Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 61
  1. #26
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    14
    Hence for the need for "Hate Crimes"

  2. #27
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Your not in a chat room Alf, please....

    take a little time to think about everything you want to say and put it in
    ONE post. Now, no. He doesn't go to the bar. He might say something at work, but doubtful since his point of view isn't reflected in the majority of the people he works with of hangs with afterward. In fact, he doesn't much like talking about himself directly, instead about topics in general mostly from what he hears in the news. Last week to was religion. the week before, the government.

    Sure, some are killed(usually beat to death) for propositioning the wrong guy. I've been propositioned before and I had no prob gently bringing him down. It would be interesting to see how a woman would handle being propositioned by another woman.

    IMO, hate crime laws only deturr(sp?) if punishment is equal to the crime. It can be hard to deturr someone from committing a hate crime if he feels the recipient "deserves" what he gets.

    Bi guy's? What's your point? So what if there are alot? What if I'm one of them? What if I'm not? Who cares if your gay, if I'm gay, if my neighbor, the mailman, the grocery clerk, Ellen, Liberacy, Elton. The point is what can be constructively done about it to change the perception of society to that these people belong and should be treated fairly... not that I have one friend that doesn't get it yet. BTW, I'm still working on him about why he thinks the way he does and trying to get him to see things from a different perspective.

    Alf, RELAX buddy, is all good!
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  3. #28
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Whether the definition of marriage is constitutional. That's what all opposed to the law are afraid of... the judges changing the definition on their own, against "public wish's".


    No, the judges would be ruling on the constitutionality of th ecurrent definition; unconstitutional. I also see an end to one spouse too.


    Look at the example on drinking and you'll understand how the EPA is applied and how it's not.

    But it applies equally to all under that age, males females, etc.

    For what it's worth, I agree with your position on the core of the problem but don't believe it's exclusive to religion.

    May not be exclusively but probably 95%.


    He couldn't answer.

    Figures.
    mtrycrafts

  4. #29
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    I think we're saying alot of the same thing...

    "No, the judges would be ruling on the constitutionality of th ecurrent definition; unconstitutional."

    Yes, the current definition, and thereby "changing" it on their own by ruling it unconstitutional.

    "I also see an end to one spouse too."

    Good luck on that one! Not that I stand to gain from such a change! LOL


    "But it applies equally to all under that age, males females, etc."

    But it doesn't prevent the intended and written discrimination against those under 18/21yrs. That's what I'm saying in that the 14th is only good if the discrimination has no merit. Otherwise a 10yr old might try to claim that the laws against underage drinking are a form of age discrimination and site the 14th amendment as an arguement. As the 14th is written, he can't because the 14th doesn't claim all people are equal. In the case if interracial marriage, it had no merit for discrimination. In the case of drinking, the discrimination(age) HAS merit. In the case of same sex marriage, I don't believe the discrimination has merit, but I also don't believe the Supreme Court has enough pro members to get it done, and by leaving it up to the states(which is IMO what they will do) they won't have to. Remember, it's all about interpretation and they still have to have a majority.

    He couldn't answer.

    Figures.

    Ya that question really messed him up for awhile!
    He really hates it when I do that!
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  5. #30
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    What/whose definition?

    If the definition of marriage is unconstitutional, how could it be enforced by the people who wrote that document?

    And, interracial marriages ARE protected under the Constitution - the 14th amendment section 1 - equal protection.

    But there are no rules specifically about marriage, so in theory Congress could abolish it completely! But the Supreme Court has nothing to do with it (unless they exceed their lawful authority - but they would NEVER do that.

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  6. #31
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    And, interracial marriages ARE protected under the Constitution - the 14th amendment section 1 - equal protection.
    But this didn't happen automatically, Pete. When did the Supreme Court get around to applying the 14th Amendment to laws against interracial marriages? It's on the OCRT site, the one you probably don't like, and elsewhere.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  7. #32
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    But it doesn't matter..

    when they did it - it's still what they were supposed to do!

    It's actually a good example of what happens when the Judges move outside the law. If the Judges were true to their oaths, racial marriage restrictions would have been 100% overturned at the first opportunity.

    Over & over, when you look at the "bad" court decisions throughout our history, it was generally the judiciary overstepping their constitutional authority.

    But there are always those willing to damage the (proven) system to force their will on the majority.

    BTW, I've checked out the link you mentioned and, though they may mean well, there is a definite slant. For starters, they don't talk about how men use religion for their own ends (power) - they say it's the religions themselves. In some (but not many) instances this is true. But mostly it's men manipulating religion. To say as some have said get rid of religion and the world will be wonderful shows an astonishing lack of understanding human nature. Abolish religion & something else, say, absolute equality will become their prop.

    They also inaccurately state the main commandment of Jesus. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is His second most important commandment. The first is of course "Love your God with all your mind, all your heart, all your soul". One mistake, yes, but a very important, large mistake (and an obvious one), as it leads me to believe they are pushing their agenda.

    And somehow every time tolerance is mentioned I'VE got to change my beliefs. In order for me to be PC I've got to agree that no one goes to hell, and that Jesus is not the only way. Ha! Thank God I've got the freedom (as of yet) to think & say what I want. Until it's a hate crime : )!

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  8. #33
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    Alright Pete, I'm gonig to put you on the spot...

    "Over & over, when you look at the "bad" court decisions throughout our history, it was generally the judiciary overstepping their constitutional authority."

    Make me a list(spare me the details) of some cases where the judges overstepped thier bounds against the wish's of the majority. I honestly can't think of many that held up through the Supreme Court. Sure, some could argue about abortion being one of them, but is that one a clear majority? What are some others? Maybe prayer in school? Maybe the 10 commandments in the courthouse? Maybe one nation under God in the anthem? Maybe the death penalty?

    "But there are always those willing to damage the (proven) system to force their will on the majority."

    I'm sure that someone said that same thing durring the time of slavery, the womens movement, and the civil rights movement.

    "And somehow every time tolerance is mentioned I'VE got to change my beliefs."

    Dude, no ones asking you to change your beliefs! All their asking is that you respect that they have beliefs also and not make laws that impose your beliefs on them. After all, if getting married as a gay couple gets you a ticket to hell, maybe it's worth it to those who would do it. I don't believe one needs to go to church to worship God, but I also respect those who believe otherwise. Why is it the majority always has to win as opposed to everyone winning? Does the idea of everyone winning somehow diminish the meaning of winning?

    "In order for me to be PC I've got to agree that no one goes to hell, and that Jesus is not the only way."

    No, you don't have to agree, just understand that there are others that do agree and that they have as much right as you do. Let them practice what they believe(as long as it doesn't adversely affect you) and they will leave you to continue to practice your beliefs(as long as it doesn't adversely affect them).

    "To say as some have said get rid of religion and the world will be wonderful shows an astonishing lack of understanding human nature."

    I would agree with that statement. IMHO, I do believe there is a place for God/Religion in the world. I just wished some would not be so obscessed to make it the only place in the world. God(to me) is all about salvation from your darkest times... Religion(especially organized religion) is all about being the one who's right(based on volume). The two do not always go hand in hand.

    And no, I don't think you're a kook!
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  9. #34
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Great discussion guys. Good points all around. I think the issue is very similar to race discrimination. I also believe that the argument of homosexual marriages "devaluing" heterosexual marriages is a weak one. The same argument could have been made for interracial marriage back when it was being challenged (and it likely was made). That is the only argument left on the table, as it's the only thing that can be sited as "negatively affecting" or "taking away" the rights of others. Otherwise, there would be no argument, and this would be a no-brainer for the courts.

    It comes down to acceptance. The argument is heavily based on religious beliefs. Homosexuals are being denied their right to a happy life in many ways - not just marriage. They are not treated fairly, and are likely treated badly in many respects all over the country. The fact that they are not accepted by society or recognized by the state means that they do not have equal treatment as human beings. We boast about how people can practice any religion in our country, yet their religious beliefs about marriage must be in line with those of our State or they won't be recognized? Is it written in any law that marriage must be between a man and woman, OR is it just assumed that because of the religion our State was born under?

    Personally, my wife and I do not feel we are affected by homosexual marriage. Our rights are not being taken away, nor is our pursuit of happiness affected. We are secure enough to know that our marriage will not lose strength or value just because two men or two women will be able to be legally married and recognized as such under US laws. Not sure why people are so intent on making the lives of those who do not have the same beliefs as they do, so miserable and less important.

  10. #35
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Hey Karl!

    Not the court going against the majority, but overstepping their constitutional bounds.

    Dred Scott, Roe, or Plessy. Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. Lochner, Korematsu. All good examples. All Supreme Court. The lesser courts are far worse, and very few get overturned.

    Yes, the GOP is also guilty of judical activism, occasionally. It's still legislating from the bench. And if (when) this is publicly excepted, and the worm turns, the Dems will be screaming bloody murder at the system they created (perverted). And woe be to us, 'cause it doesn't matter if you're being kicked by jack-booted Commies or jack-booted Facists!

    The religion comments where based on the religious website (religioustolerance.org) refered to by Pat, and others. But what I said is very true vis-a-vis what most liberals believe.

    And, according to the Consititution, if the majority of American citizens don't want gay marriage they don't have to allow it - it doesn't matter what their reasons are. And it shouldn't. Because then someone decides what reasons are acceptable and which ones aren't. Who? Usually, the judges. Hate crimes/speech certainly falls into this catagory.

    I haven't been able to find the Constitutional restriction on hate speech. Many would think because I say (and believe) that one who does not believe Jesus is the way is going to hell - is hate speech. Karl, they'd better prepare the cell now :)!

    I agree with you about most organized religion. It seem almost every organization gets creaky? when it hits a certain size. But they have their place.

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  11. #36
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    Hello Chris!

    It's much more pleasant without the trolls. I sure wish I was more computer-oriented, though - I'm still fumbling with the new setup :)!

    The founding fathers certainly would've considered that gay marriage devalues real marriage. I realize most people think that's quaint. But it's tough to ignore because of their success. They clearly understood human nature.

    And, though there is some residual discrimination against gays, for the most part they are accepted, almost fawned over in the cities, at least! Can anyone here honestly say they don't have gays in their larger family circle, and/or at work? How are they discriminated against? And ask them (know any closely?) - they know gay marriage is a phony - they just want it for some sort of symbol.

    And throughout history when the traditional family unit crumbles that society is just about finished as a vibrant culture. Now that is one heck of a sobering thought, seeing that marriage in most of the western world is almost ignored.

    If I want to marry my dog, and it's not allowed, does that mean I'm not receiving equal treatment from the state? How about a kid?

    It may sound facetious, but legal precedent + the ACLU + oblivious public adds up to a lot worst than that.

    There is no Constitutional basis for the courts to be involved. As a democracy, this is for the majority to decide, unless we are a democracy in name only.

    And I didn't make their lives miserable - they're doing a fine job on their own :).

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  12. #37
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris
    . It comes down to acceptance. The argument is heavily based on religious beliefs. Homosexuals are being denied their right to a happy life in many ways - not just marriage. They are not treated fairly, and are likely treated badly in many respects all over the country. The fact that they are not accepted by society or recognized by the state means that they do not have equal treatment as human beings. We boast about how people can practice any religion in our country, yet their religious beliefs about marriage must be in line with those of our State or they won't be recognized? Is it written in any law that marriage must be between a man and woman, OR is it just assumed that because of the religion our State was born under?

    Personally, my wife and I do not feel we are affected by homosexual marriage. Our rights are not being taken away, nor is our pursuit of happiness affected. We are secure enough to know that our marriage will not lose strength or value just because two men or two women will be able to be legally married and recognized as such under US laws. Not sure why people are so intent on making the lives of those who do not have the same beliefs as they do, so miserable and less important.
    Right on the money
    This whole issue is the outcropping of religious beliefs, not what has been done for 1000s of years. Yes, the human race has been doing much dispicable acts for 1000s of years, doesn't mean they are in concrete and cannot be changed and must be changed.

    Evolution at work.
    mtrycrafts

  13. #38
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    If I want to marry my dog, and it's not allowed, does that mean I'm not receiving equal treatment from the state? How about a kid?
    Pete
    Ahh Pete, come on now. I was hoping nobody would stoop to that level, but I knew someone would probably use such sarcasm. It sounds like you're set in your beliefs, so there's probably not much I can say that will change your thinking. I urge you to compare it to the racial integration this country went through (and continues to go through) 20-40 years ago. It looks very similar to me. Just because some people don't understand homosexuality, doesn't mean they should see homosexuals as lesser people. And by denying them the benefits that millions of married couples enjoy, you are in effect, stating that they are not equals, and they do not deserve equal treatment. Very similar to the laws against interracial marriages, which most people now agree were a bit ridiculous.

    I think as a whole, our society is fairly open minded. I'm sure that we'll continue on down that path of evolution. And 30 years from now, people will be looking back at this point in time wondering what all the opposition was about. As people become more secure about themselves and their own sexuality, they'll likely learn that there is nothing to fear and that someone elses' sexuality does not threaten their own lifestyle, or the value of their marriage. We, as a society, would simply be allowing homosexuals the freedom to enjoy their lives and the same opportunities given to any heterosexual. I'm not sure why it's so difficult to think of it that way.

    People who are offended by gay marriage sound like those who don't like things to change, because "that's the way it's always been". That's a pretty old way of thinking in my opinion. Things always need to change and evolve. If they didn't, we'd still have slavery and women wouldn't be able to vote.

  14. #39
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    It wasn't sarcasm.

    What worries me the most is that, on the whole, we don't realize how much worse it can be. Reading history, things like having to prostitute your fiance' before being allowed to marry, offering little boys to curry favor, having to offer your wife to your houseguests, etc, are more the norm than the exception. I personally don't think this is the norm we wish to create. But it is the path of least resistance & will be the future (our childrens future!) if WE don't draw the line.

    But hey, at least we're sensitive.

    Now, THAT'S sarcasm :)!!

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  15. #40
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    Saying we can't let grown, concenting adults marry if they are the same sex because then there's nothing stopping people from marrying animals is pretty much like saying we have to keep from slaughtering animals for food because there's nothing stopping people from doing it to humans.

  16. #41
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717
    I don't follow you.

    If we are discriminating against a man (or woman) by not allowing him to marry his spouse of choice - what difference does it make what that spouse is?

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  17. #42
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    I find it absolutely unbelievable that you could possibly fail to understand the difference between marrying a human and an animal, but you have been quite civil throughout this discussion as everyone else has, so I will try to be as serious as possible with my answer.

    I think it is quite readily appearent that we give different rights to humans and animals in this country. So, allowing an animal to enter into a legal agreement like marriage as we do humans would be most unusual and far from the next logical step from gay marriage.

    And, to be honest, if that doesn't make sense, I'm just gonna leave this alone. There's just nothing more to say to that.

  18. #43
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    But it is the path of least resistance & will be the future (our childrens future!) if WE don't draw the line.

    But hey, at least we're sensitive.

    Now, THAT'S sarcasm !!

    Pete
    "We" being heterosexuals I assume.... the majority... the ones who decide what is right and wrong, what is natural, and where to draw the line?

    Civil liberties are a result of sensitivity toward human beings. You're right, we should draw the line between which humans to be sensitive toward and which ones to ignore. Why should gays deserve the same compassion and understanding we've given other human beings? They're just not natural. They're not like "us". They shouldn't be able to have the same opportunities as "us". They'd make a laughing stock out of "our" way of life. (A little sarcasm of my own)

    As I said before, these arguments sound eerily similar to the ones made for racial segregation. Back at that time, I'm sure many people thought things would go down hill if "we didn't draw the line", and that it just wasn't "natural". I'm sure our children will be okay.

  19. #44
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    Unhappy Whoops! Sorry!

    To both Karl & Pat. I'm still trying to figure out this board! and didn't "see" your posts.

    Don't worry, I'm not raising my blood pressure :).

    Karl, I don't see the same words in the 14th amendment. Here's what I've got:

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The other sections do not apply.


    The definition of marriage (Merriam Webster):

    shotgun marriage
    Function: noun
    Date: 1929
    1 : a marriage forced or required because of pregnancy -- called also shotgun wedding
    2 : a forced union

    hahaha.

    Main Entry: mar·riage
    Pronunciation: 'mar-ij also 'mer-
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier to marry
    Date: 14th century
    1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
    2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
    3 : an intimate or close union


    Therefore, marriage is exclusively between men & women and does not apply to gay couples, whether they like it or not. So, it is not discrimination, though it doesn't matter if it is, because it wouldn't be un-Constitutional discrimination.

    No matter how you slice it, the court has no legal place in this matter, which is the basis of my original post :).

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  20. #45
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    I do understand

    the difference between people & animals - but that doesn't effect the discussion - and others won't. I'm just following the logic of this argument to it's conclusion.

    After the Supreme Court passes gay "marriage" legislation we'll see the next steps.

    Don't think NAMBLA isn't watching this closely.

    We agree :) that it's nice the trolls are gone - now we can argue & still have a beer later !!!

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  21. #46
    Forum Regular nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,964
    At least I think we agree on one other thing. Those ****ers in NAMBLA should be shot.

    And, I do see what you are saying about having to draw a line somewhere. I guess to me, logic quite easily draws that line at what can be undertaken by 2 consenting adults. Sorry, I just cannot understand the arguement that you, and many others, make that allowing a union between two consenting adults of the same sex inevitably leads down the road to child abuse and beastiality.

  22. #47
    What, me worry? piece-it pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Cleveland Ohio
    Posts
    717

    You know,

    it feels a lot like you're painting me as a bigot. But I understand that words on a computer screen look and sound harsher than they are intended. I'm at least as guilty of this as anyone.

    "We" is the people. Not any particular group - all of them.

    Looking at segregation - it was a hard time for America. But segregation absolutely pales in comparision to much of the rest of human history in misery & degradement.

    Many believe that we're somehow outside of history, that human nature has changed. And another woman is trampled at a holiday sale.

    Would you define moral as one's sense of right? Every time you are arguing your points you are pushing your version of morality - you want to be fair to all - a noble thing, to be sure, but still what you think is right. Is that wrong :)? Then why is it a problem if a Christian does it?

    All that aside :)), I still don't see where in the Constitution it gives the court authority to change the definition of marriage, and without it, the court is upsurping the will of "we" - the people.

    Pete
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Abraham Lincoln

  23. #48
    Chris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    California
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody
    Sorry, I just cannot understand the arguement that you, and many others, make that allowing a union between two consenting adults of the same sex inevitably leads down the road to child abuse and beastiality.
    That's what I'm saying. It's like some are afraid that recognizing gay marriages will turn more people gay or something... or even more ridiculous, will encourage more sex crimes or despicable acts. As if being gay has anything to do with that.

    And Pete, even the dictionary gets updated sometimes. If the only argument against allowing gays to marry is the dictionary definition, then it will likely be updated. A dictionary definition will likely not prove to be as strong as a written law (there isn't a law which defines marriage that I'm aware of). I don't see it holding up in court when people challenge it. Though you don't think it belongs in court, it will end up there as long as corporations continue to refuse to give medical benefits to people because of the dictionary's (and society's) definition of the word marriage - or if they are denied any other opportunity because of it.

    So to answer your original question - it probably doesn't say anywhere, in any state legislation, that gay marriage is a right. But the equally important point is, it also isn't written in any of that same legislation that gays do not have the right to marry. Equal opportunity is something that will win out here. Heterosexuals do not have the right to more opportunities than homosexuals in our society. That's probably what it will come down to. It's the benefits afforded to married couples that will give homosexuals their winning arguments.

    Hey, I know we won't agree on this and that's fine. At least the trolls are gone for now and I don't think you're a bigot. I enjoy debating this stuff and hearing opposing opinions and why people have those opinions.

  24. #49
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete

    The founding fathers certainly would've considered that gay marriage devalues real marriage. I realize most people think that's quaint. But it's tough to ignore because of their success. They clearly understood human nature.
    Kinda like they considered allowing women rights would devalue man's superiority? Like they considered abolishing slavery would devalue white supremecy? Like they considered interracial marriage would devalue"real" marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete

    And, though there is some residual discrimination against gays, for the most part they are accepted, almost fawned over in the cities, at least! Can anyone here honestly say they don't have gays in their larger family circle, and/or at work? How are they discriminated against? And ask them (know any closely?) - they know gay marriage is a phony - they just want it for some sort of symbol.
    Yes, as a matter of fact, a couple. Two from marriage, one at work(maybe). How are they(gays) discriminated against? Ask the mom of the serviceman that got kicked out of the service back in the Clinton days when all he did was admit his preference to his buddies. Remember the don't ask, don't tell rule? Ask the mother of the man who was beat to death outside a gay bar in Texas a few years back by a bunch of yips who obviously believed he didn't have the right to live. Don't kid yourself about marriage just being a symbol. Society has provided lots of benefits for being married. Cheaper health insurance for your spouse, cheaper car insurance for both you and your spouse, life insurance benefits, ect. You are correct that marriage is a symbol... a "right" of passage(one of many) from boyhood to manhood, a sign you have matured enough to be able to incoorperate your life with another at the most intimate level and I believe every human deserves this "right".

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete

    If I want to marry my dog, and it's not allowed, does that mean I'm not receiving equal treatment from the state? How about a kid?
    Well, first of all, you would have to establish the dogs ability to understand what it means to get married. Then you would have to establish the dogs consent to marriage. If you can do those, then why not? If that's your thing. How 'bout a kid? As I stated before, to some extent, you CAN marry a kid! LEGALLY!!!!! In the state of Kansas, as well as others, a "kid" whose 14yrs of age can get married legally. Granted, there may be limitations. Used to be that way alot more often than now but is still legal even now. Now you might have a battle doing so since some(myself included) would consider a 14yr olds decission to get married a result of cohersion.

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete

    There is no Constitutional basis for the courts to be involved. As a democracy, this is for the majority to decide, unless we are a democracy in name only.
    If you look up the definition of democracy in the dictionary(the dreaded liberals bible), and skim past the ones that talk about power of the people, you'll see at the bottom a definition that states...

    "the absence hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges"

    Translation... the absense of in-equality.
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

  25. #50
    Forum Regular karl k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas, N America, Sector 001
    Posts
    254

    So, your saying...

    Quote Originally Posted by piece-it pete
    the difference between people & animals - but that doesn't effect the discussion - and others won't. I'm just following the logic of this argument to it's conclusion.
    You don't want gays to marry so you can prevent someone from marrying their dog?

    OR...

    Are you saying that you let gays marry, you won't be able to prevent someone from marrying their dog?

    Is it alright for a dog to marry another dog?(Psst., they're already doing that in California!)

    If a dog humps my leg, does this me he's saying "I do"?

    Just trying to lighten things up a bit Pete, no disrespect intended!
    Karl K.

    The shortest distance between two points is a straight line... in the opposite direction.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •