Message Boards
Page: < prev of 4
Unregistered 
Man, there's so many rules in the bible that I know you guy's don't follow. Why is gay marriage the only issue you care about?
Jay0143 said:
In instances where what one says is sexist, racist, or otherwise. It is not illogical to point that out. What you said specifically. Is that it is unfair to have to work 60 hours a week while the disbabled get disability checks from the government simply for existing. You are literally throwing verbal barbs at the disabled to "prove" a political point.
Marriage has been redefined by the state to include gay people. Just as marriage has been redefined many times throughout history. It was originally mostly a financial contract between two men over the selling of property. But I hardly doubt most people would support going back to that. The fact is societal institutions often change to reflect modern morality. And this is not a bad thing.
As for putting words in Jesus mouth. How about we take the words attributed to him specifically regarding taxation?
"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasers. Render unto god that which is gods."
In instances where what one says is sexist, racist, or otherwise. It is not illogical to point that out. What you said specifically. Is that it is unfair to have to work 60 hours a week while the disbabled get disability checks from the government simply for existing. You are literally throwing verbal barbs at the disabled to "prove" a political point.
Marriage has been redefined by the state to include gay people. Just as marriage has been redefined many times throughout history. It was originally mostly a financial contract between two men over the selling of property. But I hardly doubt most people would support going back to that. The fact is societal institutions often change to reflect modern morality. And this is not a bad thing.
As for putting words in Jesus mouth. How about we take the words attributed to him specifically regarding taxation?
"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasers. Render unto god that which is gods."
Nothing I said was sexist or racist . Merely using examples of where some privileges are given to one group but not others . All their benefits are exclusive to their kind for one reason or another be it real or merely perceived just as Marriage and its benefits were granted to a select group and very specific reasons .
As for the the origins of marriage and it being financial contracts between men selling property it has happened and is still happening to this very day , you can not say it is the origin of marriage it is an unproven claim . It is a fine example other people defining marriage which seems to be exactly what you are in favor of . As stated before why do you need the governments blessing ? You can marry a person of the same sex or different sex without their blessing .
As for the state redefining marriage it is very much a bad thing . The traditional family unit has done this country and very other well as far back as can be recorded , when it is broken and fractured by the state or other means the effects are mostly disasterous .
Just look at the children who have been raised by same sex parents . They are often worse off than their parents and nuttier than squirrel turds . Naturally I am sure there is the occasional exception but i am talking numbers in the 90 percentile .
Throughout recorded history Marriage has been in one form or another a union to bring about children , children raised out of wedlock typically grow up to have more minus's to society than plus's .
As for rendering unto Ceasar's which is his and to God which is God's . Christ was telling you to pay your taxes despite the hypocrisy of the government . He was very adamant about following the rule of law all the way up to allowing himself to be crucified .
No way shape or form do I believe Christ teachings encourage people to not support themeselves financially nor people to support anyone for any other purpose than from their own heart and not because armed soldiers force the little red hen to redistribute .
[quote=Jay0
And unless you are advocating the tearing down of government to replace it with a socialist state. Not a point I think you were making. Please let me know if I'm wrong here. I find your points of complaint interesting in that they reflect what those amoung us who are racist and are sexist and are homophobic say. To hide their predjudice behind high sounding ideals.[/quote]
How in the world am I advocating replacing our government with a socialist state ??? For starters we already have a socialist state .
I am advocating returning the government to the constitution and getting the government out of everyones life as much as humanly possible .
Now there you go with the name calling Racist , homophobic , and sexist you have no facts to back your arguments .
You just want government approved gay marriage because you think it is right despite how marriage has always been defined since recorded history , the intent of our founders , or the reasons for marriage .
I suggest other than attempting character assination of people who use logic and facts you go out and collect an informed opinion rather than consulting your fuzzy wuzzies .
And unless you are advocating the tearing down of government to replace it with a socialist state. Not a point I think you were making. Please let me know if I'm wrong here. I find your points of complaint interesting in that they reflect what those amoung us who are racist and are sexist and are homophobic say. To hide their predjudice behind high sounding ideals.[/quote]
How in the world am I advocating replacing our government with a socialist state ??? For starters we already have a socialist state .
I am advocating returning the government to the constitution and getting the government out of everyones life as much as humanly possible .
Now there you go with the name calling Racist , homophobic , and sexist you have no facts to back your arguments .
You just want government approved gay marriage because you think it is right despite how marriage has always been defined since recorded history , the intent of our founders , or the reasons for marriage .
I suggest other than attempting character assination of people who use logic and facts you go out and collect an informed opinion rather than consulting your fuzzy wuzzies .
mike1960 said:
not to be to cynical but there is also certain tax's benefits that apply to married couples.credit score consideration's.insurance coverage..social security .these are just some of the things that married people receive that unmarried people don't regardless of orintation
not to be to cynical but there is also certain tax's benefits that apply to married couples.credit score consideration's.insurance coverage..social security .these are just some of the things that married people receive that unmarried people don't regardless of orintation
The reason being for these benefits was to encourage population growth to people who could not afford to have or raise children , most if not all these benefits came about during the depression .
As it goes now is there any reason why single or divorced people should not be entitled to the same benefits ? does anyone think the design of such benefits was to give a break to people just for being in love ?
GoliathTX37 said:
The same way that the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that "separate but equal" was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thurgood Marshall (let me know if you dont know who that was) successfully argued that 58 year old Plessy vs Ferguson decision used for segregation purposes was a complete violation of the 14th Amendment. Of course I could also bring up the 1967 decision from Loving vs. Virginia that affirmed no state has the right to deny marriage between members of different ethnic origins. The point is the Supreme Court was designed to interpret the laws and determine if they are fair and just in their practice and implementation. So thats how the justices of the court decided that denying marriage equality was a violation to equal protection.
The same way that the Supreme Court ruled in 1954 that "separate but equal" was UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Thurgood Marshall (let me know if you dont know who that was) successfully argued that 58 year old Plessy vs Ferguson decision used for segregation purposes was a complete violation of the 14th Amendment. Of course I could also bring up the 1967 decision from Loving vs. Virginia that affirmed no state has the right to deny marriage between members of different ethnic origins. The point is the Supreme Court was designed to interpret the laws and determine if they are fair and just in their practice and implementation. So thats how the justices of the court decided that denying marriage equality was a violation to equal protection.
Marriage has always been defined between man and woman . Words have meaning and the Court ignored the meaning of the words and made a decision not based on law . They chose to write law which is power not granted to the court . To equate gay marriage to civil rights is an insult to civil rights . Homosexuals could do anything hetrosexuals can including marry the opposite sex , they just choose not to .
@gcaplan you are an idiot and a cretin I was going to insult you more but as 31 year old heterosexual male from USA I think you have enough problems so go take your gun and remove your manly process.
btw by your argument then 2 single heterosexual men should marry for tax brakes and that would be considered ok
btw by your argument then 2 single heterosexual men should marry for tax brakes and that would be considered ok
I think it's ridiculous that the govt could actually ban 2 people from marrying. If the original forefathers says all men (&women) are created equal, why shouldn't they have all the same rights. I'm sure some of the haters here don't think blacks or women should be able to vote too. C'mon let common sense prevail. It's not like you are being forced to suck a cock against your will.
Dman said:
So if a majority of voters in an individual state vote one way, and a liberal gay judge says otherwise, we have to do what the judge says? I dont get it.
So if a majority of voters in an individual state vote one way, and a liberal gay judge says otherwise, we have to do what the judge says? I dont get it.
Well lets see....A majority of early 20th century Germans felt it was a good idea to slaughter over 6 million Jewish people and other minorities. Does that mean the majority of the populace always has the right idea ?
Are you man enough to ride this ride ?
happyasgilmour said:
Yes. but the court then has to say yes it is a violation to equal protection but we dont have the power to make or change laws so the answer is still no. It really is that simple. Somehow The Supreme court has taken upon itself to change the law and not a single person with any authority has said, well thats a nice thought but sorry, you cant do that Supreme court, you dont have the power. You can only rule on the law, not make changes to it.
Yes. but the court then has to say yes it is a violation to equal protection but we dont have the power to make or change laws so the answer is still no. It really is that simple. Somehow The Supreme court has taken upon itself to change the law and not a single person with any authority has said, well thats a nice thought but sorry, you cant do that Supreme court, you dont have the power. You can only rule on the law, not make changes to it.
So does this mean that Blacks should revert to riding in the back of the bus, drinking out of separate water fountains, not marry whom they want, endure harsher penalties for similar crimes as whites, not be allowed to own property ??? I could go on.....
Are you man enough to ride this ride ?
Why is it you have to revert to putting words in your opponents mouth to win an argument ? Why not lay out the benefits and reasons to permit gay marriage ? So far all anyone has cause it FEELS right . No logic or legal reasoning .
To equate gay marriage to civil rights is an insult to civil rights . Gays do not get locked up for being gay , they are not suspect number one in crimes , they are not beaten by officers of the law nor enslaved or denied anything close to what blacks were . However they are in the majority of the world if you want to take that cause up elsewhere you can be a true groundbreaking pioneer for a minute . But most people only condemn mistreatment when the threat is long gone and no longer exist
To equate gay marriage to civil rights is an insult to civil rights . Gays do not get locked up for being gay , they are not suspect number one in crimes , they are not beaten by officers of the law nor enslaved or denied anything close to what blacks were . However they are in the majority of the world if you want to take that cause up elsewhere you can be a true groundbreaking pioneer for a minute . But most people only condemn mistreatment when the threat is long gone and no longer exist
GoliathTX37 said:
Well lets see....A majority of early 20th century Germans felt it was a good idea to slaughter over 6 million Jewish people and other minorities. Does that mean the majority of the populace always has the right idea ?
Well lets see....A majority of early 20th century Germans felt it was a good idea to slaughter over 6 million Jewish people and other minorities. Does that mean the majority of the populace always has the right idea ?
Dumb comparison. I doubt that a majority of Germans actually voted to kill 6 million Jews. I would find it more likely that 6 million queers would vote to kill someone, anyone that would dare to disagree with their liberal, militant agenda
Master edger, labia licker, nipple tugger and veteran voyeur.
GoliathTX37 said:
Well lets see....A majority of early 20th century Germans felt it was a good idea to slaughter over 6 million Jewish people and other minorities. Does that mean the majority of the populace always has the right idea ?
Well lets see....A majority of early 20th century Germans felt it was a good idea to slaughter over 6 million Jewish people and other minorities. Does that mean the majority of the populace always has the right idea ?
Two, yes two gay liberal judges in California over ruled the results of two, yes two propositions on the ballot in two, yes two separate elections against gay marriage. How does that happen? Majority rules no more in Obama's L'America.
Master edger, labia licker, nipple tugger and veteran voyeur.
gcaplan said:
Why is it you have to revert to putting words in your opponents mouth to win an argument ? Why not lay out the benefits and reasons to permit gay marriage ? So far all anyone has cause it FEELS right . No logic or legal reasoning .
To equate gay marriage to civil rights is an insult to civil rights . Gays do not get locked up for being gay , they are not suspect number one in crimes , they are not beaten by officers of the law nor enslaved or denied anything close to what blacks were . However they are in the majority of the world if you want to take that cause up elsewhere you can be a true groundbreaking pioneer for a minute . But most people only condemn mistreatment when the threat is long gone and no longer exist
Why is it you have to revert to putting words in your opponents mouth to win an argument ? Why not lay out the benefits and reasons to permit gay marriage ? So far all anyone has cause it FEELS right . No logic or legal reasoning .
To equate gay marriage to civil rights is an insult to civil rights . Gays do not get locked up for being gay , they are not suspect number one in crimes , they are not beaten by officers of the law nor enslaved or denied anything close to what blacks were . However they are in the majority of the world if you want to take that cause up elsewhere you can be a true groundbreaking pioneer for a minute . But most people only condemn mistreatment when the threat is long gone and no longer exist
Because were discussing a basic denial of rights that are supposedly guaranteed as part of U.S. citizenship. But if you want facts, Ill point a very real one. So prior to June 2015, if my partner were to pass away or be taking his last breaths, his family could LITERALLY deny me visitation based on their religious beliefs. They come into my home and take everything that we shared/bought together. The whole idea behind marriage is to share in the benefits and protections that heterosexuals enjoy. Oh, and before you disparage my arguments comparing civil rights to gay rights please consider this..... Maybe the struggle transpired on different levels, but make no mistake....Gay couples HAVE BEEN denied housing because of who they are. They have been beaten or KILLED because of who they are. They have suffered at the hands and words of those who felt they were second class (or lower) citizens. Please do a bit of research on the issue before discounting certain postulations and comparisons.
Are you man enough to ride this ride ?
Page: < prev of 4