Civil Union support because of Faith?

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Why is everyone so concerned with what other *consenting adults* like to do in their private sexual lives? Aren't you the same people who always bitch about your precious privacy rights? I don't know what kind of lives you lead, but I've got far more important issues to worry about than what Joe and Tom across town are doing in their bedroom tonight.

Jeez.

Jason

because its obviously not private anymore, its flamingly public.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

So? It's already illegal to fvck in the streets, so by what right do you propose to regulate what people do in their private homes with other consenting adults?

Jason

 

[SNC]

Because you have schools teaching that homosexuality is OK to 5 year olds. Just because little Suzy has 2 mommies or Jimmy has 2 daddies, they are no different. And that a family is made up of loving people, not just a family with a mom and dad. I?m sorry but when my son came home and wanted to know how 2 guys had a baby it kind of irked me. Keep your fuqking opinions to your self and away from my kids. If I have to explain to him why Jimmy?s dad and dad are different then his mom and dad, the gay groups will not like it. You want to foster an acceptance and tolerance for the gay lifestyle, than don?t make me explain it to my kids. You will not like how I do it. When he forms opinion based on his life and has genuine questions, there should be honest and open discussion about it. Not brain washed at 5. If given the choice of letting the schools indoctrinate my child, or passing on my opinions and thoughts, what do you think I will do? I think it is the parents job to talk about this kind of stuff with there kids are ready. Not just because there in school. If you choose to live that life, than you should be responsible for teaching ?your? children about the people that might not understand. Don?t make me responsible for your choices.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SNC
Because you have schools teaching that homosexuality is OK to 5 year olds. Just because little Suzy has 2 mommies or Jimmy has 2 daddies, they are no different. And that a family is made up of loving people, not just a family with a mom and dad. I?m sorry but when my son came home and wanted to know how 2 guys had a baby it kind of irked me. Keep your fuqking opinions to your self and away from my kids. If I have to explain to him why Jimmy?s dad and dad are different then his mom and dad, the gay groups will not like it. You want to foster an acceptance and tolerance for the gay lifestyle, than don?t make me explain it to my kids. You will not like how I do it. When he forms opinion based on his life and has genuine questions, there should be honest and open discussion about it. Not brain washed at 5. If given the choice of letting the schools indoctrinate my child, or passing on my opinions and thoughts, what do you think I will do? I think it is the parents job to talk about this kind of stuff with there kids are ready. Not just because there in school. If you choose to live that life, than you should be responsible for teaching ?your? children about the people that might not understand. Don?t make me responsible for your choices.

The you sure won't like this:
California Democrats Refuse to Notify Parents of Sex Ed Speakers

CkG

 

[SNC]

Your right. There is just something about having to hide what you are doing.
If you dont think there is anything wrong with what your doing, bring it into the light.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: SNC
Your right. There is just something about having to hide what you are doing.
If you dont think there is anything wrong with what your doing, bring it into the light.

OK, so first you say you don't want people to explain to your kid that his schoolmate might have 2 dads or moms, then you say "bring it out." Make up your mind You can't have it both ways.

As for teaching kids that a family consists of people who love each other regardless of issues like gender, what in the hell is wrong with that? I'm not saying give the kids lessons in proper butt-fvcking etiquette, but when there are students who have 2 same sex parents, the ones with straight families WILL have questions, and it's best to give them an answer that cultivates understanding and acceptance rather than fear, anger and intolerance. Those things won't help at all.

In either case, your example has *nothing* to do with whether people should be allowed to get married in a same-sex configuration. Why shouldn't they? Is there a single good reason in the world why that should be the case?

Jason

 

[SNC]

First I was replying to CAD and the article he linked to. The school board was not telling the parents of students when outside speakers were at the school to talk about sex to the students.

I am beginning to think that Dragon has some links to a same sex couple.
Back to your question. Because I do not want to union that my wife and I have to be associated in any way with a couple of pecker puffing bone dancers or dental dam wearing dykes. Find a different name for it. You freaking chose this way of life, live with it. Don?t belittle mine. One of get a sex change if you want to get married. At least most people won?t know your 2 of the same. The whim of a few should not cause the many pain.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: SNC
First I was replying to CAD and the article he linked to. The school board was not telling the parents of students when outside speakers were at the school to talk about sex to the students.

I am beginning to think that Dragon has some links to a same sex couple.
Back to your question. Because I do not want to union that my wife and I have to be associated in any way with a couple of pecker puffing bone dancers or dental dam wearing dykes. Find a different name for it. You freaking chose this way of life, live with it. Don?t belittle mine. One of get a sex change if you want to get married. At least most people won?t know your 2 of the same. The whim of a few should not cause the many pain.

Tyrany of the majority ring a bell?

 

[SNC]

No

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: SNC
First I was replying to CAD and the article he linked to. The school board was not telling the parents of students when outside speakers were at the school to talk about sex to the students.

I am beginning to think that Dragon has some links to a same sex couple.
Back to your question. Because I do not want to union that my wife and I have to be associated in any way with a couple of pecker puffing bone dancers or dental dam wearing dykes. Find a different name for it. You freaking chose this way of life, live with it. Don?t belittle mine. One of get a sex change if you want to get married. At least most people won?t know your 2 of the same. The whim of a few should not cause the many pain.

Tyrany of the majority ring a bell?

or since we like to fancy ourselves a democracy, how about majority rules?

and i have to agree with SNC on this one. Dont force ME to explain others lifestyles to MY children before they're even old enough to comprehend such matters! Dont think thats its ok to indoctrinate the youth in the name of tolerance.

And stop trying to force me to tolerate that which I dissapprove of. That is a prime example of tyrany.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

We are a democracy, but the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to PREVENT "Majority Rule" from allowing a large group of people with one opinion to oppress and violate the rights of a smaller group. I have no more interest in being gay than you homophobes do, but whether you like it or not, every INDIVIDUAL has certain natural rights and you DO NOT have a right to stop them from exercising those rights no matter how much you dislike it. We're not talking about people FORCING anything on anyone (except for you, who apparently favor forcing some people to enjoy whatever sexual standards that you do) we're talking about individuals wanting to exercise their rights to make their own life choices with other consenting adults.

As to marriage, I'm afraid the government has NO basis for disallowing marriage between same sex couples; as far as the law is concerned, marriage is a CONTRACT and individuals are free to enter into contracts with other individuals on a concentual, unforced basis. It is ONLY your churches that have any authority to refuse such marriages under THEIR rules; they have no right to interfere with the law of the land, and in the coming years as your side loses more and more ground (and it will, rest assured, as the evidence is already showing) you will watch, probably in stupified horror, as gays and lesbians become husbands and wives (or husbands and husbands or what the hell ever...)

You know what I think we straight folks are afraid of? We've made such a mockery of marriage, we have so ruined and bastardized the entire concept that we're afraid that a bunch of stool pushers will do a better job of it.

And you know, maybe they will.

Jason

 

[glugglug]

From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.

And if God had thought homicide was a sin, he would not have created murderers.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: glugglug

From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.

And if God had thought homicide was a sin, he would not have created murderers.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: glugglug

From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.

And if God had thought homicide was a sin, he would not have created murderers.

:butter:

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
We are a democracy, but the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to PREVENT "Majority Rule" from allowing a large group of people with one opinion to oppress and violate the rights of a smaller group. I have no more interest in being gay than you homophobes do, but whether you like it or not, every INDIVIDUAL has certain natural rights and you DO NOT have a right to stop them from exercising those rights no matter how much you dislike it. We're not talking about people FORCING anything on anyone (except for you, who apparently favor forcing some people to enjoy whatever sexual standards that you do) we're talking about individuals wanting to exercise their rights to make their own life choices with other consenting adults.

As to marriage, I'm afraid the government has NO basis for disallowing marriage between same sex couples; as far as the law is concerned, marriage is a CONTRACT and individuals are free to enter into contracts with other individuals on a concentual, unforced basis. It is ONLY your churches that have any authority to refuse such marriages under THEIR rules; they have no right to interfere with the law of the land, and in the coming years as your side loses more and more ground (and it will, rest assured, as the evidence is already showing) you will watch, probably in stupified horror, as gays and lesbians become husbands and wives (or husbands and husbands or what the hell ever...)

You know what I think we straight folks are afraid of? We've made such a mockery of marriage, we have so ruined and bastardized the entire concept that we're afraid that a bunch of stool pushers will do a better job of it.

And you know, maybe they will.

Jason

this Bill of Rights to prevent majority rules thing youve got going...you may need to rethink that. Why do you think that we put things to a vote and then act on the idea/policies that get the most votes? thats majority rules right there. and what makes you think im [or anyone else for that matter] a homophobe [i think homophobe is a stupid catch all phrase that is over used, just like ADD]? is it because i dont like the act of homosexuality? probably. ive met tons of gay people and i have no problem with the people [theyre usually reallly nice people, except for the *** lesbians, they've got a stick up their ass] however, i do have a problem with the act of homosexuality. not only that, but im also tired of being bombarded with the whole homosexual agenda crap. im tired of hearing about gay pride, and how theyre not being treated equally, and how they want into the Boy Scouts, and how they want federal protection at their silly gay rights rallies [i guess cause they dont wanna get beat up by neo-nazis?], and most of all, im sick of being told i must tolerate it! no, i dont have to tolerate a god damned thing that i dont want to.

i think youve got what im saying all wrong, i dont want to outlaw sodomy or muff diving, im just not interested in the desecration of marriage as it has been known since the beginning of time. i could give a rats ass what people do behind their doors in the privacy of their own home. but as soon as you make it public and start bringing your gay pride into the public forum, youve gone and crossed the line. you dont hear of peole arranging straight pride parades, or putting straight pride stickers on their vehicles, or wearing straight pride shirts [well, actually you do hear about the shirts, but for some odd reason, those kids get suspended from school...?]

and thats right, since [i suppose anyway] that we've establised marriage as a religious institution, then you're right, the churches can refuse to marry someone on whatever basis they want [besides, it would be kinda sacreligious anyway, you know, GAYS being MARRIED in a CHRUCH!!] and theres nothing the govt can do about it [seperation of church and state right there]




so, to sum it all up, no, im not trying to force a straight lifestyle on gay people, but im also not about to allow them to get married [at least not in the traditional sense of marriage]


PS, this is an incomplete post, i need to go to bed right now, but ill edit it tomorrow for completion.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

You really ought to read the bill of rights, the constitution, and *definitely* the Declaration of independence. We put things to a vote in order to make various decisions in a more-or-less fair way. It does not mean majority rules in the sense that 100 men can get together and have enough collective rights to force one man, who is otherwise innocent of any crimes, what to do with his life. All men have the *same* natural rights, and no matter how big ofa group you manage to get together they can never have MORE rights than an individual. In that sort of society, anyone who could muster a large enough group could dictate and use force to ensure that everyone else complies with their vision. That's not what the original intent of the founding fathers was.

On marriage, the "traditional" view of marriage is church defined. When we're talking about "government" legal marriages, which ARE contracts, there is neither reason nor right to say that only man/woman couples should be married. As I said before, the church should view marriage however it wants and that's fine, but the government doesn't have a right to discriminate on the basis of gender.

Now as to gay people "desecrating" the idea of marriage...come on, do you *really* think they could fvck it up any worse than we straight people have? Puh-lease.

Jason

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Genesys


this Bill of Rights to prevent majority rules thing youve got going...you may need to rethink that. Why do you think that we put things to a vote and then act on the idea/policies that get the most votes? thats majority rules right there.

So explain to me why we have the electoral college.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
You really ought to read the bill of rights, the constitution, and *definitely* the Declaration of independence. We put things to a vote in order to make various decisions in a more-or-less fair way. It does not mean majority rules in the sense that 100 men can get together and have enough collective rights to force one man, who is otherwise innocent of any crimes, what to do with his life. All men have the *same* natural rights, and no matter how big ofa group you manage to get together they can never have MORE rights than an individual. In that sort of society, anyone who could muster a large enough group could dictate and use force to ensure that everyone else complies with their vision. That's not what the original intent of the founding fathers was.

On marriage, the "traditional" view of marriage is church defined. When we're talking about "government" legal marriages, which ARE contracts, there is neither reason nor right to say that only man/woman couples should be married. As I said before, the church should view marriage however it wants and that's fine, but the government doesn't have a right to discriminate on the basis of gender.

Now as to gay people "desecrating" the idea of marriage...come on, do you *really* think they could fvck it up any worse than we straight people have? Puh-lease.

Jason

I'm curious as to a few points you have embedded in your post here. First of all you say that marriage is a purely religious institution, that was defined by religion. Then you say government form of "marriage" in your sense is a legal contract. Hmmm...this makes me think. Is marriage defined only by religion? I would say not. Many different religions have this concept of marriage and they all (at least to my knowledge) involve a man-woman relationship. Atheists also get "married", but usually it is similar to the religious institution. But, doesn't marriage also have a social influence/definition? When you get down to it, we have always defined marriage as a joining of a man and woman in a permanent relationship, regardless of any particular religion or government in power. If it was a purely religiously defined institution, then it shouldn't be enshrined in law like it is.

Most people who oppose gay "marriage" do so because they believe that society has set the institution up as such and they accept that. They have no problems with gays per se, but only do not want to see the definition of a marriage change. (it has already changed too much as it is) If gays/homosexuals want to enter into the social "marriage" that is a permanent financial and emotional relationship, then they should have their own institution to the same effect, just not using the same terminology. Society has the right to set such norms. The terminology used for such institutions is better left to their discretion and can hardly be considered a violation of rights or a tyrrany imho.

As per the government contract that is "marriage", it is mainly a financial one that protects the people involved so they can live (financially) as a permanent couple. It was also put into law as an enshrinement of the social form. Most people do not have a problem with gay couples having these same protections, but would rather not have it publically reffered to as the same thing as a married couple (man/woman only). Yes, we as citizens do have the right to enter into contracts, but the government does somewhat limit what certain contracts can entail as far as content. A definition of legal terminology is not a stretch, but a reality in our court/legislative systems. "Civil Unions" or whatever they are called are acceptable if the government/people want to define such "marriages" as such.

Also (not directed towards anyone's comments in specific), dissapproving of homosexuality != homophobia. I see that thrown around all too much as well. We all have our own reasons/opinions as to the subject. The same goes for dissapproval != intolerance. I tolerate homosexuality (don't have a problem with people who are), but I don't exactly approve of it. Homosexuals can be nice, freindly people, but I don't particularly care for what certain parts of their lifestyles can be.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

I'm still waiting for a reply but that's okay.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: Genesys


this Bill of Rights to prevent majority rules thing youve got going...you may need to rethink that. Why do you think that we put things to a vote and then act on the idea/policies that get the most votes? thats majority rules right there.

So explain to me why we have the electoral college.

Waiting for a reply, huh? I guess I'll bite and see what I can come up with. The electoral college, imho, serves a dual puropose. First is to simplify and compartmentalize elections. I mentioned this in one of the Bush/Gore 2000 related threads and don't care to look it up. It prevents confusion on a massive scale unseen as in Florida. National recounts, anyone? Anyway, the next is to prevent tyrrany of the majority, not majority rules. There is a difference between them insamuch as scope. This issue of homosexual "marriage" does not fall within it. It is a minor issue (terminology) as I replied in my previous post about. But I'm sure that view will draw as much flame as any. Sigh...I just don't feel up to this tonight (early classes), but I thought I would reply to ya anyway.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

So what you're saying is that gay people should be allowed to get married, but that they should call it something else? At the risk of being offensive, I think that is a completely stupid argument. That's like saying "sure, Ford can build a metal can with wheels, seats and a motor, but they can't call it a car!" Basically the argument boils down to giving gays what they want, but giving it a new name so that all the people who are so terrified that the world might actually *change* on them (read: Conservatives) won't realize that hey, gays are getting married.

Lame.

Jason