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 11-09-2006, 05:00 AM   #1
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Default And the election MVP award goes to...

...the citizens of the great state of Arizona, for standing up and stopping bigotry from being written into thier constitution. They had the only gay marriage ban on the ballots that did not pass. Of course, my state of Tennessee went like 80% in favor.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 06:32 AM   #2
Wulfhere
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 739
Actually, congrats to both states. They held votes on propositions and allowed the citizens to decide, rather than a bunch of corrupt politicians sneaking it in under the radar on a bigger bill.

We live in a Democratic country Heretic. That SHOULD mean that the will of the majority is followed, even if you may disagree with it. I am very happy to see states taking this issue to task and allowing citizens the right to be heard.

Just because you think it should be a right (I happen to think gay couples should be allowed to get married as well FYI) doesn't mean you can label everyone who disagrees with it a bigot. Plenty of people are all for civil unions and equal priveleges for alternative couples, they just don't want them to be able to call it marriage. Today you call people who disagree with gay marriage bigots, tomorrow it could be people who disagree with Man/Boy couples.

This is and always has been my biggest problem with most Liberals. They are all for the 'will of the people' until the will of the people disagrees with their vision of a 'better' future, then they think that the government should override the people.

Wulf
Wulfhere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 07:01 AM   #3
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Wulf
tomorrow it could be people who disagree with Man/Boy couples.
Slippery slope arguments are absurd. There is no reason for any rational person to believe this. Will there be some magical process that will somehow transform me from a gay sympathizer to a pedo supporter? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Wulf
This is and always has been my biggest problem with most Liberals. They are all for the 'will of the people' until the will of the people disagrees with their vision of a 'better' future, then they think that the government should override the people.
There are people on both sides like that... there are neoconservatives who talked about the will of the people, and then ran a "for us against us" routine... or who called people who disagreed unAmerican or unPatriotic, etc.

As far as the government overriding... wasn't it Truman who had to send in the National Guard to Central Highschool to force integration because the ignorant morons were abusing the kids there? Yeah, the entire judicial branch helps to protect in some cases the rights of a minority from being trampled under a tyranny of the majority. We live in a civilized society. We don't live by mob rule. Are pedos in control of Canda yet, btw? I hadn't heard of people marrying animals there so far?
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 10:53 AM   #4
Wulfhere
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 739
EC, get off your gay rights crusade and read the post again. This isn't about gay rights, it is about STATES RIGHTS and limited Federal government involvement in our day to day rights.

Stop ranting like a rabid broken record player and read what I said. PERSONALLY, I think gay marriage should be legal. I PERSONALLY have no problem with it.

What I SAID, vs. what you READ, was that if it is something the majority of a state feels so strongly about, then the majority should rule, even if it disagrees with my, yours, or Heretic's moral value code.

There should be boundaries to this, I agree, and if anything I weakened my own point by bringing in the man/boy example. But regardless, this is a central point to what being Liberatarian is all about. You always throw around the term, but you don't appear to understand it. It means you believe in peoples own ability to govern themselves, and respect that they can make choices that may differ from yours. It also means that you don't go running to big brother to make a new law every time someone does something you disagree with.

So quit trying to manipulate what I said into a gay rights debate, it never was, and you know it.

Wulf
Wulfhere is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 11:06 AM   #5
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Wulf
What I SAID, vs. what you READ, was that if it is something the majority of a state feels so strongly about, then the majority should rule, even if it disagrees with my, yours, or Heretic's moral value code
I have also expressed this view. I did originally say that I agreed with the Supreme court ruling, preserving the federalist balance... so on that we agree. I was simply pointing out that there are flaws with majority rule, and there are sometimes systems that become temporarily necessary.

Originally Posted by Wulf
It also means that you don't go running to big brother to make a new law every time someone does something you disagree with.
You confuse personal liberties and self rule as concepts. Of course I believe in democracy... but I also believe in the value of maximizing individual rights. Hey... sometimes the two come into conflict... I am all for self rule, but I wouldn't want a Christian theocracy forced by a majority, either!

Originally Posted by Wulf
So quit trying to manipulate what I said into a gay rights debate, it never was, and you know it.
No... really even my arguments for rights aren't just about gays (hey I'm not gay)... it's just about some socially conservative attitudes that don't value individual rights, and represent (to me) political bullying.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 11:29 AM   #6
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by wulfhere
rather than a bunch of corrupt politicians sneaking it in under the radar on a bigger bill.
Amen on that point.


Originally Posted by wulfhere
We live in a Democratic country Heretic. That SHOULD mean that the will of the majority is followed, even if you may disagree with it.
To a degree yes, but we have a constitution in place to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Until a couple of amendments are overturned, gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.


Originally Posted by wulfhere
Just because you think it should be a right (I happen to think gay couples should be allowed to get married as well FYI) doesn't mean you can label everyone who disagrees with it a bigot.
Sure I can. I have freedom of speech. And as for justification of the insult, anyone who wants to legislate against the rights of others based on their biological characteristics that are not under their control are bigots plain and simple.


Originally Posted by wulfhere
Plenty of people are all for civil unions and equal priveleges for alternative couples, they just don't want them to be able to call it marriage.
But those equal priveleges in our country ARE called marriage. If they have a problem, they should attack the source.

It has already been ruled against that 'separate but equal' is not legal, so civil unions would be unlawful as well as long as there is still a government term of marriage.

The whole defense of the marriage term is based on a religious argument. We have freedom of religion in this country. That means that you cannot base laws on purely religious tenets. As it stands, the government institution of marriage is unconstitutional unless it is explicitly stated that it is non-religious in nature. If it is indeed secular, then the religious argument cannot be used to ban the practice.

Everyone wants to boohoo about the illegal immigrants not learning and adapting to our culture or demonize the middle eastern countries for their islamic fascism when we are doing the same thing here at home. The people of this country need to wake up and realize that our laws are based on the Constitution and not any holy book. If people were educated on this, a large number of the ongoing debates in this nation would virtually cease to exist.


Originally Posted by wulfhere
Today you call people who disagree with gay marriage bigots, tomorrow it could be people who disagree with Man/Boy couples.
Seeing as I believe that behavior is also not under their control, yes I suppose you could call me a bigot on that issue.


Originally Posted by wulfhere
This is and always has been my biggest problem with most Liberals. They are all for the 'will of the people' until the will of the people disagrees with their vision of a 'better' future, then they think that the government should override the people.
My problem with the conservatives it that they are all for the constitution until they disagree with it. Yes, the will of the people is important. We have steps they can take to amend the constitution any time they like. They are not doing this however and are blatantly passing unconstitutional legislation that goes as unpunished as the immigration situation.


Originally Posted by wulfhere
This isn't about gay rights, it is about STATES RIGHTS
Federal constitutional law trumps states rights.


Originally Posted by wulfhere
What I SAID, vs. what you READ, was that if it is something the majority of a state feels so strongly about, then the majority should rule, even if it disagrees with my, yours, or Heretic's moral value code.
Even if it violates the constitution? It is the law of the land even if you disagree with it.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 11:51 AM   #7
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Technically, though Heretic... as much as someone who seems to be labeled the gay rights cheerleader... I have to say..

These are NOT unConstitutional. I have had arguments with others about Supreme Court rulings, and I am just as bound by my logic on this issue. I admit to being the first person to say "It doesn't matter what you think, it's what the Supreme Court says" and on this I have to be the same.

The Supreme Court IS the authority on the constitution.... and they have said that it is up to the states. Therefor, by virtue of the Supreme Court ruling, these laws ARE Constitutional.

Now... you can make the argument that the enforcement across states... or the lack of uniformity... or the lack of equal application somehow leads to a violation of Constitutional principle... well that might be a buyable argument if and only if it is taken before the Supreme Court and ruled on... until then... there is no current grounds to make Constitutional claims on, afaik. I simply cannot agree the the Supreme Court is "wrong"... I am a supporter of our legal structure, and I refuse to advocate contradiction to the Supreme Court's dictum. In the realm of Constitutionality wht they say IS, unless they say differently. I simply believe passing these laws is immoral, hurtful, and offers no benefit other than to alienate a segment of our society.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani

Last edited by Everclear; 11-09-2006 at 12:00 PM.
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 03:51 PM   #8
Drysdale
RSS Feed
 
Drysdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 20,628
Originally Posted by Everclear
Now... you can make the argument that the enforcement across states... or the lack of uniformity... or the lack of equal application somehow leads to a violation of Constitutional principle...
Does it though? Is the Full faith principal able to supercede a State's rights?

Article IV. - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

or

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

which takes precedence? I'd say the amendment, but it's not a clear subject. I mean, if a state id wholly against gay marriage, should the state be forced to recognize the marriage of two gay people from a ceremony performed in anpother state? Should one state be able to decide for the other 49?
__________________
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Thou shalt not steal. Except by majority vote." - Gary North
Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 04:45 PM   #9
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Just remember EC 40 years ago the idea of a gay person even telling anyone was absurd and noone back then had any reason to believe that people would actually start thinking it was ok......... just an observation of course.
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 06:17 PM   #10
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Drysdale
Does it though? Is the Full faith principal able to supercede a State's rights?
No, and honestly I didn't read the rest, because I don't think it applies, anyway. That is why I didn't refer to that particular clause. The Supreme Court specifically said it was a state's prerogative, and I believe in court dictum even STATED that it was a state's choice whether to or not to recognize another state's choice on thsi particular issue (thus providing exemption from FFaC).


However, (that is why I didn't mention FFaC).. the argument could still be made that somehow (I a don't knwo exactly how, but lawyers are tricky!) there is an unintended bleedover into some OTHER area, perhaps of commerce or some other area that it does affect which DOES fall under FFaC, and therefor requires uniformity. It would be a weak argument, and would require tons of proof, imo- but it is theoretically possible. Will it happen? I doubt it, but as far as Constitutionality, that is the only way I think it can be challenged... indirectly, because the Court already ruled on it directly.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 06:21 PM   #11
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Originally Posted by Axgar
Just remember EC 40 years ago the idea of a gay person even telling anyone was absurd and noone back then had any reason to believe that people would actually start thinking it was ok......... just an observation of course.
Yes, and there has been an enormous amount of social change within a relatively short period of time. I completely agree. If nothing else was learned from the civil rights activists it was determination and patience. Gay rights proponents simply can't expect society to completely change in a short period of time, and I do realize that. The change will be gradual, and may take a generation or two. That is to be expected... however, still the determination must remain on the part of people wanting social change.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2006, 11:21 PM   #12
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by everclear
The Supreme Court IS the authority on the constitution.... and they have said that it is up to the states.
When did this happen? If it did, I am gonna be sick.


Originally Posted by everclear
I simply cannot agree the the Supreme Court is "wrong"
It happens. Anyone who can read knows the eminent domain ruling was total BS.


Originally Posted by drysdale
I mean, if a state id wholly against gay marriage, should the state be forced to recognize the marriage of two gay people from a ceremony performed in anpother state?
It should be by article 4 section 1.


Originally Posted by drysdale
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

which takes precedence? I'd say the amendment, but it's not a clear subject.
If you agree with that interpretation of the amendment.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2006, 08:01 AM   #13
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
You might be right... they might have simply remanded it back down to states to decide... which, imo is still a clear interpretation... for now.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2006, 08:09 AM   #14
celedine169
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: S FL
Posts: 774
It's a better thing to allow the states to decide. That way the moral majority can split off from the freewheeling liberals and we can continue the wedge issue so that donkeys and elephants can try to make each other look bad and win your vote, when they're basically the same.
When some states refuse to repeal laws that allow a person to marry their horse, yet prohibit same sex marriage, is there no double standard there? One would imagine that anything that strengthens families (and yes, gay families are still families) would be desirable.
__________________
80 Cleric
Officer of Resolution
celedine169 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2006, 08:14 AM   #15
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
yea i guess gay families as you call them are families........ only after years of forcing people to redefine family, the simple fact of the matter is people are tired of it and are giving in or this would not be happening, its become more of a nuisance than anything and really in effect don't mean shit because in the eyes of God it isn't real.............

I just don't understand why they think they have to use the word married when they know damn well that even though some of us disagree with the lifestyle we would not object to some sort of civil union in order to protect their rights to their partners insurance or inheritance or tax deductions ect............. simple solution BUT they will NOT give an inch ......well except to their partners bung hole.
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2006, 08:21 AM   #16
celedine169
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: S FL
Posts: 774
If it's nothing more than a nuisance, why do you waste your time opposing it and insulting them?
As a pair of friends of mine put it: "We just want to be able to express our love for each other like anyone else, and not have our children grow up with a stigma that their family isn't worth as much as someone else's."
They want to be married because they love each other, the same way I love my wife, Davek loves Ini's dog and you love your hand.
__________________
80 Cleric
Officer of Resolution
celedine169 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2006, 08:46 AM   #17
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,986
Originally Posted by celedine169
Davek loves Ini's dog
It's just lust on my side of things. I can't speak for the dog.
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2006, 02:50 PM   #18
bumbleroot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,756
Until a couple of amendments are overturned, gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.
Actually I'm not sure that Gay "Marriage" bans are unconstitutional.

First of all- the unfair part is denying the sharing of properties or the rights that come with marriage. Denying those are unconstitutional. Denying marriage isn't.
You are assuming that marriage is the only way to achieve these rights.
In fact, marriage is not really the issue here. Its the affording of the same abilities given to married couple to be given to gay couples.

All that being said, states have rights to define what a marriage is or to deny marriages. They do it when they set up an age of consent. Each state can set its own definition.
However, each state can not allow some people to have marital rights and deny those rights to others based upon their orientation solely.
bumbleroot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2006, 03:34 PM   #19
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by axgar
yea i guess gay families as you call them are families........ only after years of forcing people to redefine family, the simple fact of the matter is people are tired of it and are giving in or this would not be happening
I just don't like the fact of the 'pro values' groups trying to forcibly define 'family'. We have single parents, kids who live with grandparents, step-parents, gay families, etc, etc. Trying to define it as one standard is just asshole elitist behavior.


Originally Posted by axgar
I just don't understand why they think they have to use the word married
Because that is what the equal rights they want are called. I don't understand why everyone is just now claiming government marriage is religious when it has been secular and people have been getting non-religious marriages for years.


Originally Posted by axgar
when they know damn well that even though some of us disagree with the lifestyle we would not object to some sort of civil union in order to protect their rights to their partners insurance or inheritance or tax deductions ect............. simple solution
Because the courts have already ruled the seperate but equal dog doesn't hunt.


Originally Posted by bumbleroot
First of all- the unfair part is denying the sharing of properties or the rights that come with marriage. Denying those are unconstitutional. Denying marriage isn't.
You are assuming that marriage is the only way to achieve these rights.
In fact, marriage is not really the issue here. Its the affording of the same abilities given to married couple to be given to gay couples.
Thats 'seperate but equal' AKA illegal.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2006, 04:44 PM   #20
Davek
Squawk Box
 
Davek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Ini is the wind beneath my wings.
Posts: 7,986
The main advantage for "gay marriage" is so that they don't have to go through hoops and circus acts to get the same coverage as the act of marriage.

Marriage covers a lot of ground in one sweep that otherwise they would have to go through living wills, power of attourney and other such documents...which are considered backup documents to an official marriage. Marriage is a fairly powerful document in and of itself. That's not even taking into account of the religious aspect. Why do the zealots fear it so much? Who say gays and lesbians aren't religious?

Why name it something else when it would in fact be fiscally cheaper to use something that is already in place with minor modifications? (no citations from me...but technically isn't it easier to just modify something already in place than creating a new set of rules/terms when it's basically already there?)

I mean if "marriage" wasn't such a powerful word/contract...why is there all this fuss? If the zealots say that it could/should be named soemthing else but equal...then obviously it wouldn't be equal because they feel it needs to be separated.

Think it through. - Larry Niven

Hopefully this will seem as clear to me in the morning when the beer goggles have worn off. Well it's always been clear...but the actual expresion if it...on a keyboard nonetheless...with much backspacing due to sloppy fingering...eww...not what I meant...you know what I mean...ok now I'm rambling.

(for Mepper?) /salute *beer chug*
__________________
Davek Bonemender ~ Guild Leader of Sunrunners ~
~ Retired with 8 years of service ~
~ Semi-unretired 2012 ~

Man that just rolls off the tongue nicely.

Originally Posted by Karthanon View Post
I know, you're in Ottawa, Davek. Still, I can't help but /poke you.
Originally Posted by Drysdale View Post
And you wonder why I don't play nice with you? You leave my man buttons alone.. Those are Davek's.
Davek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2006, 08:31 PM   #21
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
Yeah, once again, the problem is government. Since the government used the word "m,arriage".. they are kind of forcing the hand of the gays. If the government were to change the legal term, then there wouldn't be a "seperate but euqal" issue. Once again, that is why I think for government purposes it shouldn't be called marriage... because let's face it... the government document is non-denominational, anyway. Let the churches use the word marraige and define it as they see fit... let the government simply provide the legal contract that goes with it, in a uniform and unbiased way.

I have said before and I'll say it again. This is why government and religion should be seperate... because, although I support gay rights, I completely agree with Ax that the term "marriage" has become a religious word, and really the government has no place trying to define or redefine it. They shouldn't be using it to begin with. Jsut like they shouldn't use other religiously affiliated words. I certainly would NOt be happy if joining a political party was referred to as "confirmation".... or if White House interns were referred to as "acolytes". It's really quite absurd when you think about it logically.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2006, 11:41 PM   #22
Heretic
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,762
Originally Posted by davek
The main advantage for "gay marriage" is so that they don't have to go through hoops and circus acts to get the same coverage as the act of marriage.
I've read that under current law, equal status cannot be reached in certain areas. Recently, I also read somewhere that equal status would still not be achieved in certain states with civil unions by the way the laws are set up.


Originally Posted by davek
That's not even taking into account of the religious aspect.
Government marriage has no religious aspect. To claim otherwise admits there is a violation of church/state.

This is the main crux of the argument. If you go up to the common conservative and ask what rights and contracts homosexuals should be able to enter, they will claim every one with the exception of marraige. This is because they cannot personally separate their religious views from it. Until we can teach them to do this, such issues as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research will always be on the forefront of debate.


Originally Posted by davek
Why name it something else when it would in fact be fiscally cheaper to use something that is already in place with minor modifications? (no citations from me...but technically isn't it easier to just modify something already in place than creating a new set of rules/terms when it's basically already there?)
I agree. Creating a whole new set of rules would be more costly. As I understand it, the only things that would have to be changed on current laws would be to change most instances of 'husband' or 'wife' to 'spouse' and various other little changes. If you are deadset against the term 'marriage' for them, then leave 'marriage' to the churches and remove it from government. Replace all the terms of 'marriage' with 'civil union' and 'husband, wife, spouse' with 'legal partner' or such. I think this would be beneficial to all.
__________________
bg85 on another forum:
"i always refer to myself as a "missionary agnostic." that is, not only do i not know shit about shit, but i'm going to try and convince you that you don't know shit about shit either and there's no way for you to know shit about shit."

Heretic
Heretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2006, 08:08 AM   #23
Axgar
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,028
Send a message via Yahoo to Axgar
Why is it that we have to do all the changing EC, fuck them fags they can call it something else and we could move on BUT they are hung up on wanting what straight people have, its kind of like heretic being pissed that some people have more money than other people and avoiding the fact that some people just have more ambition than others.
Axgar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2006, 11:12 AM   #24
Everclear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 6,910
No it's not. It's about a legal difference in what is provided. If civil unions enjoyed all the benefits of marriage I would be a supporter of that... but seperate isn't equal in this case. It usually isn't. Besides, it's not like we would all have to change. Just the government would change a single word, and everyone else could keep thier same notions. That is the point... that way we wouldn't have to change.
__________________
Once is an anomoly, twice is a statistic, three times is the imminent takeover of the Devil. -Kulani
Everclear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2006, 02:16 PM   #25
celedine169
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: S FL
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by Axgar
Why is it that we have to do all the changing EC, fuck them fags they can call it something else and we could move on BUT they are hung up on wanting what straight people have.
Yeah, fuck them fags, they're not real people anyway, only straight people are real people.... damn them for wanting to have a regular life with someone they're in love with! We should round em all up and put em in a concentration camp called Provincetown or South Beach!
Allowing gay marriage would have no impact on your life whatsoever. It takes no money from your pocket, does not threaten to break into your house, and will not blow up your state capitol. It WILL extend health coverage, survivor benefits, and make a significant amount of people happy.
YOU don't have to change at all. They're not asking you to be gay, or even to like them, just to let them express their love like anyone else does. You have a problem with love? Or do you just like the idea of having second class citizens so that you feel big, powerful, and manly?
__________________
80 Cleric
Officer of Resolution
celedine169 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 08:29 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.