Bush vs Gay Rights

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Good point, Jesus went around with 12 guys for most of his life. Well, if you go by the bible the church gives you, points to Jesus being a homosexual.

Give me a break.

Now if you add the books that were left out by the church, then Jesus and Mary Magedline were lovers.

Like which ones? Example? Quotes? Something?

Also, Mary was never a prostitute like the church edited in, but the leader of the 7 women disciples, while Jesus was the leader of the 12 male disciples.

Perhaps, then again maybe she was. Who knows.

Wait, the bible isn't edited, it is not wrong, it is all that is good and caring in this world. Hahahahaha

Sorry, couldn't keep a STRAIGHT face.(Pun intende)

Also, didn't I say this is a legal battle, not religous, opinion, or scientific arguement.

Yes, as did most of us.

So throw out all invisable all powerful people that live in the clouds. And no, I think it is wrong, or well it against nature, for they are born gay, and again, a LEGAL battle, so you have to use the law. In fact, the law says you have to treat people the same, no discrimination, so people who ban gay marriges are breaking the law.

Wrong, you do not have to treat people the same, people are afforded the same rights, that is the legal standard.

And also, a marrige is not a religous controlled activity, a preist does not sign a marrige certificate inbetween butt rapings of 6 year olds, but the judge or other legal people of the state do.

Actually, they sign a paper for the state. Just so you know.

People say the church controls marrige, so what about Hindu marriges? Do they count?

Yes

Not christian marrige, but still marrige. Or Wiccan Handfasting, that is a marrige,

~yawn~ Still yes (oddly)

but from most arguements I've seen, since it wasn't done by a christian leader, it doesn't count.

I don't know where you see that, but ok.

Then the only objection to gay marriage is that it is against the law? That's easy enough - change the law, on the basis that it discriminates.

Other than that, I have not yet heard one rational argument for banning gay marriage.

john

ok, well here you go.

1) Right now most people do not want it. Put it to a popular vote, and it would fail. The people rule, not the Constitution (ideally).

2) The federal government's 1996 Defense of Marriage Act affirms that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

The act also defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife."

3) Who ever said that marriage is a right? Legally, only the results are rights (tax benifits, probate law, etc.) which should be given to civil unions (as I also classify as men and women marrying under the state).

4) Legally, men will be able to marry underage boys with their parents consent (although I find this distasteful and wrong). I also apply that to hetro couples, which again, is wrong. If they are so much in love, they can wait. Otherwise, arrest them if they are having sex either way for statitory rape.

I don't mind if gays marry.

Just another way we can exploit all the freedoms we have here in America. And I support that

KJ

1. Most people want it; if put to a vote it would fail.

Not a good test. Most people would not pay the taxes that they pay if given the opportunity to vote on it.

Most people might have objected to what Rosa Parks did, also.

2. DOMA will fail a good challenge. It is also akin to saying "We do this because this is the way it has always been done".

3. Is marriage a right? Or an action? If an action, then it could be argued that the government has a duty to regulate it, as it pertains to the common good. This also fails, for the following reasons:

It does not harm existing heterosexual marriages.
It harms same sex marriages by discriminating against them.

4. I agree, current law is reprehensible regarding consent for minors. But how do we currently handle that situation? If state A says consent can be given to 16 year old, and State B says consent can be given to 14 year old, is state A required to honor state B marriage?
Should be revoked uniformly, IMO.

By saying someone cannot marry you are saying that they are less of a human being than you are.

There is no good, rational reason for denying same sex marriages.

john

Originally posted by jsobecky
KJ

1. Most people want it; if put to a vote it would fail.

Not a good test. Most people would not pay the taxes that they pay if given the opportunity to vote on it.

Of course it is not a good test, that is why things are not done by popular vote. But that would be the only quality "poll" we could get. Anyway, the government is here to serve us.

Most people might have objected to what Rosa Parks did, also.

Hard to say, they are not really related. Rosa was fighting for rights that should be given to her, as in where to go/sit/eat/etc. Homosexuality has not been proven to be a qualifier in this catagory (as in the alleged gay gene), so it is still dubbed an action.

2. DOMA will fail a good challenge. It is also akin to saying "We do this because this is the way it has always been done".

There are many things that are the way they have always been, and we all like it. It is not nessisarily wrong.

3. Is marriage a right? Or an action? If an action, then it could be argued that the government has a duty to regulate it, as it pertains to the common good. This also fails, for the following reasons:

It does not harm existing heterosexual marriages.
It harms same sex marriages by discriminating against them.

The idea is to look outside of how this will affect marriage. This will affect myriad areas. Adoption, NAMBLA (slthough I'll go into this below), expansion of allowances, etc. Now, by expansion of allowances, I mean that to allow one "alternative" lifestyle to re-write the definition of marriage, we would have to allow others under the same reasoning. This is a serious problem.

4. I agree, current law is reprehensible regarding consent for minors. But how do we currently handle that situation? If state A says consent can be given to 16 year old, and State B says consent can be given to 14 year old, is state A required to honor state B marriage?
Should be revoked uniformly, IMO.

Yes, NAMBLA can kiss my ass and all those perverted straight folks who marry underage children. Sickening.

By saying someone cannot marry you are saying that they are less of a human being than you are.

Not true, but we have exsisted for quite a long time under the current definition, why change it, there is no need. Give them the rights, make all unions done by the state (straight or gay) fall under the new classification of "Civil Union" with all rights due to them.

There is no good, rational reason for denying same sex marriages.

Depends what side you are on. Twenty years ago, people would have laughed in the streets should this have been brought up, yet today it is happening and we laugh today about NAMBLA and other inclusions. Re-definition is a slippery slope.

john

JK, I bring up something that is "off topic" according to you, and you go nuts, die! you have ADD! Die! Yet NAMBLA keeps popping up, but that has nothing to do with gay marriges. So how come I bring something up that is off topic, I get yelled at, yet you keep brining up stuff the catholic church, I mean NAMBLA does and it ok? And again, I have tried to answer your off topic subjects, but you just either disregard mine, say they off topic and refuse to answer, or say put it in another topic. Why? Can't think of any lies?

Anyways, still want a legal reason people. Also, a 16 year old can marry with parental consent. But unlike what JK says, it wouldn't be a 40 year old with a 16 year old, more along the lines of 18 year old and 16 year old.

Anyways, what does NAMBLA have to do with two CONSENSTING ADULTS! Me and several others have stated the fact that it is adults, not NAMBLA, not a dog, but adults. Yet NAMBLA keeps popping up again and again. Use something new, that is on topic!

Talk about "waling the middle line." Bush almost sounded like a Democrat out there today.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
JK, I bring up something that is "off topic" according to you, and you go nuts, die! you have ADD! Die! Yet NAMBLA keeps popping up, but that has nothing to do with gay marriges. So how come I bring something up that is off topic, I get yelled at, yet you keep brining up stuff the catholic church, I mean NAMBLA does and it ok? And again, I have tried to answer your off topic subjects, but you just either disregard mine, say they off topic and refuse to answer, or say put it in another topic. Why? Can't think of any lies?

Anyways, still want a legal reason people. Also, a 16 year old can marry with parental consent. But unlike what JK says, it wouldn't be a 40 year old with a 16 year old, more along the lines of 18 year old and 16 year old.

Anyways, what does NAMBLA have to do with two CONSENSTING ADULTS! Me and several others have stated the fact that it is adults, not NAMBLA, not a dog, but adults. Yet NAMBLA keeps popping up again and again. Use something new, that is on topic!

NAMBLA is an example of the slope we run if we redefine marraige.

" Ageism is a topic which many individuals in the Lesbian and Gay community have given little or no attention to. As gay youth, we feel that it is necessary to raise consciousness on this subject in order to avoid conflicts which may arise out of ageist attitudes." ~NAMBLA.org

The parental consent laws are still in place, which means that we are opening ourselves up with the redefinition to these people gaining rights they should not have.

It seems pretty on topic to me. I speak of a result of gay rights and marriage.

The reason I harp on people for being off-topic is because if one person brings up the religion, people then go to attack the religion instead of the topic.

The fact that religious people have a voice is not an application for dissent of religion.

The founding fathers set up the constitution to basically protect the minority from the majority. Now, Bush and his gang are going for an amendment to the Constitution that does NOT offer protection to the minority from the wishes of the majority.

This is one reason why I have become so anti-Republican. Everywhere you turn around one of them is wanting to amend the constitution in some form or another. The great protectors of individual rights who supposedly are so anti government are now wanting the government to play daddy. What a contradiction. It sickens me worse than the gay marriage itself.

The funny thing is, at least they are going through the legislative process... Its a damn shame we have to enact legislation to tell a rogue court or judge they aren't supposed to make law only uphold it. If gay marraige is to be law, then put it through the legislative process and lets vote it in instead of empowering a judge with more power than he actually has to change the law without consent of the people.

Thats the issue here more so than whether deviate sexual behavior is accepted as the norm. The new legislation isn't to stop gay marraige as much as it is to keep elitist judges and rogue courts from deciding its now their role to create new law or change existing law.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think this is a good thing by any means. Anytime we must begin ammending the constitution and our laws to stop a branch who's job isn't to create laws from doing so, we have a problem.

This country needs broad spectrum judicial reform and these all powerful judges need to get a grip on what their limitations are.

Um, NAMBLA is not on topic, NAMBLA is a 40 year old who wants to rape a 6 year old, like the catholic church. Gay marrige is a 30 year old wanting to marry someone else who is 30 years old and have sex willingly. Sorry, but NAMBLA is not on topic. And if you get to use that, then I get to ask why you don't kill your neighbors for working on the sabbath, without you having a heart attack and telling me it is off topic and I should go to hell.

It IS on topic.

I guess off topic to you includes speaking of the ramifications due to the topic.

As to the kill my neighbor question, I answered you.

NAMBLA has nothing to do with gay marrige! NAMBLA, as said, is a 40 year old raping a 6 year old. What does rape have to do with consensual sex between two adults? And the neighbor thing, yes, you said DIE! Don't ask that1 That off topic, Die! No, not answering for I don't want to, it off topic, go to hell!

Originally posted by James the Lesser
NAMBLA has nothing to do with gay marrige! NAMBLA, as said, is a 40 year old raping a 6 year old. What does rape have to do with consensual sex between two adults? And the neighbor thing, yes, you said DIE! Don't ask that1 That off topic, Die! No, not answering for I don't want to, it off topic, go to hell!

First, your post is so riddled with errors, that it becomes annoying to try to piece your thoughts.

NAMBLA is not 40 year olds raping 6 year olds. It is a movement akin to the gay movement that seeks to dissolve the 18 year barrier.

They seek 8 to be the number by which people are able to make decisions including sex.

An American Sociological Review article in 2001, they found that:

� Children of lesbians are less likely to conform to traditional gender norms.

� Children of lesbians are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior.

� Daughters of lesbians are "more sexually adventurous and less chaste."

� Lesbian "co-parent relationships" are more likely to end than heterosexual ones.

A 1996 study by an Australian sociologist compared children raised by heterosexual married couples, heterosexual cohabiting couples, and homosexual cohabiting couples. It found that the children of heterosexual married couples did the best, and children of homosexual couples the worst, in nine of the thirteen academic and social categories measured.

Gay marriage should remain illegal. Nowhere in history has this been a part of society except for now in 2004 in San Franscisco. We must end this now.

There's no activism on the judges part; they've sighted constitutional law to make their decisions sound. Discrimination is discrimination.
There is no "sanctity of marriage" in America; else, we would not have half of them end in divorce - we wouldn't have abused spouses ( both men & women ) - we wouldn't have incest.
The trotting out of Demons such as NAMBLA draws a chilling parallel to the "Intergrated Negro raping OUR white women" mindset, and you should be ashamed ouf yourselves for going there.
News Flash: DEVIANTS, gay or straight, DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT MARRIAGE. The gay people getting married in CA should do an "exit poll" - I would wager that most all of them are gainfully employed and likely holding degrees /certifications in their fields. MEANING that these are contributing members of society who likely make more than you, have had more schooling and promote our economy.
Calling up studies of ho "bad" kids turn out with Gayy Parents!?! Another News Flash: except for the affluent who can afford invitro, if these folks have kids, it's usually by adoption. It's a sad fact that age/color/disability often make ophan undesireable. Gay couples are adopting those children, and it's DAMN better for the kids to have any parents than to spend their life in the 'system'.
Are you people really that sheltered that you don't have gay co-workers/bosses/team or club members? How about gay FAMILY?

KJ

Where do you get your facts when you state that gays want to dissolve the 18 year old barrier?

john

Originally posted by Bout Time
There's no activism on the judges part; they've sighted constitutional law to make their decisions sound.

I take it this comment is in response to my comments on legislation from the bench? There is no justification in my point of view to enact laws from the judicial system. New laws should be put to a legislative vote. This is nothing more than shortcuts to the law being developed by deviates enpowered by holier than thou individuals who then force it on the rest of us without consent or even being elected to their position. Its stepping outside the limitations of the office and I reinterate that the bad thing isn't that its being done, the bad thing is we now have to ammend the constitution to disallow something that isn't legitimate in the first place. I'm speaking of the judicial system, not gay marraige. If you want gay marraige, enact the legislation, campaign for it and pass it into law the right way.

We have laws covering discrimination. Blocking Gay marriage is discrimination. So there's no need to pass legislation in favor of because the mutual consideration litmus test fails.