For those against gay marriage would you ban divorce?

[frostedflakes]

OK maybe forcing was to strong a word, but they want people to accept them. Screw you. I don't have to accept anything. If I have a personal moral objection to homosexuality then I should be able to be as outspoken about it as gays are as outspoken about saying I should accept them. But that's not what happens. Gays want to shut people up that don't accept their lifestyle. They want to take it to a vote and see what the people think and when they loose, they bitch and complain and say it's not fair. Like I said, if you want people to accept one lifestyle CHOICE then you have to allow for ALL lifestyle CHOICES. Why stop at marrying just one person? Or why make having sex with children illegal, it can be proven that there is a genetic link to a plocivity for attraction to adolecents or pre-pubecent children, so if homosexuality is genetic, then you shouldn't stop someone from liking children or persuing a relationship with one. They can't help it right? Or is it you only feel that way when it's about a sunject that only affects you?

You stated the government shouldn't interfer with our personal lives, I just asked a question to see if you truely feel that way or only feel that way on certain subjects.

Having sex with children is illegal because it harms them. Gay marriage harms no one.

 

[lokiju]

I'm assuming it's probably been polled here before but, is anyone here actually against gays getting married or having some civil union of sorts?

 

[TruePaige]

OK..."forcing your lifestyle on others" means you are requiring them to live by your beliefs and morals. In order for "the gays" to be doing that, they would have to be trying to make YOU get married to a person of the same gender. The anti-gay rights folks, on the other hand, ARE passing legislation requiring OTHER people to marry (or not marry) based on a lifestyle those people don't agree with.

Only one group is "forcing their beliefs and lifestyle on others", and it's not the gay-rights advocates. Asking you to live in a society populated by things you don't agree with is what this country is about, requiring people to live by your personal belief system is not.

Banning gay marriage is the moral equivalent of requiring everyone to go to church because you personally think it's the right thing to do.

Oh man, I hope they don't force you to stop being a bigot! What a tragedy that would be.

 

[Specop 007]

As a nation we need to come together as one people and start minding our own fucking business.

We should all be ashamed at how much we allow our government to interfere with our personal lives.

Agreed.

Wheres the option for "Marriage is a matter of the church, not the state"?

 

[yuppiejr]

Marry who you want, leave my guns alone, if I offend you stop listening - I have the right to be an asshole and you have the right to ignore me, if you believe abortion is immortal let God do the judging in due time - problem(s) solved.

If people would quit using the government as a lever to force their perspectives on others that would be great. Live your life and I'll live mine, thanks - we have bigger shit to have our bloated government focusing on right now.

 

[Ausm]

Herein liest the problem. The gays won't let that happen. They want to force their beliefs and lifestyle on others and say we should accept them for what they are. But the gays won't accept people that do not agree with them. You can't have it your way or the highway.

Does your last statement infer that you are supportive of gay marriage, in that the government shouldn't meddle in our day to day lives? If so, I hope you are also against the "universal healthcare bill" they are trying to pass because not only will it interfere with your life, it will cost you money too.

Well aren't straight people forcing their belief system on gay people??

 

[ayabe]

Refusing to be discriminated against isn't the same thing as forcing your beliefs on someone else.

Trying to apply that BS to any sort of civil rights issue is a joke.

 

[LunarRay]

Marriage is a contract tween two people [usually]. You have penalties in Equity if you break a contract. Unless you are able to void it or it is voidable because of the circumstances.
So, in a sense it is not legal to divorce with out penalty of some sort.

I'd advocate a situation where Marriage is not a contract at all... folks have no benefit to being married. Financial consideration for breeding responsibilities would be equally shared due to the breeded being's absence of consent. Everyone simply enjoys what they wish to enjoy and with whomever they take a fancy to. Or not...

 

[Red Dawn]

Agreed.

Wheres the option for "Marriage is a matter of the church, not the state"?

Fuck the Church, it should have no say in anything except what goes on within their organization.

 

[waggy]

Marry who you want, leave my guns alone, if I offend you stop listening - I have the right to be an asshole and you have the right to ignore me, if you believe abortion is immortal let God do the judging in due time - problem(s) solved.

If people would quit using the government as a lever to force their perspectives on others that would be great. Live your life and I'll live mine, thanks - we have bigger shit to have our bloated government focusing on right now.

this.

 

[LunarRay]

Fuck the Church, it have no say in anything except what goes on within their organization.

Sorta like a food processor for lemmings....:sneaky:

 

[PJABBER]

It's the point at which an adult is done having fun and is ready to procreate and wait around to die.

QFT, but the waiting to die part usually comes after the sex part stops.

BTW, where does the word "gay," as applied to homosexuality, come from anyway? Is it because they can't marry (yet) and can't have kids and thus can stay happy?

 

[PJABBER]

Marriage is a contract tween two people [usually]. You have penalties in Equity if you break a contract. Unless you are able to void it or it is voidable because of the circumstances.
So, in a sense it is not legal to divorce with out penalty of some sort.

I'd advocate a situation where Marriage is not a contract at all... folks have no benefit to being married. Financial consideration for breeding responsibilities would be equally shared due to the breeded being's absence of consent. Everyone simply enjoys what they wish to enjoy and with whomever they take a fancy to. Or not...

Also QFT, LunarRay hits it on the head!

 

[jonks]

OK maybe forcing was to strong a word, but they want people to accept them. Screw you. I don't have to accept anything. If I have a personal moral objection to homosexuality then I should be able to be as outspoken about it as gays are as outspoken about saying I should accept them. But that's not what happens. Gays want to shut people up that don't accept their lifestyle. They want to take it to a vote and see what the people think and when they loose, they bitch and complain and say it's not fair. Like I said, if you want people to accept one lifestyle CHOICE then you have to allow for ALL lifestyle CHOICES. Why stop at marrying just one person? Or why make having sex with children illegal, it can be proven that there is a genetic link to a plocivity for attraction to adolecents or pre-pubecent children, so if homosexuality is genetic, then you shouldn't stop someone from liking children or persuing a relationship with one. They can't help it right? Or is it you only feel that way when it's about a sunject that only affects you?

See, it's terrific when you post because it reveals the utter vacuousness of the opposition to gay marriage.

"If I have a personal moral objection to homosexuality then I should be able to be as outspoken about it as gays are as outspoken about saying I should accept them."

You absolutely are "able" to speak against homosexuality, as protected by the first amendment. The fact that you will be criticized for espousing this view in no way renders you unable to speak on the issue. The government cannot punish you for speaking out against gay marriage any more than it can punish you for speaking out in favor of separation of the races. But I think if you did so you might find private citizens and groups would respond, loudly. You don't have to personally accept gay marriage any more than I have to accept the existence of the KKK. What neither of us can do however is prevent the existence of those things simply because we disagree with them.

"Gays want to shut people up that don't accept their lifestyle. They want to take it to a vote and see what the people think and when they loose, they bitch and complain and say it's not fair."

In other words, gays (and straights who support gay equality) want to exercise their first amendment rights and speak out against those who they feel are discriminating against them, and this offends you. I've never heard anyone support any law that would require you to be silent about your disapproval of gay marriage. If what you feel is a societal pressure to keep your opinions to yourself, welcome to life in a society.

And this is putting aside your "lifestyle choice" nonsense and the slippery slope arguments. One, it's not a choice, but even if it were it is a sufficiently permanent personality trait that it cannot be disregarded, especially when compared to other definite choices like religion which receive the utmost protection. The Iowa SC spoke to that point very clearly. Two, these same arguments were made when interracial marriage was the issue, and last time I checked, allowing blacks and whites to marry did not lead to an epidemic of people marrying across species.

 

[revMedia]

Agreed.

Wheres the option for "Marriage is a matter of the church, not the state"?

Couldn't have said it better myself. Separation of church and state?

 

[soulcougher73]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Separation of church and state?

Except marriage is a matter of the state as well as the church (if you have it in one. i did not). Actually it is more about the state then anything. Without the proper state documents you are not legally married in this country. And gays should be affored the same rights under marriage as a hetro couple in the eyes of the law. If certain churches dont want to marry gays i am ok with that, but the government should recognize them as a union with the same priviledges/penalties a hetro married couple gets.

 

[PJABBER]

Except marriage is a matter of the state as well as the church (if you have it in one. i did not). Actually it is more about the state then anything. Without the proper state documents you are not legally married in this country. And gays should be affored the same rights under marriage as a hetro couple in the eyes of the law. If certain churches dont want to marry gays i am ok with that, but the government should recognize them as a union with the same priviledges/penalties a hetro married couple gets.

I really don't know why there is such a focus on purely homosexual rights.

Isn't the question really one of individual rights over communal?

If homosexuals should marry, why not continue down that ever so slippery slope and acknowledge that it is up to the individual, and not the State, to determine what constitutes a perfect union?

Is it politically correct to advocate for homosexual marriage and ignore the plight of persons who think just a little bit more differently? Why not acknowledge the special relationship that can exist between a man and his sheep? Or, keeping it in the human realm, say between a woman and her three lovers? All fetishists enjoy special bonding with the objects of their affection, can't they get a legal recognition out of this?

I really think those of you who focus solely on homosexual rights are very closed minded indeed.

 

[yuppiejr]

OK maybe forcing was to strong a word, but they want people to accept them. Screw you. I don't have to accept anything. If I have a personal moral objection to homosexuality then I should be able to be as outspoken about it as gays are as outspoken about saying I should accept them. But that's not what happens. "

I have been guilty of entering this debate with a similar tact though primarily because I find the idea of either side forcing their viewpoint on the other to be equally hypocritical. In the end both sides in this debate are entitled to their opinions, even to spout vitriol at the others who are free to ignore one another and shout until they are blue in the face. Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

One of the reasons I've distanced myself from the Republican party is the outright hypocrisy related to government involvement in social issues (same problem with the Democratic platform on a variety of issues). Fact is if you believe in limited government and your own right to pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness you cannot limit it's exercise by others even if you disagree with the manner in which it's exercised. If you feel it's your right to limit the practice of freedom by another individual (gay marrige, abortion) don't bitch and complain when they turn around and do the same to you (gun control, hatespeech legislation).

As I see it, couples wishing to enter into a permanent marrige relationship are good for society. Couples that are fighting and kicking the shit out of each other emotionally and choosing to get divorced is also better than staying in an unhealthy relationship. The plumbing on the respective couples is more or less irrelevant unless one believes that the only reason for marriage is procreation... which is an entirely separate debate.

 

[jonks]

I really don't know why there is such a focus on purely homosexual rights.

Isn't the question really one of individual rights over communal?

If homosexuals should marry, why not continue down that ever so slippery slope and acknowledge that it is up to the individual, and not the State, to determine what constitutes a perfect union?

Is it politically correct to advocate for homosexual marriage and ignore the plight of persons who think just a little bit more differently? Why not acknowledge the special relationship that can exist between a man and his sheep? Or, keeping it in the human realm, say between a woman and her three lovers? All fetishists enjoy special bonding with the objects of their affection, can't they get a legal recognition out of this?

I really think those of you who focus solely on homosexual rights are very closed minded indeed.

Funny, all those words and no arguments, just your standard slippery slope blathering. How is it that people somehow managed to argue against the ban on interracial marriage and ignored the lonely plight of all those poor neglected people who wanted to marry their dining room tables but couldn't because of stupid laws? I mean, black people, inanimate objects, what's the difference, right?

Tell you what, let's deal with gay marriage, and when there is a sizeable movement advocating for inanimate object unions we can deal with that then, i.e. never.

 

[soulcougher73]

I really don't know why there is such a focus on purely homosexual rights.

Isn't the question really one of individual rights over communal?

If homosexuals should marry, why not continue down that ever so slippery slope and acknowledge that it is up to the individual, and not the State, to determine what constitutes a perfect union?

Is it politically correct to advocate for homosexual marriage and ignore the plight of persons who think just a little bit more differently? Why not acknowledge the special relationship that can exist between a man and his sheep? Or, keeping it in the human realm, say between a woman and her three lovers? All fetishists enjoy special bonding with the objects of their affection, can't they get a legal recognition out of this?

I really think those of you who focus solely on homosexual rights are very closed minded indeed.

You must be a conservative. Always taking everything twenty steps too far. At least my conservative friends are like that. Very annoying.

 

[PJABBER]

Funny, all those words and no arguments, just your standard slippery slope blathering. How is it that people somehow managed to argue against the ban on interracial marriage and ignored the lonely plight of all those poor neglected people who wanted to marry their dining room tables but couldn't because of stupid laws? I mean, black people, inanimate objects, what's the difference, right?

Tell you what, let's deal with gay marriage, and when there is a sizeable movement advocating for inanimate object unions we can deal with that then, i.e. never.

You must be a conservative. Always taking everything twenty steps too far. At least my conservative friends are like that. Very annoying.

Actually, I am pretty much a radical progressive, ie classical liberal.

As such, I am very much interested in individual and commercial freedom.

You now argue moderation? To what purpose?

I despise those of you who argue only on behalf of narrowly defined interest groups, ie homosexuals, and claim a false moral superiority as flawed as any religious or atheistic wingnut.

 

[Red Dawn]

I despise those of you who argue only on behalf of narrowly defined interest groups, ie homosexuals, and claim a false moral superiority as flawed as any religious or atheistic wingnut.

Ah Self Loathing.

 

[waggy]

they should just ban marriage. if nobody got married nobody would get a divorce and the sanctity's of marriage would be fine.

 

[PJABBER]

Ah Self Loathing.

Ha ha ha! I DO love free enterprise, no self loathing whatsoever!

As William Leggett, a New York journalist and antislavery Jacksonian Democrat, wrote -

"All governments are instituted for the protection of person and property; and the people only delegate to their rulers such powers as are indispensable to these objects. The people want no government to regulate their private concerns, or to prescribe the course and mete out the profits of their industry. Protect their persons and property, and all the rest they can do for themselves."

 

[sandorski]

Find it Morally Objectionable, then stop being a Homosexual.

Problem solved.

Personally I find "Reality TV" to be Morally Objectionable and I insist there be a Constitutional Amendment to stop the outrage!!:twisted: