Originally posted by moneyline
-
i dont think he understands how ironic he is beingComment -
Says the person who doesn't know the Bible because he has never read it with a desire to learn what it meant through confirmation of messages and the overall lessons throughout its pages.Comment -
All peaople should have an equal rights. If they dont give equal rights to gays then I could suggest no tax for gays. Everybody should be equal and happy.Comment -
yepComment -
You miss an important bit there in that wikipedia quote... "equivalent to marriage in every respect at the state level." Social Security is NOT at the state level, federal trials are NOT at the state level, federal taxes are NOT at the state level..Originally posted by slacker00What is your source? I've found quite the opposite to be fact:
Once again, it's all about the "M" word. Thus the war between the church & the gays. It's childish, but I guess the church had the magical word first, so they can take their ball and go home as far as I care. Just remove the word from all state concerns and make everyone equal.Comment -
Yep. So why are the gays picketing churches in Cali? That's the issue. They should be on the steps of the White House.Originally posted by billmunnyComment -
Further, if we use wikipedia as your source... you apparently must also already live with someone to qualify for a domestic partnership. You're not required to live with someone to get married to them, are you? Sure.. you might, or you might move in with them after you're married-- but for a domestic partnership? Nope.Comment -
Perhaps because the California Supreme Court struck down a previous law worded exactly the same way as being unconstitutional in May. And because marriage licenses are granted by representatives of the state NOT the federal government.Originally posted by slacker00
Edit: More to your point, believe it or not that fact that Prop 8 could end up being one of the best things to happen to gay rights in the long run. Why? If this actually gets added to the California Constitution, it will be challenged and the issue will likely end up before the US Supreme Court which will, rightly, realize that this is "separate but unequal."Comment -
No, they won't ... just like Roe v. Wade won't be overturned ... but, just as people like myself who don't approve of babies being killed will not be edified by the court, neither will people like you who believe that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality when it comes to marriage rights ...Comment -
Ok, I see your point.Originally posted by billmunny
I know it'll never happen, but I think all of these special rights afforded to married couples are unfair to single people. Why get such special treatment just because one has a partner? I can understand in the old days when the women basically had no rights seperate from her husband, but times have changed and so should the rules regarding marriage. Once again government over-regulation has caused a problem that never needed to exist in the first place.Comment -
if you dont like abortion, then dont have one
if you dont like dudes marrying, then dont marry a dude
easy as pie, keep the govt out of personal decisionsComment -
I couldn't have said it any better myself. Anyone who takes issue with that logic obviously spends far too much time thinking about the lives of other people. This is Libertarian philosophy at its core.Originally posted by ryanXL977Originally posted by StraitShooterComment -
A major difference here is that Roe v. Wade doesn't take away your right to not get an abortion.Originally posted by moneyline
Plus, your logic is faulty-- you're arguing that because the Court has chosen to uphold a decision that ignores religious pressure in order to preserve a Constitutional right to privacy when it comes to issues of one's own body the Court will, therefore, cave to religious pressure and take away what is essentially a right to privacy and equal treatment under the law?
Comment -
Right to privacy? Really? Is drug use a right to privacy issue? How about prostitution? Funny, but I don't think "religious pressure" is what has caused the Court to uphold laws against the other two crimes ... do you ... really?
And continuing Ryan's logic ...
If you don't like killing, don't kill someone!
If you don't like raping, don't rape someone!
If you don't like stealing, don't steal from someone!
Now, that's a society I'd be proud to call my own.Comment -
let people use drugs and **** hookers
its happened for thousands of years
tax it and regulate it, make some money for schools and roads
worry about your own lifeComment -
How do you stand on gay marriage? No really, how do you stand on gay marriage? It's impossible.
Where do people stand on gay marriage, however, is a different questionComment -
Dot com, it's just not true. I could write the words 'gay marriage' on a piece of paper and stand directly on that paper.
Not difficult at all, really ... couldn't you do the same?Comment -
You think that I came up with this right to privacy bit on my own, don't you? But the Fourteenth Amendment, due process, and a "right to privacy," were at the core of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Read it for yourself, if you don't believe me.Originally posted by moneyline
And yes, many people argue that prostitution IS a privacy issue. The question had been raised in the DC Madam trial (actual motion here) before it was dismissed when she committed suicide.
And yes, I imagine that religion plays a much larger role in the criminalization of prostitution than you'd be willing to admit. Why else, pray tell, is it illegal?
Drug use, too, is largely fought as a "moral" issue. (See: War on Drugs) However, I imagine that as long as the health care burden for drug addicts and abusers is socialized through insurance and government health care and programs, decriminalization is going to be a tough sell. (This is the same rationale that can be used for laws requiring you to wear your seat belt.) This, however, represents a REAL and TANGIBLE cost to society which works to counteract the right to privacy. (Though this argument ignores the cost the public of criminalizing drugs and incarcerating offenders...) Where is this cost with gay marriage?Comment -
The cost to our society? Glad you asked. It is the same "cost to society" that India and China sustain, as they find it socially acceptable and right to use abortion (a right to privacy issue) in order to sex-select abort girls because, either they find them a less valuable gender or cannot afford dowries ... (do you think it is coincidental that India is the only country in the world with more men than women?) ...
Cost does not always equate to $$$/numbers. Surely you know that ...Comment -
You're hurting your own argument again. The Chinese government has historically intervened in private matters by permitting only one child per family AND created inequity between different classes of people (boys/girls). Yet, you're using this as evidence that abortion is the problem?Originally posted by moneyline
The issue in India is not abortion, it's the fact that by some it is considered culturally acceptable to beat/burn/abuse/kill a potential wife if her family cannot afford what you consider an acceptable dowry. And, again, the creation of two classes of people (male/female). Come on now...
By this logic, if mothers started aborting babies because they knew they would be gay, you'd ignore the fact that there's an issue of the status of gay people there as well.Comment -
Actually, the point is the "right to privacy" is not absolute. What people do with their bodies, even if it does not directly hurt or cost others $$$, can, and should, still be regulated ... depending on the action.
Killing babies ... unnatural marriages, from underage to same family to same sex ... shooting up heroin ... selling your body to the highest (or lowest) bidder ... etc ...
Only a fool, or one that cares not about the society around them, would validate these actions by saying "as long as it doesn't affect me, why should I care?"Comment -
I agree, on principal.Originally posted by ryanXL977
Then again, I also agree with taxing tobacco and basically banning it out of existence. It's fine if you can limit the health/social problems to the individual making the choice, but often that's problematic. That's probably the case with many illegal drugs.
We do have legalized prostitution within certain juristictions, I believe. That seems to work fine.
Bottom line, whatever types of policies are adopted do have a ripple affect in society. As far as this gay marriage issue, it seems like married people were getting a sweetheart deal from the federal government anyway, which they probably don't totally deserve in respect to modern times, so do away with all of it and let that be that.Comment -
yes, they do have ripple effects
but using the bible as a guideline for any kind of laws governing marriage is idiotic considering how many wives they used to have, and how anti divorce the bible also is
the bible needs to be kept out of the equation.Comment -
Like it or not, the Bible is used as a guideline for the way people live their lives. Even you, Ryan, although you don't really understand how just yet ...Comment -
Originally posted by moneyline
Is it OK to kill people?Comment -
not realy. its not at all. jesus was the prince of piece. so go ahead, keep spouting shit you dont know. keep picking and choosingOriginally posted by moneylineComment -
if you want to use a 2000 year old book as a guide for life, to pick and choose what fits, be my guest. but it has nothing to do with me or many americans who dont want their lives governed by a book in which men can take up dozens of wives and a magical man walks on water.Comment -
And the Prince of Peace confronted sin whenever He came across it ... while He definitely did not refrain from being in the company of sinners, He wholeheartedly expressed His hatred for sin in a variety of ways ...
Ryan, how many of the 10 Commandments which were written, amazingly enough before you were born, do you disagree with? If your answer is more than 1, you are truly a sad individual.
As for the magical man, all historical accounts agree that He existed ... don't you know that, Ry?Comment -
why would anyone debate with such an obnoxious, pompous know it all. you are never wrong and are full of crap. debate yourself or someone else. pseudo intellectuals are annoying to meComment -
homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals. they can marry a woman and have the same protections.Originally posted by billmunny
so until the state redefines marriage there is not a denial of civil rights.Comment -
no campaign, i just simply pointed out that government created the problem by getting involved in the religious covenant. if you want the government to recognize civil unions for your extreme sake of special rights thats one thing, but if you want the government to sanction your beliefs just bc they sanctioned someone elses, i say fck you both.Originally posted by billmunnyComment -
thats not entirely accurate, most libertarians are pro life. killing a baby kinda goes against the life part of life, liberty, property.Originally posted by RogueScholarComment -
killing a baby should be illegal
ending a fetus when its the size of a penny isnt a babyComment -
God forgot to give the 11th commandment to Moses:
Thou shalt not be gay.Comment -
Thou shalt overpopulate and rape the earth.Comment
