|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
It's also a part of what YOU consider to be a heterosexual institution, which I, and many others, do NOT.
...but many MORE others DO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
|
|
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by dnewma04:
In essence, that is exactly what they are looking for. The gay people I have discussed this with could care less about the term as long as they get the legal benefits (and detriments) that heterosexuals receive with marriage.
Unfortunately, their movement does not reflect this.
According to people within the movements, it does. The movement on the other end to pass amendments like this are the people forcing the action. Status quo wasn't all that bad until these movements started on the conservative side to get the conservatives to the polls. Then the other side took notice and started standing up for themselves before things got entirely out of line. Everyone knows that the front that both sides put up allow no room for compromise. It's like the Big 3 fighting the UAW, in the beginning, there is no negotiation until crunch time hits and the bottom line is effected on both sides. But in social issues like this, only one side has any reprecussions to deal with, and it's the minority. Maybe James can comment on this issue as a member who probably knows the ins and outs (no pun intended) of the homosexual side of this argument. At this point, it seems that you, like most other conservatives, are concerned about the definition of a word rather than equal rights for minorities. In my opinion, the majority in this case has their priorities all messed up.
"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit"
-Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by dnewma04:
At this point, it seems that you, like most other conservatives, are concerned about the definition of a word rather than equal rights for minorities.
To turn that around: It seems as if those in support of "gay marriage" are more concerned about inclusion in a heterosexual institution than they are equal rights.
I understand equal rights are a product of inclusion in that institution, but equal rights can be achieved in other ways.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 3,028 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
Originally posted by Davo:
No. Some consider the acceptance of gay marriage within our society to be forcing immorality upon them. Don't think one's conception of morality is entirely independent of society.
But, nobody is asking *YOU* to accept it. You can be as pissed off as you want about it, rant and rave about it, curse about it.
And don't give me this "majority didn't accept it" crap. This isn't about what the PEOPLE want to accept, or who it's being thrust upon. Nobody is being forced to be willing to accept, agree with, or like gay marriage.
The ONLY thing it's done is exclude a minority from the same rights as the majority, which is NOT what this country was founded upon.
Actually, they have the EXACT same rights as I do to marry somebody of the opposite sex. Texas, and many states in the United States, feel the same way.
There is something inherently wrong with homo-marriage and anything else pretending to be a marriage. What is it? Anything other than a marriage between a man and a woman can provide a basis for a future of our country!!! And before you go about and give me some BS about the fact that most married couples DON'T PROCREATE, let me say this. They procreate enough to continue our society. Unfortunately, abortion and abortificient birth controls are available and legal, which kind of makes our government and society a little hypocritical.
We're not taking rights away from them, because they didn't have the right in the first place to marry a member of the opposite sex. No where in our constitution does it say that our country gives EVERYBODY THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT. If that were the case, our country would fall into an oblivion of chaos.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
|
|
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789 |
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by dnewma04:
At this point, it seems that you, like most other conservatives, are concerned about the definition of a word rather than equal rights for minorities.
To turn that around: It seems as if those in support of "gay marriage" are more concerned about inclusion in a heterosexual institution than they are equal rights.
I understand equal rights are a product of inclusion in that institution, but equal rights can be achieved in other ways.
Again, I have to ask, would you vote against an amendment that would create a single definition for a union of two people if the term used for that union was not "marriage"?
"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit"
-Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
|
|
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789 |
Originally posted by Woodencross:
Originally posted by bishop375:
Originally posted by Davo:
No. Some consider the acceptance of gay marriage within our society to be forcing immorality upon them. Don't think one's conception of morality is entirely independent of society.
But, nobody is asking *YOU* to accept it. You can be as pissed off as you want about it, rant and rave about it, curse about it.
And don't give me this "majority didn't accept it" crap. This isn't about what the PEOPLE want to accept, or who it's being thrust upon. Nobody is being forced to be willing to accept, agree with, or like gay marriage.
The ONLY thing it's done is exclude a minority from the same rights as the majority, which is NOT what this country was founded upon.
Actually, they have the EXACT same rights as I do to marry somebody of the opposite sex. Texas, and many states in the United States, feel the same way.
There is something inherently wrong with homo-marriage and anything else pretending to be a marriage. What is it? Anything other than a marriage between a man and a woman can provide a basis for a future of our country!!! And before you go about and give me some BS about the fact that most married couples DON'T PROCREATE, let me say this. They procreate enough to continue our society. Unfortunately, abortion and abortificient birth controls are available and legal, which kind of makes our government and society a little hypocritical.
Re-read what you wrote and try to soak it in. First, we are talking about a statically small percentage of the country's population. Second, your pro-creation point is only a valid concern if you can somehow convince gay people to unnaturally (to them at least) marry someone of the opposite sex. Otherwise, I'd be willing to bet the majority of gay men and women will not look at an amendment like this and say to themselves. "Crap, i can't marry the person I consider my soul mate, so I might as well get married to some chick i don't love and make babies". It's not going to happen. Like you said, the hetero couples pro-create enough , right? I have a big problem with Abortion, but my concern has nothing to do with the continuation of our society, it's for the unborn child's welfare. You also seem to have your priorities crooked. I have no problem with birth control, prior to conception, sex isn't dirty and soemthing to only do 3 times during your lifetime. The lack of birth control, i could see doing more harm to our society than the use there of.
Quote:
We're not taking rights away from them, because they didn't have the right in the first place to marry a member of the opposite sex. No where in our constitution does it say that our country gives EVERYBODY THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT. If that were the case, our country would fall into an oblivion of chaos.
If this is so definite, why are the states explicitly defining it now, aside from getting conservatives attention for the last election? If this is so clearly the case, there is no need for amendments at any level of government.
If memory serves , the original constitution before amendments only defined that different races would not be allowed to marry. Gender was not specifically addressed. (this may be off, but I don't have time to look it up to verify and is just purely off memory.)
"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit"
-Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,290 |
I'm still trying to figure out what two gay dudes marrying each other has to do with anyone else's ability to procreate. 
E0 #36
'95 Ranger
'82 Honda CX500
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
|
|
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789 |
Duh, if gay "marriage" is allowed, they will recruit straight people into their cult until they are the majority. At that point, they will ban adoptions to ensure the end of the United States before moving on to other countries. Bird flu my ass, this is a real pandemic. It's all a diabolical scheme for world domination led by their up and coming leader, Sodomy Hussein.
"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit"
-Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,307 |
Originally posted by Woodencross:
Actually, they have the EXACT same rights as I do to marry somebody of the opposite sex. Texas, and many states in the United States, feel the same way.
Why don't YOU want to marry someone of the same sex?
Originally posted by Woodencross:
There is something inherently wrong with homo-marriage and anything else pretending to be a marriage. What is it? Anything other than a marriage between a man and a woman can provide a basis for a future of our country!!! And before you go about and give me some BS about the fact that most married couples DON'T PROCREATE, let me say this. They procreate enough to continue our society. Unfortunately, abortion and abortificient birth controls are available and legal, which kind of makes our government and society a little hypocritical.
Wow, time to put down whatever you've been smoking. It's starting to cloud your reality.
Originally posted by Woodencross:
We're not taking rights away from them, because they didn't have the right in the first place to marry a member of the opposite sex. No where in our constitution does it say that our country gives EVERYBODY THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT. If that were the case, our country would fall into an oblivion of chaos.
This isn't a matter of everybody being given the right to do what they want. It's a matter of a minority being given the same rights granted to the majority, nothing else.
Frankly, this kind of insanity doesn't surprise me coming from someone whose s/n is "woodencross."
1998 SVT Contour Silver Frost for sale in Classifieds.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
|
|
I feel Guilty, Oh so guilty
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,789 |
Originally posted by bishop375:
Frankly, this kind of insanity doesn't surprise me coming from someone whose s/n is "woodencross."
I wholeheartedly disagree with his arguments, but this is a cheapshot at him and any other christian on the board (which includes people on your side of the argument).
"If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit"
-Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
|
|
