Performance Boats Forum banner

1 - 20 of 78 Posts

·
Member
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
be the end of pandering to the Gays? I think so. Most Americans view Gays as deviates. We are however, a tolerant society who values freedom for all (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). We are intolerant of those who would force us to accept their views and behavior be it gays, socialism, or anything else that goes against our core values. After all, it is our core values that made American the greatest country on earth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
She was right on about her religious upbringing...her CHURCH should not allow gay marriage if they don't want to...her STATE however should not be in the business of deciding who you can and can not marry.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,616 Posts
I have decided that I now oppose all marriage....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve :)bulb
clever...do you get all your political idealism from bumper stickers?

I am imagining most of you don't want the Govt. in your checkbook. Most of us are for SMALL Govt. So why do you want the Govt. telling you who you can and can not marry?

Lets take your bumper sticker one step further shall we? If God created Adam & Eve (which even the Catholic church stopped believing officially in Vatican II) Then isn't it up to CHURCHES to decide who they want to marry under their laws?

Should states not grant divorce either? I mean...if we are going to get all religious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,616 Posts
I am imagining most of you don't want the Govt. in your checkbook. Most of us are for SMALL Govt. So why do you want the Govt. telling you who you can and can not marry?

Lets take your bumper sticker one step further shall we? If God created Adam & Eve (which even the Catholic church stopped believing officially in Vatican II) Then isn't it up to CHURCHES to decide who they want to marry under their laws?

Should states not grant divorce either? I mean...if we are going to get all religious.
Indeed, I do already feel that the state is too involved in marriage and divorce.

This makes me somewhat ambivalent on this issue. On one hand, I have no problem with the idea of committed gay couples wanting to have all the same legal rights, privleges, and responsablities etc of married couples. However, on the other hand, I have a big problem with the way the folks on the left are always re-writing the dictionary and re defining terms, for their own purposes. If the word marriage has historically mostly referred to a union between a man and a woman then I see nothing wrong with having official documents that grant those rights etc to them, yet call it something else, ie domestic partnerships etc..

Perhaps this might be a good time to come up with a new name that more accuratly describes marriage in California. What do you think of calling it "Mutual Indentured Servitude"?;)
 

·
CAT Skinner
Joined
·
157 Posts
clever...do you get all your political idealism from bumper stickers?

I am imagining most of you don't want the Govt. in your checkbook. Most of us are for SMALL Govt. So why do you want the Govt. telling you who you can and can not marry?

Lets take your bumper sticker one step further shall we? If God created Adam & Eve (which even the Catholic church stopped believing officially in Vatican II) Then isn't it up to CHURCHES to decide who they want to marry under their laws?

Should states not grant divorce either? I mean...if we are going to get all religious.
It really is very simple. Words mean things. For thousands of years Marriage has been defined as One Man and One Woman joined in a union for the betterment of family and society. Part of that is perpetuating the speceis. Gay couples are not biologically capable of doing this therefore it is un-natural.

If the gay community wants equal treatment under the law as they deserve, there are laws concerning civil unions that protect their relationships and give the inclusive rights to the spouse or partner. Civil unions can and should have ceremony cementing the union, Just don't call it marriage.

Secondly. There is no mention or even a hint in our constitution concerning gay marriage. There are two perfect documents and only two in the entire history of the world. The Bible and the U.S. Constitution. Neither have any mention of gay marriage.

Thirdly. If America condones Gay Marriage and changes the historical definition of Marriage as an institution then America will be forced to condone any and all possibilities of marriage. Polygimy, Beasteality etc.

If Gay Marriage succeeds then I could marry my Dog and when I die my dog can collect survivor benefits from Social Security and the U.S. Supreme court would have to uphold the claim. For that matter I could Marry a Giant Redwood and the government would have to pay benefits in the name of the tree for it's entire life. Could be hundreds of years.

Just proof that words have meaning. If they didn't then anything goes.
 

·
Living in a cage of fear
Joined
·
16,464 Posts
Every interview I've seen with Her has impressed Me.
I hold her in much higher regard than that jackhole Perez Hilton. That "guy" is the epitome of idiocy. Not to mention the fact that his big claim to fame is gossiping on Hollywood stars, and outing closet gay celebrities.
Watching HIM judge HER is illustrative of how twisted this country has become.

It was noted on FOX this morning that about 70% of the country, in fact, agrees with Her.
I figure at least 70% would have no problem kicking Perez right where his balls should be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
It really is very simple. Words mean things. For thousands of years Marriage has been defined as One Man and One Woman joined in a union for the betterment of family and society. Part of that is perpetuating the speceis. Gay couples are not biologically capable of doing this therefore it is un-natural.

If the gay community wants equal treatment under the law as they deserve, there are laws concerning civil unions that protect their relationships and give the inclusive rights to the spouse or partner. Civil unions can and should have ceremony cementing the union, Just don't call it marriage.

Secondly. There is no mention or even a hint in our constitution concerning gay marriage. There are two perfect documents and only two in the entire history of the world. The Bible and the U.S. Constitution. Neither have any mention of gay marriage.

Thirdly. If America condones Gay Marriage and changes the historical definition of Marriage as an institution then America will be forced to condone any and all possibilities of marriage. Polygimy, Beasteality etc.

If Gay Marriage succeeds then I could marry my Dog and when I die my dog can collect survivor benefits from Social Security and the U.S. Supreme court would have to uphold the claim. For that matter I could Marry a Giant Redwood and the government would have to pay benefits in the name of the tree for it's entire life. Could be hundreds of years.

Just proof that words have meaning. If they didn't then anything goes.
While I am sure your dog loves you in that way...it does not posses the mental capability to enter into such an arrangement...so...even if gays are allowed to marry...your dog is safe for now. Nice try though.

So...we have this perfect document...the constitution...right? The one you want to AMEND to define marriage? Or the one that HAS been amended several times to give you such things as the second amendment.

Or...we have your second exhibit...the bible. You know...the one that says its not OK to divorce, or that stones you to death for adultery?

Which leaves us with Civil Unions...nice work, you agree with Obama. What you are also asking for is...separate but equal...now where have I heard that before...hmmmmmmmm

I can't remember, but you should make a bumper sticker that says it...has a nice ring to it :)
 

·
The Man
Joined
·
1,788 Posts
Every interview I've seen with Her has impressed Me.
I hold her in much higher regard than that jackhole Perez Hilton. That "guy" is the epitome of idiocy. Not to mention the fact that his big claim to fame is gossiping on Hollywood stars, and outing closet gay celebrities.
Watching HIM judge HER is illustrative of how twisted this country has become.

It was noted on FOX this morning that about 70% of the country, in fact, agrees with Her.
I figure at least 70% would have no problem kicking Perez right where his balls should be.
Perez just got some sand in his vagina. I think she answered the question honestly and that's what would be more important to me. She could have taken the easy route and told them what they wanted to hear. Since when is it wrong to have an opinion and stick to it?
 

·
Living in a cage of fear
Joined
·
16,464 Posts
Perez just got some sand in his vagina. I think she answered the question honestly and that's what would be more important to me. She could have taken the easy route and told them what they wanted to hear. Since when is it wrong to have an opinion and stick to it?
Exactly!

But then again, lying and being void of integrity is the new PC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
Perez just got some sand in his vagina. I think she answered the question honestly and that's what would be more important to me. She could have taken the easy route and told them what they wanted to hear. Since when is it wrong to have an opinion and stick to it?
Could not agree more.

Perez was also wrong to judge her as 'stupid' for having that opinion.

I think she is dead wrong, but she is certainly entitled to her opinion. Since then I guess Perez invited her out for coffee...would LOVE to be at that table :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
While I am sure your dog loves you in that way...it does not posses the mental capability to enter into such an arrangement...so...even if gays are allowed to marry...your dog is safe for now. Nice try though.

So...we have this perfect document...the constitution...right? The one you want to AMEND to define marriage? Or the one that HAS been amended several times to give you such things as the second amendment.

Or...we have your second exhibit...the bible. You know...the one that says its not OK to divorce, or that stones you to death for adultery?

Which leaves us with Civil Unions...nice work, you agree with Obama. What you are also asking for is...separate but equal...now where have I heard that before...hmmmmmmmm

I can't remember, but you should make a bumper sticker that says it...has a nice ring to it :)
You forgot to address his first statement about marriage that “perpetuating the species” is part of the definition. The problem with that argument is the fact some straight married couple chose not to or is incapable of reproducing. Your argument suggests they should not be allowed to marry. He also states “for thousands of years”. Actually the definition of marriage has change. In the early wedding vows, the woman became property of the man and was to “love, Honor and OBEY”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
While I am sure your dog loves you in that way...it does not posses the mental capability to enter into such an arrangement...so...even if gays are allowed to marry...your dog is safe for now. Nice try though.
What about polygamy and polyandry, though? One could argue that in many cases the individuals involved in such relationships enter into them of their own free will. Should the law recognize such unions? And if so, what recourse would an individual have if they were opposed to their spouse entering into relationships with other people?

What of teenagers (aged 15-17) who of their own volition have sexual relations with older people? Should those older people be booked for rape?

I understand why the GLBT community wants the privileges that marriage accords us, but there's a difference between being given those legal rights and insisting on calling the union marriage. Why not settle for calling it a civil union? What difference would a name make if you had those privileges in any case? Doesn't this focus on calling the union "marriage" make the whole issue needlessly divisive?

The way I understand it, no one on the right is against gay unions. They're just against calling the union "marriage."

And just to put this whole issue into perspective, gays aren't united on the gay marriage issue. Many think this is just a way some gays strive to legitimize their relationship, to let society know that being gay isn't the same as being promiscuous, and so this insistence on marriage is perceived as selling out to the mainstream view on the issue. Some of them also think that marriage would further serve to marginalize the Bs and the Ts in the rainbow!

[The only reason I know this is because I had to suffer through a semester-long class on the issue!
 

·
Member
Joined
·
1,512 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Being gay is a choice. So why should gays get any governmental recognition? Doing so only encourages deviate behavior not unlike welfare moms who have more kids to get a pay raise from the government (ie the taxpayer).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
What about polygamy and polyandry, though? One could argue that in many cases the individuals involved in such relationships enter into them of their own free will. Should the law recognize such unions? And if so, what recourse would an individual have if they were opposed to their spouse entering into relationships with other people?

What of teenagers (aged 15-17) who of their own volition have sexual relations with older people? Should those older people be booked for rape?

I understand why the GLBT community wants the privileges that marriage accords us, but there's a difference between being given those legal rights and insisting on calling the union marriage. Why not settle for calling it a civil union? What difference would a name make if you had those privileges in any case? Doesn't this focus on calling the union "marriage" make the whole issue needlessly divisive?

The way I understand it, no one on the right is against gay unions. They're just against calling the union "marriage."

And just to put this whole issue into perspective, gays aren't united on the gay marriage issue. Many think this is just a way some gays strive to legitimize their relationship, to let society know that being gay isn't the same as being promiscuous, and so this insistence on marriage is perceived as selling out to the mainstream view on the issue. Some of them also think that marriage would further serve to marginalize the Bs and the Ts in the rainbow!

[The only reason I know this is because I had to suffer through a semester-long class on the issue!
I don't have an answer on Polygamy...but as you said...if one of the partners is against it...its really not a willful agreement, is it?

As for teenagers...uhh...ya...in most states 15-17 will get ya time. We don't think people are ably minded to vote until 18, why would it be ok for them to marry some one older?

What you are arguing is separate but equal...and during the civil rights movement there was also dissent in the black community about it, and no, there are some on the right who do in fact believe they should not even be allowed civil unions.

If you want to argue the connotation of marriage being religious...fine...then church's can grant marriages, and states can grant civil unions regardless of race, color, creed, or sexuality.

Still no takers on the State not allowing divorce huh? Stonings for adultery (might be less painful than the divorce). How about a dowry...that was a time honored tradition I didn't get from my inlaws...I mean...a dog would have been a nice present in case the marriage didn't work out...the dog and I could get married...if ONLY they would pass gay marriage so I could do so....spot and I could live happily ever after.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,616 Posts
So...we have this perfect document...the constitution...right? The one you want to AMEND to define marriage? Or the one that HAS been amended several times to give you such things as the second amendment.

Which leaves us with Civil Unions...nice work, you agree with Obama. What you are also asking for is...separate but equal...now where have I heard that before...hmmmmmmmm
I'm going to differ a bit here on some of your specifics.
#1
The Second Amendment is part of the original 10 that were collectively called The Bill of Rights. It was ratified as part of the original constitution, so it is not a good example to use for your point.

#2
Jim Crow "seperate but equal" is not a valid analogy to use for Civil Union vs Marriage. Under "seperate but equal", folks were kept seperate and their behavior was restricted. In fact, under "seperate but equal" the basic right of freedom of association was restricted. The differance between Civil Unions and Marriage would be nothing more than one of having different words, on paper, to grant the same rights. It would not in any way restrict anyones behavior etc. "Seperate but equal" was a major infringement on our most basic rights. To compare restrictive Jim Crow/ "seperate but equal" to something that is essentially nothing but a semantic distinction is a totally invalid analogy. You know, the kind that tends to blow ones credibility out of the water.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,234 Posts
I'm going to differ a bit here on some of your specifics.
#1
The Second Amendment is part of the original 10 that were collectively called The Bill of Rights. It was ratified as part of the origional constitution so it is not a good example to use for your point.

#2
Jim Crow "seperate but equal" is not a valid analogy to use for Civil Union vs Marriage. Under "seperate but equal", folks were kept seperate and their behavior was restricted. In fact, under "seperate but equal" the basic right of freedom of association was restricted. The differance between Civil Unions and Marriage would be nothing more than one of having different words, on paper, to grant the same rights. It would not in any way restrict anyones behavior etc. "Seperate but equal" was a major infringement on our most basic rights. To compare restrictive Jim Crow/ "seperate but equal" to something that is essentially nothing but a semantic distinction is a totally invalid analogy. You know, the kind that tends to blow ones credibility out of the water.;)
#1, Then was the constitution perfect before prohibition, during prohibition, or after prohibition?

#2 well played :) Except, I will say...if its just semantics...then I guess we can just call it marriage. If you would like to say...then just call it civil union, then you are in fact validating my argument of separate but equal because you are setting up another institution to keep a distinction.

Now as to being gay being a choice...as much as science has proved you wrong, and the fact that you wake up every morning going...man, this thing is hard again...is there a vagina around any where? Should show you...its not a choice...

but I will have more fun taking your ignorant argument of 'its a choice of deviants'.

Do you REALLY want the govt. to decide what behavior you can and can not engage in with another consenting adult?
 
1 - 20 of 78 Posts
Top