|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 682
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 682 |
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
SOME of it has meaning, but most of this is back and forth debating.
Those states voted to not allow gay marriage. To those states the MAJORITY of the people do not believe in it. Thats the way the system is, and thats the way the system has worked for over 200+ years. It may eventually change, it may not.
Just in another thread where I complained about EC, people were saying it was needed to avoid tyranny of majority.
These same people also are quite adamant in keeping the Constitution as-it-is. And are certainly quite aware of the importance of rights that no majority can take away.
Somehow, when it comes to gay marriage they however dismiss any possibility of a constitutional right to get married and the people are quick to use THEIR tyranny of majority to CHANGE the Constitution.
Quite frankly, if I was gay, I would claim my sexuality to be part of my religion and therefore force it to be included as a religious right.
I believe that banning gay marriage is direct gender discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional. But this I understand is hard for many to believe.
hmm. I have almost 666 posts. Eeexcellent....
Last edited by daenku32; 11/04/04 04:25 PM.
98.5 Contour SVT
"Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country"
--US President George W Bush
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,335
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,335 |
I really dont want to read this entire thread, just to hear people argure back and forth about who is right, who is wrong, if its religion a choice or whatever.
The main point is that on the second day in November, 2004, a decent portion of eleven bigoted (homophobic?) states took the CIVIL RIGHTS away from roughly ten percent of the American public.
I guess if getting our hands tied behind our backs or having to ride on the back of the bus is what it takes to be an American then I guess I am a real American. Just make sure that when my rights are taken away, I still get to pay my share of taxes just like the remaining ninety percent of the country, because when it comes to the almighty dollar, we are all the same.
Obviously this is still a touchy subject, and it probably will be for quite some time. For now, Im going to stand behind the idea of, "66% of all Utahans can go [censored] themselves."
· Jon Miconi
· Coming Soon!
· 01 Cougar
· 98 V70R
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Originally posted by CHF_Slapaho:
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
Originally posted by daenku32:
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
But marriage, as defined by laws, is based on this religious ceremony from the bible's account of creation.
Your local code must be different because the Indiana Code for marriage doesn't mention anything about Adam and Eve, the Bible, or any such requirement to keep marriage laws biblically acceptable.
My point was that its the same thing, and based on that. Why would they create a law and say "this law is based on the bible: "? Lets not get silly. Law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. The people that founded this country were christians, and for the most part based their laws on those beliefs. Especially marriage.
Stop trying to evangelize your beliefs on others forcefully.
Dude, do not accuse me of that please. In no way do I see what I said above as any sort of "forcing" my beleifs on you. I'm offended by that remark.
Originally posted by neelnug:
People are scared about what they don't understand. They hide behind things (bible) or use them as crutches (religion) to protect themselves from the unknown or things that they cannot understand.
I don't hide behind anything. The thought of it makes me physically sick. I can't help that, I'm sorry. I'm not going to tell them they can't do that, or anything else because thats their choice. But I have my right to my opinion and feelings too.
What I dont' get is the whole gay movement thing. I've never had something shoved into my face from so many directions as gay rights. It's one thing to have equal rights, but to market it so that the public will begin to "accept" it feels wrong. We know its there, but we dont' have to be happy about it if we don't want to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Originally posted by ExDelayed:
roughly ten percent of the American public.
Not trying to step back into arguement, just correcting info,,, roughly 6 percent.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,570 |
Originally posted by ExDelayed:
The main point is that on the second day in November, 2004, a decent portion of eleven bigoted (homophobic?) states took the CIVIL RIGHTS away from roughly ten percent of the American public.
I think thats bullcrap. Gays didn't have anything taken away from them. They were prevented from making a legal arrangement between a man and woman something different than what it is.
Nobody has said they can't have some sort of union or whatever, they just can't call it marraige.
I don't see any reason why you need to use the adjectives you did to describe the states that voted it down. Thats unneccessarily aggressive. This is a peaceful debate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 810
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 810 |
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
What I dont' get is the whole gay movement thing. I've never had something shoved into my face from so many directions as gay rights. It's one thing to have equal rights, but to market it so that the public will begin to "accept" it feels wrong. We know its there, but we dont' have to be happy about it if we don't want to.
Well I've never had a movement shoved in my face harder than the evangelical preachers on at least 3 channels in my city blasting away with their interpretations of the bible and asking for money so they can pay for their BMW's and make weakminded people think they've paid their way into salvation. And they don't even make the effort to try to appeal to other denominations that don't understand them. I've had them come down to FIU and tell students that Princess Diana is burning in hell with Ghandi b/c they were not Christians. I find them sick too, yet I let them be. You have the right to feel how you want and believe in what you want but don't even attempt to infringe upon me for any reason.
And what if your kid turns out gay? Or lesbian? Would you appreciate your neighbors discriminating against him/her too? Would you appreciate a mass gathering of people united to make sure that your gay child could not be considered equal amongst Americans?
It's not just about you and your beliefs. You are not an island.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,335
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,335 |
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Not trying to step back into arguement, just correcting info,,, roughly 6 percent.
Ok, only 17,616,000 people lost their rights then.
· Jon Miconi
· Coming Soon!
· 01 Cougar
· 98 V70R
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,625
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,625 |
They did? They had something taken away that they had before?
I liked the girl scout analogy. But I just woke up and I'm not thinking straight. But that doesn't mean I'm thinking gay, either.
I'll leave you with this. This is me and my friend, Big Gay Alex. He gave me a Hanson t-shirt in exchange for some sweet loving on camera.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 810
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 810 |
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
I think thats bullcrap. Gays didn't have anything taken away from them. They were prevented from making a legal arrangement between a man and woman something different than what it is.
Nobody has said they can't have some sort of union or whatever, they just can't call it marraige.
Maybe that's the first step for them then. My issue is that just because a person's sexual preference is different we have to make new terms for them to suit that difference? Howabout when thugs in the ghetto get married we call it "Hooked Up"? Howabout when hillbillies with no teeth get married we call it "Cousin Fuzzin"? (JOKE!) Why should we make it different?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,335
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,335 |
Originally posted by rkneeshaw3.0:
Nobody has said they can't have some sort of union or whatever, they just can't call it marraige.
Quote:
Section 1. It is proposed to enact Utah Constitution Article I, Section 29, to read:
Article I, Section 29. [Marriage.]
(1) Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
(2) No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
That's Utah's amendment, so apparently there are to be no unions of any type, unless its a straight marriage.
Im not calling the citizens of those eleven states bigots or homophobes. Misinformed maybe, but they are still people, havent done any physical harm to me, so there is no reason for me to hate them as a person. I may not like their actions, but thats what this is about.
· Jon Miconi
· Coming Soon!
· 01 Cougar
· 98 V70R
|
|
|
|
|
