Thread: State: Gay marriage to begin June 17 in California

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57
  1. #31  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel Yell View Post
    All this from someone called bicat?:D
    :(

    I need to find some pictures of my cat who's name is Bic (like the pen, not the razor).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    I didn't want to touch the power of attorney stuff because I don't know the extent of the overlap between power of attorney and marriage. You're right that you can give power of attorney to whomever you want tho.

    I used to support gay marriage. Then the decision came down in Massachusettes and I realized what a mistake I was making. Gay marriage is not about providing 'equal rights' to homosexuals, it is about social acceptance of perversion and depravity. There really is a homosexual agenda, and it really is out to destroy our society. These people are the fringe of our society, and they are being granted special treatment in the guise of "human rights." It is only a matter of time until polygamy, beastiality, and eventually pedophilia become the next talking points for 'equal rights.'

    The Left is never content with the status quo. Conservatives need to draw a line in the sand and say "no further." Equal treatment for blacks and women, Conservatives said "You're right, we need to fix this." Then liberals wanted social acceptance of promiscuity, and Conservatives said "OK, we'll stay out of your bedroom." Acceptance of recreational drug use, destruction of the family through welfare, abortion, decreasing the role of religion in public life...these are all areas where Conservatives were willing to give a little bit.

    Lilberals are trying to destroy our society and Capitalism one step at a time, and too many people are content to say "OK, we will let you take this step, but not the next one." In 10 years when NAMBLA is having government sponsored recruiting fairs at the local elementary school and the Marines are prohibited from setting foot within 100 yards of a high school, are you going to say "Well, OK" and let them take yet another step? Or will you finally stop and say "hang on, that is too far?"

    My line in the sand is here. I wonder where it is for the some of the gay marriage supporters.
    This is quite similar to the rhetoric used in the south in support of miscegenation laws, which persisted for most of this countries history, making it illegal for interracial couples to marry. It was thought of as 'immoral', and 'unnatural'.

    Would you mind explaining your logical connection between gay marriage and polygamy? More to the point.. do you actually have a solid argument against gay marriage that stands on its own merits without resorting to the slippery slope polygamy non sequitur?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Senior Member Rebel Yell's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South GA
    Posts
    5,181
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    This is quite similar to the rhetoric used in the south in support of miscegenation laws, which persisted for most of this countries history, making it illegal for interracial couples to marry. It was thought of as 'immoral', and 'unnatural'.

    Would you mind explaining your logical connection between gay marriage and polygamy? More to the point.. do you actually have a solid argument against gay marriage that stands on its own merits without resorting to the slippery slope polygamy non sequitur?

    Yes, I do. I'm disgusted at the thought of a man wanting to get doo doo on his tallywhacker.:D
    I feel that once a black fella has referred to white foks as "honky paleface devil white-trash cracker redneck Caspers," he's abdicated the right to get upset about the "N" word. But that's just me. -- Jim Goad
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member LogansPapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf City, USA
    Posts
    3,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel Yell View Post
    Yes, I do. I'm disgusted at the thought of a man wanting to get doo doo on his tallywhacker.:D
    And you really expected something more coherient, wilbur?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Rebel Yell View Post
    Yes, I do. I'm disgusted at the thought of a man wanting to get doo doo on his tallywhacker.:D
    That happens to straight people on occasion to ya know... that is at least if you get a proper woman :).
    Last edited by wilbur; 05-29-2008 at 04:57 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    This is quite similar to the rhetoric used in the south in support of miscegenation laws, which persisted for most of this countries history, making it illegal for interracial couples to marry. It was thought of as 'immoral', and 'unnatural'.
    You're right, it is. I agree with rights based not on skin color, or on sex, or on alienage, or on religious beliefs, etc. But how far are you willing to go? If homosexuals can successfully argue that man-man love is socially equivalent to man-woman love, then how far are we from pedophiles arguing the equivalence of man-boy love?

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Would you mind explaining your logical connection between gay marriage and polygamy? More to the point.. do you actually have a solid argument against gay marriage that stands on its own merits without resorting to the slippery slope polygamy non sequitur?
    Marriage is the union of one man and one woman in marriage. The theory of eliminating the "man and woman" requirement, and rewriting it as "two persons" is no stronger than eliminating the requirement of "one" (of each sex) or "two" (without specifying sex). In fact the terms "man and woman" themselves imply the term "adult," which could easily be removed. By redefining marriage to "two persons" then you're eliminating the implicit modifier "adult."

    Want more? With a sweep of the pen I can allow a man to marry a corporation and sell shares of his wife if you'd like.

    Argument against gay marriage on its own? How about utilizing the legislative and republican form of government to enact change, rather than judicial activisim? Were women granted the right to vote by judicial interpretation, or was it through the systems incorporated into our system of government? How about equal rights in voting and representation?

    Can you give a coherent argument, in light of Amendments 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, and 26 to the US Constitution, for gay marriage?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Senior Member LogansPapa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Surf City, USA
    Posts
    3,782
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    You're right, it is. I agree with rights based not on skin color, or on sex, or on alienage, or on religious beliefs, etc. But how far are you willing to go? If homosexuals can successfully argue that man-man love is socially equivalent to man-woman love, then how far are we from pedophiles arguing the equivalence of man-boy love?
    And there’s any wonder FoxNews has been #1 forever?

    Making a corilation between these two things is astoundingly ignorant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Society really does have vested interested in the creation of heterosexual families. Children (of any sexual inclination) need both male and female adult role models. That many heterosexual couples fail to provide for this is no reason to add more potential failures to the pool.

    In countries where gay marriage (or something identical to it) has been tried, marriage rates drop. There is probably a perception that viewing marriage as another social right extended to everybody devalues the status of marriage and makes the obligations more burdensome. There is a corresponding increase in shack-up couples and a damaging effect on children who are forced to live with their parents' current sex interest. This leads to higher rates of child abuse.

    But even if we are all happy about that, there really is no denying that same-sex marriage does open the door to other types of marriage. How can it not? If there is no moral objection to two women marrying each other then there is no moral objection to three women marrying one man or one man marrying three other men.

    I would prefer to see some kind of contractual arrangement that would provide benefits to people who live together (any people - roommates, elderly siblings, parent and grown child). Leave marriage to the religious communities. You file your mutual contract with the State but you can only apply for a marriage through your own church and that church can certainly deny you.

    Some fake churches may be created to offer nontraditional "marriages" but I doubt it would be much of any issue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member Junebug68's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by ralph wiggum View Post
    LINK

    On my birthday, of all days. We need a puke smilie.
    My birthday too! Grrrr to them!
    They're not people, they're hippies!! -Cartman

    It is nothing against you to fall down flat, but to lie there - that's disgrace
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    114
    If you look at survey data an overwhelming amout of young adults (18-29) favor gay marriage...It is about 2-1 in support...This suggests it's only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal in the United States.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •