I support discriminating against homosexualsex

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Bah - someday people will understand I guess. Too much for those with bigot finder glasses on or who don't want to see past just the one issue they think is sooooo important.
Quit thinking about bigotry, homosexuality, and the rest. Think about why things are the way they are, how they got here, and why they are put in place. If you do the above you might just understand the whole "society" thing.

Oh and moonie - you really need to seek help. Constantly projecting things on people like you have done here can be quite self-destructive. Understand and calm your hate - don't project it onto others. Again - your therapist should be able to help you with that.

You can all now return to your "bigot" chanting....

CkG

Never took you to be one to bow out of a good fight, CkG.

It's funny, one of my best friends came out to me last night. I've known him since my sophomore year of high school; my mom actually taught him in elementary. I've never really thought of him as being "different." And now that I've seen him for who he is and who he is becoming, I admire him and respect our friendship that much more; with who he desires to be is of no consequence to me, except maybe in the pronouns we use in our conversations. He thinks, feels, loves and loses just like me.

And so say in five or ten years, he decides to solemnize his relationship with his partner in the eyes of the law, to make a lifelong commitment to him (or her, I do believe this friend is bisexual), to enjoy the benefits and responsibilities that are available to others who do not share his genetic predisposition. His partner is an adult, mentally sane and willing, and from what I've heard of him he is a good man. Man, not boy, not "three other people", not his dog, not a corpse.

Who am I to deny him this most intimate and serious of unions between two people in the eyes of our government? From the most removed point of view I can assume, his decision to form a union with a partner is of zero consequence to me. It doesn't affect my taxes, benefits from whatever company for which I may someday work, doesn't affect the solemn union I desire to have one day with my wife, that poor unlucky woman! (although I empathize with my friend, I do not share an attraction to other men, and nor can I seem to force myself to do so... funny how that works)

From the viewpoint I have seen you and many others assume, as well as myself, what two consenting adults do in their home is of no consequence to anyone else. I am free to own a firearm, drink, smoke, have intercourse, yet if my friend lived in Texas four years ago he would have been arrested for engaging in anal sex, an act of his own volition.

If this is on the pretense of moral decline, I invite you to look again, to take a broad view of history. Read some Catullus, that'll open your eyes a little (it sure as hell opened mine!). Homosexuality, and it's acceptance, is nothing new. It seems to be an affect of Puritan or Muslim society (we could, of course, go to Bahrain, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia... the list goes on) that represses consensual adult sex in such a manner.

So, the main question I have for you is, how will homosexual unions, or allowing states to create their own standards, ideally that would be a "Civil Union" in the eyes of the State with the rights and responsibilities (!) currently associated with marriage, affect you? Will it turn your children gay, perhaps? Or make your own innate homosexual tendencies more pronounced? Or maybe contribute to the overall decline of society, much like the Romans or the Greeks, or maybe England?

I make no presumption of wisdom, CkG. I know enough to know that I'm full of sh!t, young, foolish, with no experience in the real world. I do recognize the sanctity of marriage (from an ex-Christian standpoint), but I also realize the frivolity with which it is treated in contemporary society. In my opinion it is vital to recognize the difference between church and state, and to define the state's role in our lives, and to look at marriage at its most basic level, and then afford that responsibility to the state.

The day you became dependant on the state to enforce your morality, CkG, is the day you became a slave.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
We have a few issues to overcome before society can rule the roost at the expense of a minority group or class of people. But, first we must eliminate associating all the criminal analogies from the topic. You are somehow attempting to place the homosexual in with the criminal and shout: 'See, how can society ever accept as norm these kinds of behaviour'. You must simply deal with the homosexual like you would any other legal 'class' of people. They are the same as Dwarfs, Midgets, Indians, Latinos, Irishmen etc.. Just an identifiable 'class' within the population that makes up society.
We have the Fourteenth Amendment and the separation of church and state. Marriage from a state point of view is and has associated with it many 'rights'. Why deny these to some and not others?
I've got to run now but, will finish later.. Going to a wedding..

Separation of church and state is a principle, Ray. You won't find it anywhere in the constitution, though I think it SHOULD have been included, and in GREAT detail. BTW, hats off to you for even mentioning the constitution. Must of the pseudo-intellectuals here run from it like their asses are on fire. I guess to them it no longer has a purpose, being that the "majority" is always right.

Not to argue too much but, the 'Constitution' is an evolving and fairly dynamic criteria by which we determine legal issues. (I'm not trying to speak down or sideways. I'm simply defining what I mean by what I say.) When I say the separation exists, it is because our Nine Brethren have included those words in explaining their opinions in dissent or concurrence. As you no doubt know and others should as well, the words that make up the constitution are contained in volumes sitting upon the shelves of every law school, law library and etc. Volumes. Well... I suppose one could say.. 'nah.. the words are only what is found in the document itself'. This cannot be the case given the notion of lower courts having precedent to obey and etc.. The latest (separation decision) is the monument on the courthouse steps issue. Using the Fourteenth 'Equal' in this case is similar, not on point but, similar to thinking about the Gay issue. Or the recent University enrollment issues. If it is not illegal to be Gay then it naturally follows that they must be treated equally. In a previous post I mentioned the defining of marriage to be limited to man and woman by recent law is to discriminate against a class of people who by virtue of their legal situation suffer with out any 'Due process'. The kicker IMO is the allowance of non Gay marriage states to ignore the laws related that permit Gay marriage. By saying the 'Full faith and credit' article need not be followed in this event is additional discrimination. This will have to be stricken from law and should garner a unanimous decision from the USSC.

Actually, the constitution is not at all dynamic or evolving (it takes a great deal of effort to actually change it). The interpretations of it (statutes), however, are. Those volumes you speak of, in law libraries, aren't anywhere near the constitution. They're precedents. Meaning what has come before. If say, a judge in New York, 100 years ago, said it was okay to steal a loaf of bread if you are hungry enough, a smart lawyer defending a person arrested for that offense will show up to court armed with this data. The majority of the time it works too. It's a drive-by form of jurisprudence that we've come to accept, but it isn't really square with the constitution. I have a rudimentary understanding of this because I worked in a large Chicago law firm for a while, as a computer operator. Their law library was two full floors of a modern office building. Huge.

As for the rest, you're correct. The SCOTUS has its work cut out.

Well... In the context of my statement; that the constitution is the document and all the decisions and etc.. you can easily see how it evolves and how dynamic it really is. I believe the document and all that it has been understood to mean is the Constitution. The decisions are simply the definition of what is stated in the document. I guess it is why they call them opinions. For instance; It explicitly states '... shall extradite to the ...' which has been decided to mean '... may extradite to the ...' So it follows that if the document has words, the meaning of the words is the understanding of what the document states... a part of the document. IMO. If we went as Thomas would want and Scalia you'd have a very constrained Constitution. If it ain't there it ain't there. For instance, the 13th, 14th, and 15th with a minor exception were to do with slavery.. free the slave, make him a citizen and give him the vote.. It is restrictive on the states and intended to be. But, from the 14th comes all manner of things and the 14th is used for every thing under the sun today. If you have bubble gum so must I.. And, hence the protection for the Gay folks to 'marry'.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: LunarRay
CAD,
We have a few issues to overcome before society can rule the roost at the expense of a minority group or class of people. But, first we must eliminate associating all the criminal analogies from the topic. You are somehow attempting to place the homosexual in with the criminal and shout: 'See, how can society ever accept as norm these kinds of behaviour'. You must simply deal with the homosexual like you would any other legal 'class' of people. They are the same as Dwarfs, Midgets, Indians, Latinos, Irishmen etc.. Just an identifiable 'class' within the population that makes up society.
We have the Fourteenth Amendment and the separation of church and state. Marriage from a state point of view is and has associated with it many 'rights'. Why deny these to some and not others?
I've got to run now but, will finish later.. Going to a wedding..

Separation of church and state is a principle, Ray. You won't find it anywhere in the constitution, though I think it SHOULD have been included, and in GREAT detail. BTW, hats off to you for even mentioning the constitution. Must of the pseudo-intellectuals here run from it like their asses are on fire. I guess to them it no longer has a purpose, being that the "majority" is always right.

Not to argue too much but, the 'Constitution' is an evolving and fairly dynamic criteria by which we determine legal issues. (I'm not trying to speak down or sideways. I'm simply defining what I mean by what I say.) When I say the separation exists, it is because our Nine Brethren have included those words in explaining their opinions in dissent or concurrence. As you no doubt know and others should as well, the words that make up the constitution are contained in volumes sitting upon the shelves of every law school, law library and etc. Volumes. Well... I suppose one could say.. 'nah.. the words are only what is found in the document itself'. This cannot be the case given the notion of lower courts having precedent to obey and etc.. The latest (separation decision) is the monument on the courthouse steps issue. Using the Fourteenth 'Equal' in this case is similar, not on point but, similar to thinking about the Gay issue. Or the recent University enrollment issues. If it is not illegal to be Gay then it naturally follows that they must be treated equally. In a previous post I mentioned the defining of marriage to be limited to man and woman by recent law is to discriminate against a class of people who by virtue of their legal situation suffer with out any 'Due process'. The kicker IMO is the allowance of non Gay marriage states to ignore the laws related that permit Gay marriage. By saying the 'Full faith and credit' article need not be followed in this event is additional discrimination. This will have to be stricken from law and should garner a unanimous decision from the USSC.

Actually, the constitution is not at all dynamic or evolving (it takes a great deal of effort to actually change it). The interpretations of it (statutes), however, are. Those volumes you speak of, in law libraries, aren't anywhere near the constitution. They're precedents. Meaning what has come before. If say, a judge in New York, 100 years ago, said it was okay to steal a loaf of bread if you are hungry enough, a smart lawyer defending a person arrested for that offense will show up to court armed with this data. The majority of the time it works too. It's a drive-by form of jurisprudence that we've come to accept, but it isn't really square with the constitution. I have a rudimentary understanding of this because I worked in a large Chicago law firm for a while, as a computer operator. Their law library was two full floors of a modern office building. Huge.

As for the rest, you're correct. The SCOTUS has its work cut out.

Well... In the context of my statement; that the constitution is the document and all the decisions and etc.. you can easily see how it evolves and how dynamic it really is. I believe the document and all that it has been understood to mean is the Constitution. The decisions are simply the definition of what is stated in the document. I guess it is why they call them opinions. For instance; It explicitly states '... shall extradite to the ...' which has been decided to mean '... may extradite to the ...' So it follows that if the document has words, the meaning of the words is the understanding of what the document states... a part of the document. IMO. If we went as Thomas would want and Scalia you'd have a very constrained Constitution. If it ain't there it ain't there. For instance, the 13th, 14th, and 15th with a minor exception were to do with slavery.. free the slave, make him a citizen and give him the vote.. It is restrictive on the states and intended to be. But, from the 14th comes all manner of things and the 14th is used for every thing under the sun today. If you have bubble gum so must I.. And, hence the protection for the Gay folks to 'marry'.

 

[Gaard]

Too much for those with bigot finder glasses on or who don't want to see past just the one issue they think is sooooo important.

Another sad comment by you CAD. Why is it you find this issue unimportant? I'm beginning to think that those calling you the B word are correct.

First it's the 'definition of marriage' that has you opposed. Now it's because society doesn't view being gay as normal.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Too much for those with bigot finder glasses on or who don't want to see past just the one issue they think is sooooo important.

Another sad comment by you CAD. Why is it you find this issue unimportant? I'm beginning to think that those calling you the B word are correct.

First it's the 'definition of marriage' that has you opposed. Now it's because society doesn't view being gay as normal.

Gaard.................................................................................X(point)
Why don't you take your bigot finder glasses off for a minute and then leave your ASSumptions at the door too.:disgust:

**************

The obstinate replies by everyone here are why I'm done with this again.

Orsorum - what you say supports the whole "society" thing. This isn't about me or what I think - that's partly why I'm giving up this whole conversion - this isn't about me or what "I" think about Homosexual marriage. This was a wide view of all societal things. Your friend wants to be accepted by the gov't - no? Who steers and dictates the gov't? - society. It's really not that hard of a concept but I can see why people don't understand. They think of this as a CkG thing, try to make it a criminal vs not legal thing, or slap on their handy pair of "bigot finder 2500" glasses and go hunting. The whole society argument isn't against homosexual marriage - it's about understanding and discussing what our "rules"/"laws" really are, where they came from, and how they change. You see - most here won't even try to see past that one issue they think is soooooo important - they are ignoring the bigger picture. Like I've said - I could care less if steve wanted to be with Bill - I don't think it's right because I know it's a sin in God's eyes - but the question is really - Is society accepting this as a norm now? Have Homosexuals suceeded in ridding themselves of societies unacceptance and ultimately approval?
But yes - I'm bowing out of this - doesn't bother me to do so

Bah - I really don't know why I wasted my time again - someone is going to whine about one little thing I said in this post after they fine tune their bigot finder glasses...

CkG

 

[Gaard]

Why don't you take your bigot finder glasses off for a minute and then leave your ASSumptions at the door too.

Huh? Why do you say this? Because we disagree? Is everyone who is for gay marriages wearing bigot finder glasses?



I've seen you staunchly voice your opposition to gay marriages because of the 'definition' of marriage. Now I see you staunchly voice your opposition based on this society/norm thing. Then you say you could care less. Then you say you think it's a sin (does that mean you could care less about legalizing sin?).

Could it be that you just refuse to believe something about yourself?

 

[Gaard]

Now that I think about it, I asked a very good question.

"Does everyone who is for allowing gays to marry wearing bigot finder glasses?"

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Too much for those with bigot finder glasses on or who don't want to see past just the one issue they think is sooooo important.

Another sad comment by you CAD. Why is it you find this issue unimportant? I'm beginning to think that those calling you the B word are correct. First it's the 'definition of marriage' that has you opposed. Now it's because society doesn't view being gay as normal.

Gaard.................................................................................X(point) Why don't you take your bigot finder glasses off for a minute and then leave your ASSumptions at the door too.:disgust: ************** The obstinate replies by everyone here are why I'm done with this again. Orsorum - what you say supports the whole "society" thing. This isn't about me or what I think - that's partly why I'm giving up this whole conversion - this isn't about me or what "I" think about Homosexual marriage. This was a wide view of all societal things. Your friend wants to be accepted by the gov't - no? Who steers and dictates the gov't? - society. It's really not that hard of a concept but I can see why people don't understand. They think of this as a CkG thing, try to make it a criminal vs not legal thing, or slap on their handy pair of "bigot finder 2500" glasses and go hunting. The whole society argument isn't against homosexual marriage - it's about understanding and discussing what our "rules"/"laws" really are, where they came from, and how they change. You see - most here won't even try to see past that one issue they think is soooooo important - they are ignoring the bigger picture. Like I've said - I could care less if steve wanted to be with Bill - I don't think it's right because I know it's a sin in God's eyes - but the question is really - Is society accepting this as a norm now? Have Homosexuals suceeded in ridding themselves of societies unacceptance and ultimately approval? But yes - I'm bowing out of this - doesn't bother me to do so Bah - I really don't know why I wasted my time again - someone is going to whine about one little thing I said in this post after they fine tune their bigot finder glasses...

CkG

Isn't that what this whole argument is about? Finding out what 'society' does think? A whole lot of arguing making people actually think about the subject, and then a gradual conclusion?

It shouldn't be taken as read that the status quo accurately reflects the public mood, just as it shouldn't be taken as read that the public will accept any changes put forward in the name of equality.

Personally, though, I think that some form of gay marriage is inevitable - not today, but soon.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Does everyone who is for allowing gays to marry wearing bigot finder glasses?"

nah but when the chant of bigot is consistent then you start to expect it;

sin should only be legalized if we can make an ethical *in my case i follow utilitarian views*argument to support it; then elected representatives should make illegal what we find to be unethical via law;

but i don't think non-violent&non-threat-of-violence criminal actions should be jail able offenses.

Now I see you staunchly voice your opposition based on this society/norm thing.

disregard for standard sexual morality leads to increased extramarital sex rates.

I've seen you staunchly voice your opposition to gay marriages because of the 'definition' of marriage.

the problem is that spiritual views are being trampled by anti-Christian-philosophy types. I don't think 'marriage' should be in the hands of the sate; if the state would like to recognize various communal property contracts, that's fine, and if you are 'married' you can indicate by what church/whatever and that's that.

as for this whole deal, i support constitutional amendment that makes the issue of 'marriage' the purview of various state legislatures.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: dpm

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Too much for those with bigot finder glasses on or who don't want to see past just the one issue they think is sooooo important.

Another sad comment by you CAD. Why is it you find this issue unimportant? I'm beginning to think that those calling you the B word are correct. First it's the 'definition of marriage' that has you opposed. Now it's because society doesn't view being gay as normal.

Gaard.................................................................................X(point) Why don't you take your bigot finder glasses off for a minute and then leave your ASSumptions at the door too.:disgust: ************** The obstinate replies by everyone here are why I'm done with this again. Orsorum - what you say supports the whole "society" thing. This isn't about me or what I think - that's partly why I'm giving up this whole conversion - this isn't about me or what "I" think about Homosexual marriage. This was a wide view of all societal things. Your friend wants to be accepted by the gov't - no? Who steers and dictates the gov't? - society. It's really not that hard of a concept but I can see why people don't understand. They think of this as a CkG thing, try to make it a criminal vs not legal thing, or slap on their handy pair of "bigot finder 2500" glasses and go hunting. The whole society argument isn't against homosexual marriage - it's about understanding and discussing what our "rules"/"laws" really are, where they came from, and how they change. You see - most here won't even try to see past that one issue they think is soooooo important - they are ignoring the bigger picture. Like I've said - I could care less if steve wanted to be with Bill - I don't think it's right because I know it's a sin in God's eyes - but the question is really - Is society accepting this as a norm now? Have Homosexuals suceeded in ridding themselves of societies unacceptance and ultimately approval? But yes - I'm bowing out of this - doesn't bother me to do so Bah - I really don't know why I wasted my time again - someone is going to whine about one little thing I said in this post after they fine tune their bigot finder glasses...

CkG

Isn't that what this whole argument is about? Finding out what 'society' does think? A whole lot of arguing making people actually think about the subject, and then a gradual conclusion?

It shouldn't be taken as read that the status quo accurately reflects the public mood, just as it shouldn't be taken as read that the public will accept any changes put forward in the name of equality.

Personally, though, I think that some form of gay marriage is inevitable - not today, but soon.

I'm just as much a part of "society" as you Kain, and I say gay marriage is fine, because it doesn't affect me or my property in any way.

ANY changes? Are we coming full circle now? Right back to the lame non-arguments like "If we LET gays marry, then people will want to marry dogs and cats next!!!" We're talking about gay marriage, and gay marriage ONLY. If the rights of the few, or the one, have to pass a majoritarian "sensibility test" before they can be acknowledged they'll NEVER happen.

If your best argument against gay marriage is that "It offends ME!!!", you anti- gay folks aren't just on the wrong side of history, you're setting yourselves up for a lifetime of disappointments.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKaindisregard for standard sexual morality leads to increased extramarital sex rates.

Wrong again. The explosion of fatherless children in this country DIRECTLY coincided with the state deciding to pay for them. Thus making it a collective problem that never should have been. As far as the simple act of sex, you are AGAIN treading into territory that isn't any of your business. Futhermore, you may want to expand your thinking beyond your front door. "Sexual morality", as you so piously put it, varies wildly from culture to culture. What YOU see as the STANDARD, someone in Japan or Italy sees as childish, bordering on puritanical.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Gay couples don't want any more from the government than equal standing under the law.

'equal' sanding under the law includes a whole slew of government and work-related benefits that will become mandatory extended to two people that want to force-take-advantage of it; If we do this then i want equal rights, as a single, to share my extended benefits with anyone any time, regardless of a state-issued peace of paper; i want equal treatment under the law, why should 'marriage' be needed for any of it?

"If we LET gays marry, then people will want to marry dogs and cats next!!!"

no, if we expand government to approve of homosexual sex, then we are approving of something harmfully to every tax-payer;

If your best argument against gay marriage is that "It offends ME!!!", you anti- gay folks aren't just on the wrong side of history, you're setting yourselves up for a lifetime of disappointments.

It costs me, and it expands government; i know that's often a loosing side, but I'm going to keep on fighting government expansions and added subsidies every time i can.

which is the true direct conflict with the 'progressive' view in this.

its about acceptable societal norms.

In high schools today is the 'thing' to be bisexual; i have great empathy for that kid we all knew was going to be gay from 2nd grade on; but i have no empathy for the guy who wants to get his rocks off when he can't find a chick around; Changing homosexual marriage to the acceptable social norm will only move those in this country who think homosexuality is a sin *the vast majority* farther in to mindless disgust with homosexuals, instead of the more equitable treatment for those in this sin.

Sexual morality", as you so piously put it, varies wildly from culture to culture.

you are in the vast minority my brother; sexual morality does extend past my door step, when it comes to bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, homosexuality, extramarital sex; it's now for us to vote on representatives that will determine these things. This wouldn't be the case if the government weren't intimately involved with all of this, indeed a libertarian society that held at it's crux 'do no harm' would be optimal, but when the government says that it can enslave me for those that are screwed up, it becomes the government's job also to take less of my money by doing what it can, while minimizing it's presence, to reduce what I've got to pay for. Putting giving costly homosexual-sex government approval isn't how you do that. When you take away social restrictions but keep slavery to the state you get nothing but a bunch of mindless worker drones.

yelling 'bigot' is just another way for the far-left agenda to force it's thought-police on the population; I support progressives' right to hold and proclame the 'need' for 'freedom from religion', which is a religion in and of itself; but they sure don't support my right to hold views because of my faith, I've been told so in this very thread; They are welcome to have that view, but respect for it will not be forth-coming.

What YOU see as the STANDARD, someone in Japan or Italy sees as childish, bordering on puritanical.

childish and utilitarian are whole lot better than foolish and decadent. Disagree on any level? let's vote, because when you resort to name calling, or trying to hoist a feeling of foreign superiority, then you've lost any respect that most Americans are going to have for your viewpoint.

The explosion of fatherless children in this country DIRECTLY coincided with the state deciding to pay for them.

do you mean coincidentally, not causally, because as so nearly did cocaine use and disco dancing ; though economical there is little doubt that subsidization of living in a ghetto, and subsidization of unwed pregnancy are why we've got the inner-city problems we do.

Was my call for making this a states legislative Rights issue to moderate for calls of bigotry? no, i didn't think so, and apparently almost everyone that represents us is an anti-homosexual bigot as well.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Gaard

Too much for those with bigot finder glasses on or who don't want to see past just the one issue they think is sooooo important.

Another sad comment by you CAD. Why is it you find this issue unimportant? I'm beginning to think that those calling you the B word are correct.

First it's the 'definition of marriage' that has you opposed. Now it's because society doesn't view being gay as normal.

Gaard.................................................................................X(point)
Why don't you take your bigot finder glasses off for a minute and then leave your ASSumptions at the door too.:disgust:

M: Translated out of Cadidicy this means: "Why don't you put your bigot blinders on and trust in the ASSumptions I've hidden behind the door.

**************

The obstinate replies by everyone here are why I'm done with this again.

M: Translated from Cadidicy this means that my obstinate butt-head ramming that I do so well has failed here to carry the day. Now I'm going to go pout in the corner and lick my wounds and preen my ruffled ego feathers and project my obstinacy on you, claiming that you, of course, are the ass.


Orsorum - what you say supports the whole "society" thing. This isn't about me or what I think (Moonbeam laughs his butt off)- that's partly why I'm giving up this whole conversion - this isn't about me or what "I" think about Homosexual marriage.(Two chuckles for the price of one) This was a wide view of all societal things. (In Cadidicy, of course that means narrow) Your friend wants to be accepted by the gov't - no? (No he wants the government to see that the laws that the government are based on already make him free and the government is illegally and unconstitutionally getting in his way) Who steers and dictates the gov't? - society. (No the Constitution based on the laws of the Creator that are inalienable and obvious, like that gays can marry) It's really not that hard of a concept (even though it is wrong and has nothing to do with anything) but I can see why people don't understand. (Oh we understand, all right. It's a third grad idea that is obvious and obviously has nothing to do with the topic) They think of this as a CkG thing, try to make it a criminal vs not legal thing, or slap on their handy pair of "bigot finder 2500" glasses and go hunting. (A meaningless argument just doesn't persuade. You will just have to get used to that. Cadidicy doesn't work too good) The whole society argument isn't against homosexual marriage - it's about understanding and discussing what our "rules"/"laws" really are, where they came from, and how they change. (Manipulated, of course by looking at them with bigotry so they can be squeezed to say what they don't and applied where the have no relevance and so that I can have some pretense that I'm talking about something philosophical instead of pure bigotry) You see (In Cadidicy, that's a plea to be blind) (In cadidicy this means I am stuck at some low level of thinking and want you all to join me as I project onto you my backwardness)- most here won't even try to see past that one issue they think is soooooo important - they are ignoring the bigger picture. (Many here see quite clearly without their bigot colored lenses. Yes yes the big picture where your being asked to eat your bigotry whole by the great justice of American secular law which you Christian Fundies just can't tolerate. How can my sweet country do what I know is wrong in my bigoted heart. Oh it hurts so bad. It makes me see I'm abnormal) Like I've said - I could care less if steve wanted to be with Bill - I don't think it's right because I know it's a sin in God's eyes - but the question is really - Is society accepting this as a norm now? (Absolutely not and you know it. You can't stop bigotry with law or make people see. It will simply be legal and of course relatively rare so it still won't be a norm) Have Homosexuals suceeded in ridding themselves of societies unacceptance (Your bigotry obviously says no) and ultimately approval? (Only in time as bigots die after embarrassing their children to death)
But yes - I'm bowing out of this - doesn't bother me to do so (Of course. To be a bigot is to be bullet proof. You walk with
God.)

Bah - I really don't know why I wasted my time again -(Ultimately it's because you are embarrassed to be who you are and your unconscious is hopping you grow) someone is going to whine about one little thing I said in this post after they fine tune their bigot finder glasses...

(Yes and they found you dead on.)

CkG

How refreshing, you finally admitted you are a bigot:

C: "I don't think it's right because I know it's a sin in God's eyes.."

big·ot

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French, from Old French.]
Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant ?an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.? Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense ?a superstitious hypocrite.?

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


bigot

\Big"ot\, a. Bigoted. [Obs.]

In a country more bigot than ours. --Dryden.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


bigot

\Big"ot\, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.] 1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.]

2. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

To doubt, where bigots had been content to wonder and believe. --Macaulay.


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


bigot

n : a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own


Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University


bigot



A person who is religiously attached to a particular computer,
language, operating system, editor, or other tool (see
religious issues). Usually found with a specifier; thus,
"Cray bigot", "ITS bigot", "APL bigot", "VMS bigot", "Berkeley
bigot". Real bigots can be distinguished from mere partisans
or zealots by the fact that they refuse to learn alternatives
even when the march of time and/or technology is threatening
to obsolete the favoured tool. It is truly said "You can tell
a bigot, but you can't tell him much." Compare weenie.

[Jargon File]

As it happens you can tell a bigot quite a lot, you just can't make him hear.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

sad that you would try to equate quear-bashing, or cross-burning connotatively w/ disagreeing w/ you slightly on a political issue;

this progressive thought-police stuff is getting dangerous; I can't tell you to stop mindlessly adhering to your calling us bigots, but i sure can warn others that libel from the PC-enforcers is someday *if not already today* going to force us all into 're-education';

 

[Moonbeam]

Sad that you, who, would equate Mexican food with international air freight.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
sad that you would try to equate quear-bashing, or cross-burning connotatively w/ disagreeing w/ you slightly on a political issue;

this progressive thought-police stuff is getting dangerous; I can't tell you to stop mindlessly adhering to your calling us bigots, but i sure can warn others that libel from the PC-enforcers is someday *if not already today* going to force us all into 're-education';

"re-education?" Isn't that what the Christian Right calls Bible Study?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
sad that you would try to equate quear-bashing, or cross-burning connotatively w/ disagreeing w/ you slightly on a political issue;

this progressive thought-police stuff is getting dangerous; I can't tell you to stop mindlessly adhering to your calling us bigots, but i sure can warn others that libel from the PC-enforcers is someday *if not already today* going to force us all into 're-education';

"re-education?" Isn't that what the Christian Right calls Bible Study?

Not study, Red; that would be dangerous. Bible regurgitation.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

The obstinate replies by everyone here are why I'm done with this again.

Orsorum - what you say supports the whole "society" thing. This isn't about me or what I think - that's partly why I'm giving up this whole conversion - this isn't about me or what "I" think about Homosexual marriage. This was a wide view of all societal things. Your friend wants to be accepted by the gov't - no? Who steers and dictates the gov't? - society. It's really not that hard of a concept but I can see why people don't understand. They think of this as a CkG thing, try to make it a criminal vs not legal thing, or slap on their handy pair of "bigot finder 2500" glasses and go hunting. The whole society argument isn't against homosexual marriage - it's about understanding and discussing what our "rules"/"laws" really are, where they came from, and how they change. You see - most here won't even try to see past that one issue they think is soooooo important - they are ignoring the bigger picture. Like I've said - I could care less if steve wanted to be with Bill - I don't think it's right because I know it's a sin in God's eyes - but the question is really - Is society accepting this as a norm now? Have Homosexuals suceeded in ridding themselves of societies unacceptance and ultimately approval?
But yes - I'm bowing out of this - doesn't bother me to do so

CkG

But if the homosexual community does not have the basic right to prove their commitment to each other in the eyes of the law, how can they prove, in the aggregate, to society? I know one gay couple on a personal basis, and they are one of the most committed couples I've ever met. Of course, I come from a family where my father is in his fourth marriage, so "commitment" might be relative! How can you keep a class of people as sub-citizens, but expect them to display commitment that isn't even displayed by majority of the straight population?

The problem with this CAD is that once you start accepting "society" you allow for the worst aspects of democracy - the creation of laws by the lowest common denominator, by fear-mongering. I would be surprised if you told me you agreed with progressive taxation, or abortion, or gun control, or a state's nonallowance of school vouchers, but these are all issues decided by the officials our "society" permits as legislators.

Nate

 

[YellowRose]

Its a funny thing. On a local BB here the same topic is being discussed in a somewhat different manner. But one thing has come out of the discussion. Christains on read and believe part 2 of the Bible. That was something I found strange.

 

[mosco]

Here is my stance. We live in a society that has freedom of religion. And with that freedom, is the requirement that no matter how big or small your religion is, you have rights. Now, I don't think anyone would want to live in a country that forced religion onto people with a state run religion. Therefore, I think its important that we should not discriminate and deny the rights of a certain group of people solely based on a religion of a certain group because that would conflict with the basic premiss of our society. At one point in my home state of MA, it was illegal for Catholic to vote and get certain types of jobs,. Just because society believes that that is the right thing to do, does that mean the laws are just and fair? Just because a certain group of christians felt that Catholics shouldn't be able to vote, doesn't mean they should be able to force their views into law. That defeats the purpose of freedom and equal protection.

Its important to also remember the that marriage is a right(Loving v Virginia (1967))(Zablocki v Redhail (1978)).

 

[Moonbeam]

Loving v. Virginia
Richard and Mildred Loving were married in 1958 in Washington D.C. because their home state of Virginia still upheld the antimiscegenation law which stated that interracial marriages were illegal. They were married, then lived together in Caroline County, Virginia. In 1959 they were prosecuted and convicted of violating the states's antimiscegenation law. They were each sentenced one year in jail, but promised the sentence would be suspended if they agreed to leave the state and not return for 25 years. Forced to move, they returned to Washington D.C. where, in 1963, they initiated a suit challenging the constitutionality of the antimiscegenation law. In March of 1966, the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals upheld the law, but in June of 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled the law unconstitutional. Thus, in 1967 the 16 states which still had antimiscegenation laws on their books were forced to erase them.
===============
It's just disgusting how the government expands itself on the peopoe and overrules their Christian values and promots sin. And all kinds of statistics prove that whites are inferior to asians, so please keep the asian race pure.
==============

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978)

CASE: Man denied a marriage license because of a state law forbidding men with minor children to support from getting married without special permission from the court.

FACTS: Redhail was as Wisconsin resident ordered to pay child support for his illegitimate daughter born while he was in high school. He quickly fell behind on the payments of $109 per month. Two years later, he filed an application for a marriage license with Zablocki, the County Clerk of Milwaukee County, and was denied on the grounds that he had a child to support and had not received permission from a court to get married. The Wisconsin law provides that "any Wisconsin resident having minor issue not in his custody and which he is under an obligation to support by any court order or judgment" may not wed without first obtaining a court order granting permission to marry. Court permission cannot be granted unless the marriage applicant submits proof of compliance with the support obligation and, in addition, demonstrates that the children covered by the support order "are not then and are not likely to thereafter to become public charges." He stipulated that he would have failed to meet both prongs, as he was behind in his payments and that, even with his payments, the child would still have to rely on public assistance. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin struck down the law as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause; Zablocki made a direct appeal to the Supes arguing that the D.C. erred; Redhail defended the ruling and also argued that the law did not satisfy the requirements of substantive due process.

REDHAIL ARGUES: The law deprived him of his right to liberty (privacy) without due process of law and of his right to equal protection of the law

STATE ARGUES: The law is necessary to the acomplishment of the permissible (compelling) state interests of "preserving the racial integrity of its citizens" and to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and "the obliteration of racial pride." Also, the state argued that regulation of marriage was traditionally a state function except from federal legislation or control and that the regulation of marriage should be left to exclusive state control under the Tenth Amendment.

OPINION OF THE COURT: State deprived man with an illegitimate child whom he was obligated to support of his right to equal protection of the law when it required him to receive a court order in order to marry.

RATIONALE:

Such a classification must survive strict scrutiny.
The right to marry is a fundamental right stemming from the right to privacy (liberty) under the Fourteenth Amendment.
If the right of a woman to abort a fetus is considered a fundamental right, then surely the right to choose to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection.
The statute significantly interferes with a fundamental right (right to marry).
State's interestes in furnishing those in Redhail's position with an opportunity to be counseled as to the necessity of fulfilling his other obligations and protecting the welfare of out-of-wedlock children are legitimate and substantial, but less intrusive ways of achieving these ends are available to the state.
There are other, more effective ways for the state to collect from deadbeat parents.
State interest in counselling applicants cannot support the withholding of court permission to marry once the counselling is completed.
Classification is overinclusive in that it fails to take into account a situation in which the applicant's financial situation will actually improve with marriage. Preventing them from being able to get married might actually injure those (children) it was meant to protect by guaranteeing that the support obligations will never be met. The net result might be more illegitimate children.

CONCURRING OPINIONS:

Stewart wrote:



DUE PROCESS: This is not an equal protection clause case. To say that the statute creates classifications in the equal protection sense struck him as "nothing short of fantasy." "The problem in this case is not one of discriminatory classifications, but of unwarranted encroachment upon a constitutionally protected freedom. I think that the Wisconsin statute is unconstitutional because it exceeds the bounds of permissible state regulation of marriage, and invades the sphere of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." This case is one of substantial due process by another name. This bait-and-switch only serves to misdirect a confused doctrine. The majority should call a spade a spade and just say that the law violates substantive due process.
RIGHT TO MARRY: There is no right to marry, as evidenced by the fact that the states can significantly limit or, in some cases, entirely prohibit couples from getting married. Even so, there are some limits to state interference.
Powell wrote:



STANDARD OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY DEPRIVES THE STATES: The majority's opinion sweeps too broadly in requiring that any regulation that "directly and substantially" interferes with the decision to marry be subjected to the strict-scrutiny test. "A 'compelling state purpose' inquiry would cast doubt on the network of restrictions that the States have fashioned to govern marriage and divorce."

Stevens wrote:



This case can be distinguished from Califano v. Jobst, 434 U.S. 47 (1977), in that Jobst dealt with a classification based on marital status whereas this one deals with a classification based on the right of whether to enter into marriage. "The individual's interest in making the marriage decision independently is sufficiently important to merit special constitutional protection."
The law has perverse outcomes in that it keeps from poor from getting married, applies "to childless couples, couples who will have illegitimate children if they are forbidden to marry, couples whose economic status will be improved by marriage, and couples who are so poor that the marriage will have no impact on the welfare status of their children in any event. Even assuming that the right to marry may sometimes be denied on economic grounds, this clumsy and deliberate legislative discrimination between the rich and the poor is irrational in so many ways that it cannot withstand scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
===================
Damn court let that evil scumbag get married and the whole state said no way. Geez, the bastards.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain
sad that you would try to equate quear-bashing, or cross-burning connotatively w/ disagreeing w/ you slightly on a political issue;

this progressive thought-police stuff is getting dangerous; I can't tell you to stop mindlessly adhering to your calling us bigots, but i sure can warn others that libel from the PC-enforcers is someday *if not already today* going to force us all into 're-education';

"re-education?" Isn't that what the Christian Right calls Bible Study?

if we forced you in to a bible study to keep your job you'd throw a shit-fit but if you force me into a progressive re-education seminar to keep my job, I'm just not 'enlightened';

enlightenment is a spiritual thing, and trying to force it on others is the same as trying to force religion on others;

 

[conjur]

ain Entry: en·light·en·ment
Pronunciation: in-'lI-t&n-m&nt, en-
Function: noun
1 : the act or means of enlightening : the state of being enlightened
2 capitalized : a philosophic movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism -- used with the
3 Buddhism : a final blessed state marked by the absence of desire or suffering

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: conjur
ain Entry: en?light?en?ment
Pronunciation: in-'lI-t&n-m&nt, en-
Function: noun
1 : the act or means of enlightening : the state of being enlightened
2 capitalized : a philosophic movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism-- used with the
3 Buddhism : a final blessed state marked by the absence of desire or suffering

Wasn't capitalized was it? or do you think i was refering to the enlightenment era? and all of my points a re backed by the rational of utility.

 

[conjur]

The only point you have, LMK, is on the top of your head.