Erollisi Marr - The Nameless

Go Back   Erollisi Marr - The Nameless > NON EQ Stuff (Real life, other games, etc.) > Steam Vent


Reply
 
Add/Share Add/Share Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-22-2004, 12:55 AM   #51
chukzombi
The Undead Shaman
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Bowels of Hell, A.K.A. New Jersey
Posts: 9,566
Many thought they were right in fighting against blacks marrying whites. Those people were wrong just as those of you who are arguing that homosexuals should not marry are wrong.
This is not a racial issue dumbass, its a choice issue, a guy chooses another man a girl chooses another woman its something they can prevent by not doing. homosexuality is not a state of mind, its a sexual fetish, much like eating someones crap or choking themselves while they spank little johny behind the ear. Whats next some guy walks into the courthouse with his blowup doll and spanksock wanting equal rights?

Really, its silly to hate a person becuase they're gay but its correct not to tolerate their perverted acts. There is a reason why overwhelming majority in this country is very much against same sex marriage. most american citizens were raised with morals and values, they want to see their children growing up a healthy normal life, to live the american dream.
__________________
Chukzombi Astrocreep
Magister (re-united)
chukzombi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 03:36 AM   #52
Kulani Autumnwood
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Pit of Despair (So. Cal.)
Posts: 554
Originally Posted by Martigan
Gay marriage waters down the meaning of my marriage.
Heh, you must have some marriage there Martigan. Heres a hint... if your marriage is so fragile that the actions of other people can "water it down" or affect it in anyway, I'm sure we'll be seeing you in divorce court sometime soon.

Last edited by Kulani Autumnwood; 02-22-2004 at 03:37 AM. Reason: extra quotes I didn't want
Kulani Autumnwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 05:26 AM   #53
Ulujain
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: La La Land
Posts: 1,930
Originally Posted by Ogmuk
It's funny how countries can differ. I think the Netherlands has the most 'pro-homosexual' laws, if that's how one should call it. Besides marriage, it's perfectly okay for them to join the army too, they may adopt children and most other 'rights' that heterosexuals have. I don't see why they shouldn't have these rights. If you believe every word that's written in the bible then you must have never seen the Discovery Channel, you know, about evolution and things like that! And it wasn't about Adam & Eve and a rather long story that starts with, and repeatedly mentions inbred throughout the book...
Ogmuk, I thought your PM was a strict Christian moralist? Isn't he hell-bent on reversing a lot of the liberalism the Netherlands are famous for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Peter_Balkenende in case anyone wants to know how he is. Yes, he is Harry Potter =)
__________________
S.I.G.N.A.T.U.R.E.
Ulujain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 05:51 AM   #54
Ogmuk
Administrator
 
Ogmuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,335
Ogmuk, I thought your PM was a strict Christian moralist? Isn't he hell-bent on reversing a lot of the liberalism the Netherlands are famous for?
You hit the nail on the head If it was up to him and his CDA faction alone they would reverse many of these laws, but they would never get the support from the other factions to do this.
__________________
Ogmuk <Da`Kor>
Ogmuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 06:35 AM   #55
Trith
The lesser of two weevils
 
Trith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 3,490
Send a message via MSN to Trith
I live in San Francisco. I live here because I love the diversity. It's an amazing metropolis where any race, creed, color or sexual orientation is welcome. Ever go to the Erotic Exotic Ball or Bay to Breakers or Halloween in the Castro? I have. They're amazingly decadent parties - dominated by homosexuals.
And this is why I cheer for the San Andreas fault..
Trith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 07:27 AM   #56
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
This issue is about nothing more then granting special rights... not our common rights which everyone has, but special rights to a particular preference.

On one side you have those who say "Yes, their preference's should be granted special rights". On the other you have "No, they should have their every whim protected by law."
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 11:52 AM   #57
Lurikeen
Freaky
 
Lurikeen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 17,873
Originally Posted by chukzombi
This is not a racial issue dumbass,
No shit Sherlock? Glad you caught on to that, too bad you missed the point. Which was... There are no good reasons for claiming that "marriage" is an institution worth discriminating against others for.

its a choice issue, a guy chooses another man a girl chooses another woman
Interracial marriages are not about choice? You seem to have hit the bong hard, retard.

And as far as this statement of yours...

Originally Posted by Chukstromboli
homosexuality is not a state of mind, its a sexual fetish
only proves your utter ignorance.

You haven't written anything that addresses my earlier statement. Many thought they were right in fighting against blacks marrying whites (People who chose to marry outside thier race). Those people were wrong just as those of you who are arguing that homosexuals should not marry are wrong.
__________________
"All I said was... that bit of halibut is good enough for Jehovah." óMonty Python's "Life of Brian"
Lurikeen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 12:53 PM   #58
Brocc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 41
This is plain and simple. As of right now the marriage's are illegal. Debating the moral and social values is worthless and a waste time. It would be more productive to give your self an enima than try to change Chuk's or Lurikeen or Ares opinions on this. This is one of those issues your not gonna change some ones mind about how they feeling with rational or irrational blather. Want the law to change fine sue the government, call your representative. Both of which are being done at this moment. I will not support ANYONE in breaking ANY law. It be comes legal, hey good for ya.

If the Mayor of a major city knowingly breaks a state law, no matter how just or injust you may think it may be. It sets a horrible precedent. Whats the next law thats "ok" to break. Im sure something like this will be put on a ballot fairly shortly in California with all the controversy it has cause. I'll vote for it, why not let gay's and lesbians be as miserable as every heterosexual married couple I know. Why not let em have to deal with a messy divorce, alimony, custody battles dividing everything up and all the other wonderful things that come with marriage.

Brocc
Brocc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 01:18 PM   #59
Kulani Autumnwood
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Pit of Despair (So. Cal.)
Posts: 554
Originally Posted by Rheaton
This issue is about nothing more then granting special rights... not our common rights which everyone has, but special rights to a particular preference.

On one side you have those who say "Yes, their preference's should be granted special rights". On the other you have "No, they should have their every whim protected by law."
But they DON'T have the same rights as everyone else... everyone else can get married to the person they love. And with that one simple act, with no need for lawyers, court briefs, complicated legal documents, or large investments in time and money. Getting married in a civil ceremony can be done with under 1 weeks notice in most jurisdictions and costs around $40 (at least in Colorado thats what it cost, no idea elsewhere). Filing a power of attorney for both legal and medical issues, a will, setting up a joint bank account for a non-married couple, and any of a dozen other benifits I got simply by a civil marriage ceremony costs alot more, takes alot longer, and can be contested.

Its the last part that's really important. If, lady forbid, my husband was hit by a car on his way to work tomorrow I would legally be able to make decisions regarding his treatment and his parents/sibling would NOT be able to overturn those decisions. I would also be notified by the police/rescue personel or hospital. And I would be able to visit his hospital room.

These are all rights I gained as his wife. Since there is no will, if we were unlucky enough to be parted by his premature death, I would most likely be able to claim any and all items/money/etc we gained during our marriage without it being challenged by a third party because I am legally his next of kin, NOT his parents.

More than anything else, these are the rights that homosexual couples desire... and they are rights that any other kind of couple in the united states can get.
Kulani Autumnwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 02:47 PM   #60
Martigan
Supporter
 
Martigan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Juan Bautista, CA
Posts: 4,466
Send a message via AIM to Martigan
if your marriage is so fragile that the actions of other people can "water it down" or affect it in anyway, I'm sure we'll be seeing you in divorce court sometime soon.
My marriage is strong. I've been married almost 15 years. Marriage itself is watered down with allowing same-sex marriages. Since the meaning of marriage is watered down, that means the meaning of my marriage is watered down.

The institution I was married under was for a man and a woman. That's the way it should be.

If you open marriage up for same-sex, then why not open it up for polygamy, beastiality, etc?
Martigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 03:30 PM   #61
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
But they DON'T have the same rights as everyone else... everyone else can get married to the person they love.
What if you're male and you love 3 woman and want to marry all 3 of them? That guy has just as much right as a homosexual.
__________________
My Music
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 03:57 PM   #62
TalvaranRW
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 155
Procreation requires 1 and only 1 combination of individuals.
1 man + 1 woman = baby making goodness
1 man + 1 man = no babies
1 woman + 1 woman = no babies
1 man + multiple women = fun, but the extra women do nothing to help each other conceive
1 woman + multiple men = fun, but the extra men do nothing to create extra babies
On the procreation thing, I would love to see the day when a post-menapausel woman and a Steral guy couldn't get married because "they couldn't procreate just like gay people can't"

Discriminating against people is exactly what the nazi's did, closeminded fools, they aren't hurting you so let them do what they want. Fuck don't be a buncha right stomping neo nazi's, tards, it's not hurting anyone so why the hell do you care what they do.

Oh and to those who say it's a fetish and not natural: http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentw...-06-10/591.asp
__________________
I wish to die as I have lived: back against the wall, weapons in hand and enemies before me - Puffin
TalvaranRW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 04:00 PM   #63
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Kulani Autumnwood
But they DON'T have the same rights as everyone else... everyone else can get married to the person they love. And with that one simple act, with no need for lawyers, court briefs, complicated legal documents, or large investments in time and money. Getting married in a civil ceremony can be done with under 1 weeks notice in most jurisdictions and costs around $40 (at least in Colorado thats what it cost, no idea elsewhere). Filing a power of attorney for both legal and medical issues, a will, setting up a joint bank account for a non-married couple, and any of a dozen other benifits I got simply by a civil marriage ceremony costs alot more, takes alot longer, and can be contested.
There is not, nor ever has been, a 'right' to marry. Marriage is a long-standing institution that is respected by certain laws.

Its the last part that's really important. If, lady forbid, my husband was hit by a car on his way to work tomorrow I would legally be able to make decisions regarding his treatment and his parents/sibling would NOT be able to overturn those decisions. I would also be notified by the police/rescue personel or hospital. And I would be able to visit his hospital room.
These are hospital policies your are talking about... not rights'. There have been many cases of where a spouse's decisions have been challanged in the courts by others (close friends, other family members, etc). Also, for $50-$100, both parties, regardless of relationship, can file for power of attorney.

These are all rights I gained as his wife. Since there is no will, if we were unlucky enough to be parted by his premature death, I would most likely be able to claim any and all items/money/etc we gained during our marriage without it being challenged by a third party because I am legally his next of kin, NOT his parents.
Again, there are no 'rights'. Your choices in regards can and have been over-turned in the courts.

More than anything else, these are the rights that homosexual couples desire... and they are rights that any other kind of couple in the united states can get.
Lets re-phrase that another way...: "..these are rights that those U.S. citizens, who have homosexual preferences, desire... and they are rights that any other citizen, married or single, in the United States can get."

Lets not start a new classification of humans and call them 'The Homosexuals'. Lets keep it what it is.. a person, of U.S. citizenship, afforded all rights as all other citizens, whom have homosexual preferences. Why? Cause what is being asked here is that special rights be granted to those particular preferences. Heterosexual preferences in regards to marriage is recognized by certain laws, but not granted "rights."

What is being confused here is the 'rights' of two consenting adults. Well, in regards sexual pleasures, where no one is being harmed, then yes.. I suppose there exist a right to happiness in that respect. However, there is still much that two consenting adults cannot legally do regardless of how consenting they are.
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2004, 04:52 PM   #64
Veo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,926
What is being confused here is the 'rights' of two consenting adults. Well, in regards sexual pleasures, where no one is being harmed, then yes.. I suppose there exist a right to happiness in that respect. However, there is still much that two consenting adults cannot legally do regardless of how consenting they are.
Last I heard, it's called "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Conservatives tend to forget that, unless it's in line with their belief of what happiness is. And that seems to be "pissing off everyone that's not rich, or those who disagree with conservatives."
Veo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 04:36 AM   #65
Kulani Autumnwood
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Pit of Despair (So. Cal.)
Posts: 554
Originally Posted by Martigan
Since the meaning of marriage is watered down, that means the meaning of my marriage is watered down.
Who says the meaning of marriage has been watered down? What IS the meaning of marriage? Does marriage mean the same thing to everyone? Should it? If so, who decides?

Originally Posted by Martigan
The institution I was married under was for a man and a woman. That's the way it should be.
Why is that the way it should be? Because you say so? What makes you better than anyone else? Because your religion says so? Why your religion and not mine? Because the majority says so? The majority approved slavery at one point in history, the majority can be wrong.

Originally Posted by Martigan
If you open marriage up for same-sex, then why not open it up for polygamy, bestiality, etc?
Originally Posted by Maximus Faticus
What if you're male and you love 3 woman and want to marry all 3 of them? That guy has just as much right as a homosexual
Since you both ask the same question, I will endeavor to answer with my beliefs on the subject.

Letís start with the easy one... Pedophilia. Not mentioned, but it's probably lurking in the back of your thoughts... seems to enter into this debate every time. Pedophilia can be defined as a mature individual attempting to engage in reproductive acts with an immature individual. In most species this would not be an issue... most species, while it's not strictly healthy, are close enough to physical maturity to handle carrying young to term.

What it comes down to is the difference between sexual maturity, physical maturity, and emotional maturity among the different species.

Different species mature at different rates... in horses, there would be nothing unusual in a 30 year old mating with a 5 year old. In humans... that would be sick beyond belief. A 5 year old horse is both sexually and physically mature.

Humans are unusual in that we mature sexually proportionally further from physical maturity than any other species. Most species reach sexual maturity within a year or two of reaching full physical maturity... humans can reach sexual maturity at 9 and most don't reach physical maturity until their late teens... almost a decade later. Therefore, from a strictly reproductive point, it would be unwise to use sexual maturity as a guideline for what constitutes pedophilia in humans because of this.

Physical maturity is a better guide, although there are limits... assuming one party reaches physical maturity early (say 16)... well, a 30 year old would be ill advised to engage in reproductive behavior with them even though they are technically mature, because they have not matured emotionally yet.

You can't strictly use emotional maturity because some people mature at a young age... and many reach senility before they do maturity.

There are situations in the human species (due to the long time we take to mature) where at one point it is pedophilia and at another point nobody would raise an eyebrow... for example, a 13 year old and a 19 year old, the 19 year old IS committing pedophilia. A 23 year old and a 29 year old on the other hand, most likely nobody would even notice or care if they did.

But, in general, pedophilia is NOT a sexual/reproductive behavior... you don't see animals attempting to mate before the partner has reached sexual maturity, and you shouldn't see humans attempting it. It's counterproductive, non-desirable, and sick heh. It's a control thing, like rape, NOT a reproductive/sexual thing.

Bestiality next... this, also, is an unnatural behavior. Members of one genus do not as a rule attempt to reproduce with members of another genus. There are matings within the genus, but they generally only happen when there is no access to members of the same species.

Example, Equus caballus, E. asinus, E. zebra, E. przewalskii, and E. burchelli can all interbreed, although the result is frequently sterile. Canis lupus, C. latrans, C. familiaris, and [C. occidentalis] can also all interbreed, and produce offspring which are generally fertile with each other and both parent species.
BUT, you will NOT see E. asinus attempting to mate with C. latrans.

THAT is what bestiality is; in essence... an attempt to mate outside your genus and it does NOT happen in nature to the best of my knowledge.

And, to pre-empt the person who suggests we could then be subjected to people wishing to form marriages between a human and one of the great apes... we're a separate genus. There are no living species of the genus Homo except for H. sapiens. If there were, then perhaps we would need to address the possibility, and if in the future the species divides again forming two subspecies we might... chances of that happening are slim to nil however.

Ok, we've covered Zoophilia/bestiality and pedophilia. On to polygamy.

This is probably going to lose me any support I may have had, but I won't lie to you anymore than I would lie to myself. I do not see anything wrong in a multiple marriage between consenting adults that have reached physical and emotional maturity sufficient to handle the stresses involved.

The so-called "arranged marriages" between a child and an adult are not polygamy. They aren't even monogamy if there are only the two. They are pedophilia... we wouldn't allow a 30 year old to be in a "marriage" with a 13 year old as a pair any more than we would allow it if there were a dozen people in the marriage.

In fact, if polygamy were legalized, I feel it would have great emotional and economic benefits to the people involved. For example, economics... in a married couple where both people work, if one partner dies the remaining partner's income is cut in half and they generally lose their home and lifestyle. On the other hand, in a four way marriage, they would only lose one quarter of their income, most likely being able to keep their home and lifestyle intact, and as a side benefit have two people with them who hurt just as bad and can comfort them. Also, if there are children involved... one partner in a pair dies, he or she is left to do a job alone thatís hard enough with two, plus has nobody to help explain to the children why Mommy or Daddy aren't there anymore. In a four way marriage, there would still be three parents with all the benefits of having more than one person taking care of the children.

These are my beliefs and opinions; I would just like to specify in closing that they might not be the opinions of my friends and relatives. I'm perfectly willing to converse on any of these topics, but I reserve the right to ignore personal insults.
Kulani Autumnwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 05:50 AM   #66
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Veo
Last I heard, it's called "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Conservatives tend to forget that, unless it's in line with their belief of what happiness is. And that seems to be "pissing off everyone that's not rich, or those who disagree with conservatives."
Veo, i'll let your mind do the work in figuring out what is or is not legal in the 'pursuit of happiness' between two (or more) consenting adults.

Certain ideas are being taken way out of context here. I still see often terms like "the rights of homosexuals". This statement is being applied in the same way as saying "the rights of African Americans"...and its not even close to being the same situation. Homosexuality is relative and not constant as with race or gender. You have those who may have always been gay from the time they were kids .. to those who have homosexual whims that are short lived. In other words, one could say "Today I am gay. I was not gay yesterday, nor am I sure I will be gay tomorrow.. but today I am gay". This doesnt work with minorities because they are what they are from birth to death. With that being said, we can conclude that a 'homosexual' is person with a particular preference. That this preference is the only thing that sets them apart for anyone else....and that this preference can change.

Marriage is a long standing institution that has been in place, all around the world, years before many nations came into existance - for a man and a woman. Its important that we see it as such. Marriage is not like the public work place. It is not like a school or a bus or the restrooms in a restaurant. It is not public.. it is private. there are no 'rights' to marriage in our constitution. Again, this is a private institution that the government has agreed to recognize. What is being asked here by homosexual prefering people are two things: One, this private institution be completely modified to no longer bare its original definition. And two, that the government recognize this now modified institution.

Marriage is not only the joining of two people, it is the joining of a man and a woman. This is what makes marriage what it is. If the ingredience to soda is carbonated water and syrup...and you change it to two parts carbonated water.. you do not get soda.
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 06:40 AM   #67
Kulani Autumnwood
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Pit of Despair (So. Cal.)
Posts: 554
Marriage stopped being a religeous institution the moment the government got involved and started giving more benifits to married couples than non married couples.

It is now a secular ceremony, which can be performed without either participent being of any given religeon, and is often performed in places other than a place of worship.

I doubt a courtroom counts as holy ground, and ceremonies performed therein should not count as holy ceremonies.

Example, it's tax season. Because my husband and I listened to a judge discuss the history of colorado almost 9 years ago this spring, we are entitled to a rather signifigant tax break.

There was no mention of "now, to be married you have to be religeous!", there was no priest presiding, there was no "now since you two are of different faiths, which of you is converting?".

It was not a religeous ceremony, and was not undertaken for religeous reasons.

We got married because we knew we were going to be together till death do we part anyway, so may as well take advantage of the benifits a piece of paper (signed by a judge, a bailiff, and two of my sisters) gave us.

For that matter, depending on local laws, there are parts of the country where you can obtain a legal marriage thats presided over by a civilian, like your best friend or your father and no governmental or religeous official is present.

To my mind, this has changed the entire purpose of a "marriage", and invalidated the "man and woman" part.
Kulani Autumnwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 08:34 AM   #68
Maximus Faticus
Registered User
 
Maximus Faticus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1,291
It's counterproductive, non-desirable, and sick heh.
From a biological standpoint it's a lot more productive then homosexality, which isn't productive at all. I know people will also agree that it's not desirable, and sick.
__________________
My Music
Maximus Faticus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 08:50 AM   #69
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Kulani Autumnwood
Marriage stopped being a religeous institution the moment the government got involved and started giving more benifits to married couples than non married couples.
There are sound reasons for giving 'benifits' to married couples. Namely one is the baring and raising of children. A married couple, without children, use to get penalized for bring married. I recall when my wife and I first got married. .. if we had stayed single, we would have each recieved a much greater tax return. It wasnt until we started making more money, and paying in more taxes throughout the year, that we began to see the balance...and it most definately showed when we had our son. Also, we are in better shape tax-wise if she doesnt work. Its a family oriented tax system.

It is now a secular ceremony, which can be performed without either participent being of any given religeon, and is often performed in places other than a place of worship.
Some may consider it a formality while others, a larger majority, would consider it a religious ceramony. Regardless, thats not the point. Its still a man and woman thing.. Its the "blue hat lovers club" for only those who love blue hats. If you do not like blue hats, your not invited into this private institution.

To my mind, this has changed the entire purpose of a "marriage", and invalidated the "man and woman" part.
"I now pronouce you husband and wife by your actions of entering into civil contract."
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 09:22 AM   #70
Hormadrune
Sociopathic bully?
 
Hormadrune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PA
Posts: 11,897
Unfortunately Rheaton, it's more like old members of the "hat lovers club" who decided they don't want the pink hat lovers to be able to join.

Also, it is not a private institution at stake. Noone is trying to force, say, the Roman Catholic Church to marry gay people- that would clearly be against the Constitution I think we all agree. It is the secular portion of marriage that cannot be regulated by religion anymore than the government can dictate to religions that they have to marry gay people. I don't care what club you think you're in charge of, but where it pertains to details of law, religion does not matter. We are not a theocracy.

I still want to know exactly what is so wrong with your marriages (all those who hold to this flawed idea) that they would be ruined by gay people being afforded the same rights as straight people. I pity you if your marriages are so hollow and vapid
__________________
WoW-Ghostlands-US: Prae | ∆sŲp | Prolonix | Horm | Ulfhednar | ∆ŲlÔ
EQ: Hormadrune <Retired> <OFS> <CoI> <Affy> <CE>
Hormadrune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 09:43 AM   #71
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by Hormadrune
I still want to know exactly what is so wrong with your marriages (all those who hold to this flawed idea) that they would be ruined by gay people being afforded the same rights as straight people. I pity you if your marriages are so hollow and vapid
I cannot speak for everyone else who rejects the idea of gay marriage. All I can say is what I feel. What I feel is that society should have the right to determine which preferences and desires we allow to be common place. That we should have the right to reject actions that we not agree with for whatever reason. I am not saying that we can and should descriminate against anyone, but that we can descriminate against preferences. I for one feel that a 15 or 16 year old girl is fully capable of having a full relationship with an adult. However, such preferences and actions have been deemed undesirable by a large portion of our culture and society. We have established boundries and limits to what preferences we accept... what is wrong with that? Do the wants [preferences] of the few outwieght the wants of the many? On what grounds?
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 10:25 AM   #72
AresProphet
Priest of Hiroshima
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,932
Send a message via MSN to AresProphet
Kulani hit the nail on the head discussing why pedophilia, beastiality, and polygamy arguments don't pertain to this discussion. I also see nothing wrong with legalizing polygamy; if you have to, place restrictions on tax benefits receivable to prevent people from marrying purely for that purpose (though it can be argued that happens anyway...).

It comes down to the fact that you want a person to not have the same rights as you, because you don't like them. You keep bringing up "race" and "sexuality", but I keep bringing up "racial preference" and "sexual preference", because they are exact parallels! Just because something is a choice or a preference does not make it any less valid than something that is not a choice or preference. The exceptions are, of course, preferences that do in fact harm others' rights, such as preferring to murder people or preferring to steal things. In no way whatsoever does homosexuality affect anyone, at all, on the entire fucking planet, other than the people getting the rights they deserve.

As Lurikeen says, it's not a movement to force any church to recognize a marraige, because that would be against the first amendement (if it was sought by government intervention). Your little sect of bigots can remain "pure" for all anyone cares, but the government, often elected in by the very people discriminated against, has no right to ignore those people.

I cannot speak for everyone else who rejects the idea of gay marriage. All I can say is what I feel. What I feel is that society should have the right to determine which preferences and desires we allow to be common place. That we should have the right to reject actions that we not agree with for whatever reason. I am not saying that we can and should descriminate against anyone, but that we can descriminate against preferences.
Get your fucking religion out of our society and we can talk; as long as you try to force your twisted views upon anyone who doesn't want them, you're a flaming hypocrite.

And that little bit in bold? Exactly the same fucking thing as they said back when interracial marraige was fought against. It's a choice, but that didn't make it any less wrong to discriminate against it.

Get your head out of your ass.
__________________
One of the wonders of the world is going down
It's going down I know
It's one of the blunders of the world that no-one cares
No-one cares enough


Attachment 181
AresProphet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 10:36 AM   #73
Ghie
G-Sharp
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bounce around the country but have a tether in Nebraska
Posts: 285
Arnie very carefully didn't say the Marriages were invalid.

He simply said that the mayor overstepped his authority and that the constitutionality of the laws that forbid homosexual marriage should have been a matter for the courts.

This was the PC thing to say. But even Arnie is smart enough to know that the only way the courts are going to examine the constitutionality of the law is if someone breaks it. The mayor simply forced the issue on the courts.

I would bet a hefty sum that the marriages get upheld at the california supreme court.

And just to scare the homophobes out there. If there are already legal gay marriages in the country, it would make it very difficult to make any kind of national law or amenment to make them illegal.

As of this moment, the courts have already said they weren't going to stop the city of SF, which tenuously makes those marriages legal.
__________________
Ghie
MF Muse
Ghie's Lame Gear
Ghie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 10:42 AM   #74
Veo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,926
I cannot speak for everyone else who rejects the idea of gay marriage. All I can say is what I feel. What I feel is that society should have the right to determine which preferences and desires we allow to be common place. That we should have the right to reject actions that we not agree with for whatever reason. I am not saying that we can and should descriminate against anyone, but that we can descriminate against preferences.
I don't prefer ketchup on my scrambled eggs. Does that mean if I can get the majority to agree with me, we can get a constitutional amendment banning ketchup on eggs?
Veo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2004, 11:03 AM   #75
Rheaton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,366
Originally Posted by AresProphet
Get your fucking religion out of our society and we can talk; as long as you try to force your twisted views upon anyone who doesn't want them, you're a flaming hypocrite.

And that little bit in bold? Exactly the same fucking thing as they said back when interracial marraige was fought against. It's a choice, but that didn't make it any less wrong to discriminate against it.

Get your head out of your ass.
Ares... your the flaming idiot. I could care less of you God-less opinions. This is not about race, dildo. This is about standardizing preferences as a minority. Keep your fucked up, morally bankrupt, detestable sexual perversions out of our society.. then we can talk.

We cannot omit out of convience the fact that all preferences are being brought to the surface as "our rights". Suuuure no one who defends certain perverted actions wishes to be associated with "the other freaks" and their twisted perversions... of course not.
Rheaton is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
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


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:23 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.