults being married is actually causing harm to your way of life? are you arguing because their "benefits" in any ways affects your "benefits"? or are you actually arguing because its a slight break from traditional values?

If you can't actually show me how a man and another man being married actually affects your life then we shouldn't even be having this conversation.
Theoretically it does. If you look at the way certian laws work it's quite funny. Take breast feeding for instance. If you have a baby with you suckling on a tit it's considered ok because of the passage of laws stating it was ok because certian people who practice that lifestyle wanted it that way and wanted to practice their lifestyles in the public eye for whatever reason. However if for whatever other reason a woman exposes her breasts in public (take Mardi Gras for instance) it's a fine of 50 - 500 dollars. What gives one woman the right to whip out her tit for her given reason but another cannot for hers?

This is a similar issue in a way. One group of people believe marriage is this. Another group of people who have only been public for a very short time believe it is something else. Because this one group of people want to practice their desires in the public eye they want to change what the rest of the world has believed is a certian thing since the beginning of time and they, for their own desires, want to make it something else.

Again, where does it really stop? Can you guarantee the next group of people who step up to the plate wont be child molesters, sheep molesters or tailpipe molestors? Sure, I think child molestation is wrong and you probably do too - but there is a group of people out there who don't think it is. If gays can change the meaning of marriage and do something which HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE KNOWN WORLD IN A CIVILIZED COUNTRY then what's to say child molestors won't be next? You simply cant allow it for one group and deny the other because then the discrimination factor comes in. Keeping marriage what it is and leaving the definition that has stood since the beginning of time is the only way.

Crack the dam and the floodgates can and will open. It's just a matter of time and most normal people realize that. We know this because if it was simply their rights that was in question they would have taken the opportunities they were offered and had those rights. Instead it's not just the rights they are demanding but for the entire world to acknowledge, like and accept the same lifestyle and to change their meaning and belief of what marriage is just to suit this one group of people. Who's next to the plate is anyones guess but you can damn well bet someone is.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Don't click this link!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th March 2005, 19:13   #35
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
How it affects people is it further waters down the religious concept of a marriage. I know that we are in progressive times but you guys have to remember that there are people who still hold on to tradition and older values. If homosexuals must call their union a marriage for the sake of having a label then I think it's petty and gives no consideration to the religious definition of what a marriage is.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2005, 12:31   #36
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,236
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
"hi there everybody! this is john! we jsut got unioned a month ago!" doesn't have the same ring to it as 'married'
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th March 2005, 19:37   #37
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,916
Quote:
Originally posted by dlinkwit27
dictionary.com has both definitions:

a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
and
d) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

The bible also clearly states it is a sin to touch the hide of a dead pig. Should we stone all the NFL players? and it is also a sin to wear two different fabrics (Leviticus 19:19). Should we burn those ofenders also? And if I want to sell my future daughters, as the bible says I can (Exodus 21:7), should I make sure that she only does womans' work, or is that up to her new owner?
Quote:
Originally posted by dlinkwit27
so what about the other two examples? Should we bring back slavery because I can't find a passage that condones it. I actually find quite a few that say it should be done.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Why are you living in the Old Testament?

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2005, 01:43   #38
dlinkwit27
has no CT
(Forum King)
 
dlinkwit27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 13,236
Send a message via ICQ to dlinkwit27 Send a message via AIM to dlinkwit27 Send a message via Yahoo to dlinkwit27
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Why are you living in the Old Testament?
It's part of the bible eh? Should I disregard the whole "god made the universe in 7 days" part also?
dlinkwit27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2005, 02:55   #39
Mattress
Forum King
 
Mattress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 4,577
read romans
Mattress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th March 2005, 05:34   #40
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,253
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
Quote:
Originally posted by dlinkwit27
"hi there everybody! this is john! we jsut got unioned a month ago!" doesn't have the same ring to it as 'married'
Why in the hell can't they just call it marrage? There are a ton of other words out there that have tons of meanings, why should this be any different?
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump