|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
Originally posted by Auto-X Fil:
The conservative belief that I take stock in does not place homosexuals in a different class of people like is being implied. Homosexuality is an activity, not a genetic trait. I believe it to be wrong, and so don't participate. I also am not having sex with my fiance before we get married. Now, I have lots of single friends that sleep with other people, but does that stop me from hanging out with them? No, of course not. And by the same token, it's rediculous to ostracize homosexuals for not behaving as I feel they should, because they don't believe the same things I do. Their actions may disgust me, but they are not less of a human being for doing something I don't like.
Now, legally, the issue is a little different. I will vote down gay marriage rights because I feel it is wrong. But the reason for the law is not to keep people from sinning, since they don't see it that way. If they decide to believe as I do, then they will change how they act - not the other way around. The reason for the law is that homosexual unions are detrimental to our society.
link to story
The lacivious and non-traditional aspects of a home with same-sex parents is not a stable place for a child to develop. Studies such as the one above routinely show this. I belive that it's because this is not as God intended, but no matter the reason, it's harmful to society. Homosexuals tend to experiment with drugs, have psychological disorders, and are much more likely to have been sexually abused as children. I see no evidence that it's genetic, and anything to stem the tide of acceptance and expose the truth is going to get my vote.
Studies have proven that when these santified hetersexual marriages end in divorce the children are adversely affected. However, divorce has been a tradition longer than monogamous marriage. Consult your precious bible and look into the allowances for divorce in the laws given to Moses (not the ten commandments). How many wives did many of these early men of god have? More than one.
When people try to claim that marriage is only for one man and woman, that is Western Conceit. Marriage has been an extremely flexible arraignment and in the current day, many societies still practice polygamy and polyandry. Saying that only "one man and one woman" is the only right way is a restrictive Christian viewpoint. And the last time I checked, all government in this nation is supposed to be secular government and no religion should be favored over another.
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
Originally posted by Mushu:
I voted against it.
I would like to shake your hand.
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Yes, and once again the majority inflicts it's idiotic will on the minority.
Wait...you mean the people chose to define marriage as between a man and a woman? Since when are liberals against choice? Oh yeah, whenever it's inconvenient for them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by 99SVT:
A rock can't love anyone. A dog can't consent. It's when two people LOVE EACH OTHER and consent to the marriage or union or whatever.
Wait...are you trying to define marriage? What gives you the right to do that?
...and I'm pretty sure dogs don't consent to being help captive either, but we do it anyways.
EDIT: The timing of this is shocking.
Last edited by Davo; 11/09/05 11:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,165
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,165 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by 99SVT:
A rock can't love anyone. A dog can't consent. It's when two people LOVE EACH OTHER and consent to the marriage or union or whatever.
Wait...are you trying to define marriage? What gives you the right to do that?
...and I'm pretty sure dogs don't consent to being help captive either, but we do it anyways.
EDIT: The timing of this is shocking.
Hell no! I'm sick of this. From now on I'm against all marriage. No gay marriage. No man and woman marriage. No rocks getting married. No dogs. No pandas.
This is the new movement. True Equality. NOONE can get married. No more divorces.
NO MARRIAGE!!
Alright I got to go make some bumper stickers. I'll see you all later!!  
I live in Detroit, I couldn't give a **** how good my car is in the "twisties."
"I could use a hundred people who don't know there is such a word as impossible."
~Henry Ford
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Yes, and once again the majority inflicts it's idiotic will on the minority.
Wait...you mean the people chose to define marriage as between a man and a woman? Since when are liberals against choice? Oh yeah, whenever it's inconvenient for them.
Me = not liberal, so put your labels back in the desk drawer where they belong.
THE PEOPLE forget that their role as the governed is to not only protect what they believe is true, but to also protect the will of those with less of a voice. THE PEOPLE respond quickly on issues of protecting children even though it is often inconvenient to THE PEOPLE as a whole. What homosexuals are asking for is not for the straight couple of Jane and John to cast their heterosexuality aside or to welcome homosexuality into their home, what they are asking for is the privilege considered automatic for John and Jane to be extended to Bob and Joe as well as Janet and Jackie. Will this REALLY endanger heterosexual marriage? I can't see it no more damaging than a marriage annulment, common law marriage or the acres of divorce related law already on the books.
In MY perfect world, my vision of marriage is one where any consenting adult can enter into a legally binding marriage contract with any singular consenting adults or even multiple consenting adults. As far as the law is concerned, the ONLY regulations concerning marriage of any type is to protect the needs and well being of the children of any marriage as much as possible, regulate for the fair distribution to joint property and to ensure that dissatisfied parties can seek legal means to resolve divorce disputes.
Allowing married partners or groups access to medical benefits and so on would be the responsibility of the insurer to levy appropriate premiums for those arrangements. If a company CHOSES to not cover a multiple family, fine. However, they should not be allowed to discriminate based on whether the family involved is "straight" or "gay".
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Me = not liberal, so put your labels back in the desk drawer where they belong.
Prove me wrong, man ... prove me wrong.
Originally posted by Beowulf:
THE PEOPLE forget that their role as the governed is to not only protect what they believe is true, but to also protect the will of those with less of a voice.
Did you make that up, or did it come in the daily email?
Originally posted by Beowulf:
THE PEOPLE respond quickly on issues of protecting children even though it is often inconvenient to THE PEOPLE as a whole.
See above.
Originally posted by Beowulf:
What homosexuals are asking for is not for the straight couple of Jane and John to cast their heterosexuality aside or to welcome homosexuality into their home, what they are asking for is the privilege considered automatic for John and Jane to be extended to Bob and Joe as well as Janet and Jackie.
If homosexuality is different from heterosexuality, why would they want the same union? Why do they want so badly to be a part of a heterosexual insitution?
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Allowing married partners or groups access to medical benefits and so on would be the responsibility of the insurer to levy appropriate premiums for those arrangements. If a company CHOSES to not cover a multiple family, fine. However, they should not be allowed to discriminate based on whether the family involved is "straight" or "gay".
Wow. Okay. So under your system I'd be able to insure everyone on my block under my policy. Pretty cool idea, I guess. I'd probably make a lot of friends under that system. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,889
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,889 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Wow. Okay. So under your system I'd be able to insure everyone on my block under my policy. Pretty cool idea, I guess. I'd probably make a lot of friends under that system.
I think you'd have to give them more than insurance to be your friend because after all Dave you are still you!
99 Contour Sport SE MTX
KKM filter, B&M shifter
No res, BAT kit
Green car silver hood (because silver is faster)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Me = not liberal, so put your labels back in the desk drawer where they belong.
Originally posted by Davo:
Prove me wrong, man ... prove me wrong.
Just because I believe that gay marriage should not just be legal but as well as protected as a heterosexual marriage I am a liberal? I KNOW that your labels don't apply to me. You are the one jumping to this conclusion based on YOUR preconceptions of what subset of beliefs a "liberal" is supposed to have. The burden of proof is on YOU to back up your assumption.
Originally posted by Beowulf:
THE PEOPLE forget that their role as the governed is to not only protect what they believe is true, but to also protect the will of those with less of a voice.
Originally posted by Davo:
Did you make that up, or did it come in the daily email?
Daily email? No idea what nonsense you are spouting. Do you think that we do not have the responsibility to protect minorities? Did you sleep during your history lessons about the Civil Rights Movement, Equal Oppertunity and other measures that we AS A PEOPLE have enacted to protect the rights and privileges of minorities? Or do you have SWASTIKA tattooed to your forehead? That assumption is just as valid at this point as your assumption that I am a liberal.
Really though, I understand your need to put a label on a person so that you can pigeonhole them. It is essential in your need to feel superior.
Originally posted by Beowulf:
THE PEOPLE respond quickly on issues of protecting children even though it is often inconvenient to THE PEOPLE as a whole.
Originally posted by Davo:
See above.
You didn't make a valid point. Make one, and I will address it.
Originally posted by Beowulf:
What homosexuals are asking for is not for the straight couple of Jane and John to cast their heterosexuality aside or to welcome homosexuality into their home, what they are asking for is the privilege considered automatic for John and Jane to be extended to Bob and Joe as well as Janet and Jackie.
Originally posted by Davo:
If homosexuality is different from heterosexuality, why would they want the same union? Why do they want so badly to be a part of a heterosexual insitution?
The only thing that is different is that people of the same sex are involved. I have known many gay people. Some are just like my sex crazed hetero friends and will [censored] any person they find attactive. Some are in stable long standing relationships with a same sex partner. Makes them EXACTLY like my hetero friends. And I reject that marriage is a heterosexual institution. That comment was made with a blatant disregard for thousands of years of human history where marriage was anything but "one man and one woman"
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Allowing married partners or groups access to medical benefits and so on would be the responsibility of the insurer to levy appropriate premiums for those arrangements. If a company CHOSES to not cover a multiple family, fine. However, they should not be allowed to discriminate based on whether the family involved is "straight" or "gay".
Originally posted by Davo:
Wow. Okay. So under your system I'd be able to insure everyone on my block under my policy. Pretty cool idea, I guess. I'd probably make a lot of friends under that system.
If you wanted to enter into a legally binding marital argreement with your whole block where you shared familial duties with all of them, sure. I bet the insurance company would charge you a hefty premium though.
I don't know about your insurance company, but if I were married, I would pay extra to have my spouse on it, just like I currently pay more each month to include my son.
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,193 |
I am disappointed, but not surprised, that Texas has decided to engage in discriminatory moral engineering towards homosexuals.
Our nation was only partially built upon majority rule. That rule was designed withing specific powers and designed to protect the rights of minorities. The civil right to equal access to marriage was just denied a group of people because they are fundamentally attracted romantically to the same gender.
Let me put it point blank from personal experience. Homosexuality is not a choice. It is a fundamental inborn part of whom you are. I was born gay just like I was born white and male.
It would not be such a big deal if government did not discriminate in so many ways towards married people. I would repeal each and every one of them, but that's another topic for another time. The essential point is that Texas has just said my love and commitment to my partner is somehow less valid because he is a man versus a woman.
Some of you here think homosexuality is immoral and that gay marriage is a complete abomination. You know what? I have no problem with that. You are free to hold whatever beliefs and morals you want and express them as much as you want. Call homosexuals or me personally immoral and doomed to hell. Picket outside every gay marriage ceremony. Go right ahead, that's your right. However, you cross a very important line though when you force your morality on me, using the law or otherwise. I have every bit as much right to live my morality as you have to live your morality. Laws like this one in Texas deny people that essential human right.
The only right government has to infringe on morality is to prevent harm to those who do not or cannot consent to the action. A same-sex marriage harms nobody outside the two partners, and it involves two consenting adults. This is where the slippery slope lacks basis. Every argument involves either a party who does not or cannot consent, or involves a vastly different relationship that is not possible to be born with.
Suppose your state passed a law repealing the gender restriction on marriage. What harm would that impose on any heterosexual in your state? What action, belief, thought, or feeling does the passing of this law take away from you? How does this make you love and commitment to your spouse any less?
The difference is that when you place specific bans to strengthen the artificial gender restriction on marriage, you strengthen limitations on my actions and my ability to be an equal member of society.
There is no evidence to even suggest, much less prove, that children with same sex parents are any worse off than children with parents of the opposite sex. 1 in 5 gay couples and 1 in 3 lesbian couples are raising or have raised children.
This form of moral engineering, forcing a certain morality onto everybody is detrimental to the rights and freedom of all.
Brad "Diva": 2004 Mazda 6s 5-door, Volcanic Red
Rex: 1988 Mazda RX-7 Vert, Harbor Blue.
|
|
|
|
|
