Mayhem
Banned
And if you think he's wrong, just take a drive on I-94 through Montana and North Dakota. You'll see what he means without having to get off the highway.
Proposition 8 Overturned: Gay Marriage Ban Struck Down in California
- Thread starter PlumpRump
- Start date
And if you think he's wrong, just take a drive on I-94 through Montana and North Dakota. You'll see what he means without having to get off the highway.
The Bible sayz that two men 'aught not lie together. T'aint right! MMMMMhhhhhmmmm. Now go get me sum french fried potaters.
:lame: There's like 5 people in MT and ND. Plus it's like 5 degrees there six months out of the year. You must not have much of an idea of the area.
Mayhem
Banned
Yeah well, those 5 people sure put up alot of propaganda along the highway. And I have as good an idea as I need to since I've driven that route 4 times in October and March in the last year. And it was 16 degrees in ND last October when I drove across. In a Kia.
I DON'T understand the hiccup. If "Conservatives" have a problem with this then is should be the idea that the state has no right to interferer with religious affairs.
Marriage is a religious affair. If it's not, then it's what, a contractual matter between two adult individuals? Ands if that's the case, why do we accept contractual matters to be unique due to gender or attitudes towards gender?
Forbidding gays to marry is like being at a picnic and forbidding anybody to have your watermelon seeds and apple cores. It's a matter of spite, no matter what bullshit rhetoric you try to spin.
Marriage is a religious affair. If it's not, then it's what, a contractual matter between two adult individuals? Ands if that's the case, why do we accept contractual matters to be unique due to gender or attitudes towards gender?
Forbidding gays to marry is like being at a picnic and forbidding anybody to have your watermelon seeds and apple cores. It's a matter of spite, no matter what bullshit rhetoric you try to spin.
Who cares? I think America's got bigger issues to deal with than worrying about two adults getting married. Gay marriage was legalized in Canada and guess what? No one really talks about it anymore. It's a non-issue and people have moved on because it honestly doesn't affect most people's lives.
Same thing will happen in America once you legalize it. With people's short attention spans folks will be bitching about something else in two weeks time and gays will do their thing and you'll probably never even notice it and carry on with your life as if nothing ever happened.
Same thing will happen in America once you legalize it. With people's short attention spans folks will be bitching about something else in two weeks time and gays will do their thing and you'll probably never even notice it and carry on with your life as if nothing ever happened.
Well, lets look at the history of this country. It took federal troops for Black people to be able to even survive walking into schools in certain places in this country just a few decades ago. So public opinion is not necessarily the measure of what ought to be the law or how life ought to be.
There's a lot of backwards BS that people get inundated with. Does that mean that everyone ought to kow-tow to it just because it's a popular opinion?
It took federal courts for women to have the right to vote, for Black people to have the right to vote, for inter-racial marriages to be legal.
There's a legitimate role for federal courts and striking down this nonsensical proposition was a good thing for this judge to have done.
Lets not forget the mass amounts of violent outbursts and lives that were lost to make it all possible. In order for their to be change in this country, I hate to say, a few people are gonna have to get capped.:ak47:
Barring your complete disregard for logic, Hot Mega, and disregarding the slippery slope argument you made (which holds no water in any rational debate)...
Who's to say that a polyamorous relationship is any more messed up and asinine than the multitude of malignant and loveless relationships that monogamous heterosexual couples have?
Really, if consenting adults love each other and want to be in a relationship, why not let them? As long as no one is getting hurt, there's no reason to limit them just because it deviates from the norm.
Besides, using your logic, we should have never let women vote; after all, if we let them womens folk vote, what's to stop kids and animals from voting?
Who's to say that a polyamorous relationship is any more messed up and asinine than the multitude of malignant and loveless relationships that monogamous heterosexual couples have?
Really, if consenting adults love each other and want to be in a relationship, why not let them? As long as no one is getting hurt, there's no reason to limit them just because it deviates from the norm.
Besides, using your logic, we should have never let women vote; after all, if we let them womens folk vote, what's to stop kids and animals from voting?
I will say this -- I will support the ban on gay marriage IF and ONLY IF we can go back to the days of stoning people for really stupid shit. THAT would be worth seeing.
EXODUS 19
19:11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
19:12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death.
19:13 Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death ... He shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man"
Don't fuck with Mount Sinai!
EXODUS 19
19:11 And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai.
19:12 And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death.
19:13 Whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death ... He shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man"
Don't fuck with Mount Sinai!
My logic is pretty simple...it isn't a for or against argument. The case is simply this...either a marriage is definable to some legal standard or it isn't.
If one believes the standard ought to be consenting adults ...what makes one or two types of arrangements more acceptable than any other? The standard ought to be consenting adults across the board for any type of arrangement.
However, if one accepts the premise that there ought to be definable limits as in the case of polygamy, then to me the state ought to be able to define any limit on types of arrangements.
I think gays do their cause in this matter a disservice when they make it about gay marriage. Their argument ought to be any arrangement between consenting adults ought to be beyond the state's jurisdiction.
I have to agree with this. For my wife and I getting married wasn't about having a gay marriage or other people seeing us as 2 lesbians getting married. It was just about 2 people who love each other getting married, nothing more, nothing less. That's why I like what the Dutch government has done. They opened up marriage to every one. If you love each other and want to get married (polygamy aside) you can do so. There's no "special" gay marriage.
Mayhem
Banned
I thought the point to this discussion is that gay marriage isn't "special", but it is marriage. And, I thought that overturning Prop 8 was a step to opening up marriage to everyone. But this thread has taken a confusing turn. Are we now discussing something else?
Congrats to any other country who has resolved this their own way. In this country though, we seem to have to take it in steps. As long as those steps continue in the right direction, I can live with it (but since I'm not gay, on this issue, that's kind of a stupid remark).
Vlad The Impaler
Power Slave
Give it time as soon as the government figures out a way to make money off of it, it will be next.
The judge in the landmark Proposition 8 case was first appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, but Democratic opposition blocked his confirmation. He was then nominated a second time by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, and was opposed by liberal Democrats and a coalition of LGBT groups, according to the Cato Institute's David Boaz.
Similar threads
