liberals and conservatives are both hypocritical

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Actually no - it would have just been a temp injuction anyway and again - it really doesn't matter because no one in California can accept that as "legal" since they don't use the appropriate forms. I'm sure this will go to the Cali Supreme Court even though the people of California have already spoken on this issue. Guess we need to courts to once again write law for us.

CkG

Where do you keep getting this crap about "forms?" You know, that's part of the reason we invaded Iraq too -- they didn't fill out the proper paperwork.

The city changed the marriage forms.
The California state agency that records marriages said yesterday that forms that have been altered, which San Francisco has done on its homosexual "marriage" licenses, will not be registered.

Yep - as of right now they mean nothing more than something you'd pull out of a cereal box.

CkG

If the licenses are worthless then why is everybody all chagrined over these psuedo marriages? At most they are just ceremonial!

True. However there are some who actually think these "marriages" are legal. I welcome this activism by SanFran and some in NewMexico(?) because this "wedge" issue really isn't a "wedge" issue at all. The homosexual community is making this an issue and the nation will be able to once again speak their mind on this issue.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Sounds like you're a little premature on your evaluation of the forms, Cad:

However, San Francisco City Assessor Mabel Teng told the Sacramento Bee that altering the documents to make them gender-neutral had been approved by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and that she didn't think the state could invalidate the documents based on those changes.
A spokesman for Mr. Herrera's office said yesterday that "if and when" marriage forms are returned, "the city attorney will evaluate his options about how to proceed, but at this time, it is premature to speculate on what those options are or what he may be doing."

Yup, might want to wait a bit before you declare everything null and void. I know you're anxious to put the kabosh on same-sex marriages, perhaps a little too anxious. Just settle down and relax, it will all be worked out in the end.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Where is the hypocracy? There is nothing hypocritical standing up for what you believe in. From either side, the causes they stand up for are noble and just in their eyes. Because their is opposition does not gender hypocracy.

You have a problem with civil disobedience? I applaud it. This country was founded on it. Boston Tea party ring a bell? No one is physically harmed in either case. Taking a stand to force a decision by a court is the American way. Did you shout hypocracy when the republicans took the 2000 election to the Supreme Court to decide who would be President?

Didn't think so.

what is hypocritical about the republicans appealing to the US Supreme court during the 2000 election? the only hypocrasy was by the democrats by saying they wanted the courts to stay out of it but in reality they wanted the florida lower courts and the us supreme court to stay out of it while letting the liberal florida supreme court define the rules after the fact. also hypocritical was gore stating that he 'just wanted all the votes counted' yet behind the scenes he was only recounting in certain districts and trying to get the military vote thrown out. now THAT is hypocrasy

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Where is the hypocracy? There is nothing hypocritical standing up for what you believe in. From either side, the causes they stand up for are noble and just in their eyes. Because their is opposition does not gender hypocracy.

You have a problem with civil disobedience? I applaud it. This country was founded on it. Boston Tea party ring a bell? No one is physically harmed in either case. Taking a stand to force a decision by a court is the American way. Did you shout hypocracy when the republicans took the 2000 election to the Supreme Court to decide who would be President?

Didn't think so.

what is hypocritical about the republicans appealing to the US Supreme court during the 2000 election? the only hypocrasy was by the democrats by saying they wanted the courts to stay out of it but in reality they wanted the florida lower courts and the us supreme court to stay out of it while letting the liberal florida supreme court define the rules after the fact. also hypocritical was gore stating that he 'just wanted all the votes counted' yet behind the scenes he was only recounting in certain districts and trying to get the military vote thrown out. now THAT is hypocrasy

I guess what you're saying is that the real hypocrisy is conservatives being OK with the USSC deciding that Bush would be our president in 2000, yet not OK with the courts deciding the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. In other words, it's only judicial activism if they decide against your position. Take it to the people, eh Cad?

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: josphII

Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Where is the hypocracy? There is nothing hypocritical standing up for what you believe in. From either side, the causes they stand up for are noble and just in their eyes. Because their is opposition does not gender hypocracy.

You have a problem with civil disobedience? I applaud it. This country was founded on it. Boston Tea party ring a bell? No one is physically harmed in either case. Taking a stand to force a decision by a court is the American way. Did you shout hypocracy when the republicans took the 2000 election to the Supreme Court to decide who would be President?

Didn't think so.

what is hypocritical about the republicans appealing to the US Supreme court during the 2000 election? the only hypocrasy was by the democrats by saying they wanted the courts to stay out of it but in reality they wanted the florida lower courts and the us supreme court to stay out of it while letting the liberal florida supreme court define the rules after the fact. also hypocritical was gore stating that he 'just wanted all the votes counted' yet behind the scenes he was only recounting in certain districts and trying to get the military vote thrown out. now THAT is hypocrasy

I guess what you're saying is that the real hypocrisy is conservatives being OK with the USSC deciding that Bush would be our president in 2000, yet not OK with the courts deciding the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. In other words, it's only judicial activism if they decide against your position. Take it to the people, eh Cad?

i see your point, but for the record the US Supreme court most certainly didnt decide the presidency.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sounds like you're a little premature on your evaluation of the forms, Cad:

However, San Francisco City Assessor Mabel Teng told the Sacramento Bee that altering the documents to make them gender-neutral had been approved by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and that she didn't think the state could invalidate the documents based on those changes.
A spokesman for Mr. Herrera's office said yesterday that "if and when" marriage forms are returned, "the city attorney will evaluate his options about how to proceed, but at this time, it is premature to speculate on what those options are or what he may be doing."

Yup, might want to wait a bit before you declare everything null and void. I know you're anxious to put the kabosh on same-sex marriages, perhaps a little too anxious. Just settle down and relax, it will all be worked out in the end.

No, I have full faith in the legality(or rather illegality) of these "applications". The ones sent in are altered and thus not legal. That city attourney is also one of the ones who supports the actions of the mayor so I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says. The State has the say on what documents need to be used and if they can or can't be altered.
It has nothing to do with the "debate" - it has to do with wether they are legal right now. They aren't. They are just worthless pieces of paper since they are altered.
Also, I'm in no rush to do anything. I hope this issue is one that is talked about throughout this election cycle expecially since the activists are bringing the attention to the issue and not the politicians. So you "wedge issue" people can look to the activists for bringing this up - not us evil (R)s. Heck, even Democrats are trying to quash this issue because they know that the majority of Americans don't agree with gay marriage and they know it'll cost them votes if it stays a major issue.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

No, being "open minded" only applies when the so-called "tolerance" crowd says it does.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

No, being "open minded" only applies when the so-called "tolerance" crowd says it does.

CkG

Is anyone suggesting that your religion should be outlawed? Is anyone suggesting what religions are "OK" with the majority and that you worship only those religions? Nope, I didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

No, being "open minded" only applies when the so-called "tolerance" crowd says it does.

CkG

Is anyone suggesting that your religion should be outlawed? Is anyone suggesting what religions are "OK" with the majority and that you worship only those religions? Nope, I didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

Thanks

Is anyone saying homosexuality should be outlawed or that you can only be hetrosexual? Nope, I didn't think so(except for the fringe which also apply to your scenario). Thanks for playing.

*note - not being able gain a marriage license doesn't outlaw the practice of homosexuality

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sounds like you're a little premature on your evaluation of the forms, Cad:

However, San Francisco City Assessor Mabel Teng told the Sacramento Bee that altering the documents to make them gender-neutral had been approved by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and that she didn't think the state could invalidate the documents based on those changes.
A spokesman for Mr. Herrera's office said yesterday that "if and when" marriage forms are returned, "the city attorney will evaluate his options about how to proceed, but at this time, it is premature to speculate on what those options are or what he may be doing."

Yup, might want to wait a bit before you declare everything null and void. I know you're anxious to put the kabosh on same-sex marriages, perhaps a little too anxious. Just settle down and relax, it will all be worked out in the end.

No, I have full faith in the legality(or rather illegality) of these "applications". The ones sent in are altered and thus not legal. That city attourney is also one of the ones who supports the actions of the mayor so I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says. The State has the say on what documents need to be used and if they can or can't be altered.
It has nothing to do with the "debate" - it has to do with wether they are legal right now. They aren't. They are just worthless pieces of paper since they are altered.

Getting a little full of yourself here, aren't you Cad? Unless you have passed the California bar, your comments are ill-informed speculation, nothing more. That doesn't mean you are wrong. It does mean I wouldn't present such wishful speculation as fact. I doubt that a minor change to a form is adequate grounds for overturning these marriages.

I doubt California law is that specific about the details of the form. It is quite common for government and commercial entities to use their own substitute forms for all sorts of government purposes. This is rarely a problem. Since I am not a CA lawyer, however, this is only my own ill-informed opinion. Even if I am correct, these marriages may be voided for other reasons.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Sounds like you're a little premature on your evaluation of the forms, Cad:

However, San Francisco City Assessor Mabel Teng told the Sacramento Bee that altering the documents to make them gender-neutral had been approved by San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera and that she didn't think the state could invalidate the documents based on those changes.
A spokesman for Mr. Herrera's office said yesterday that "if and when" marriage forms are returned, "the city attorney will evaluate his options about how to proceed, but at this time, it is premature to speculate on what those options are or what he may be doing."

Yup, might want to wait a bit before you declare everything null and void. I know you're anxious to put the kabosh on same-sex marriages, perhaps a little too anxious. Just settle down and relax, it will all be worked out in the end.

No, I have full faith in the legality(or rather illegality) of these "applications". The ones sent in are altered and thus not legal. That city attourney is also one of the ones who supports the actions of the mayor so I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says. The State has the say on what documents need to be used and if they can or can't be altered.
It has nothing to do with the "debate" - it has to do with wether they are legal right now. They aren't. They are just worthless pieces of paper since they are altered.

Getting a little full of yourself here, aren't you Cad? Unless you have passed the California bar, your comments are ill-informed speculation, nothing more. That doesn't mean you are wrong. It does mean I wouldn't present such wishful speculation as fact. I doubt that a minor change to a form is adequate grounds for overturning these marriages.

I doubt California law is that specific about the details of the form. It is quite common for government and commercial entities to use their own substitute forms for all sorts of government purposes. This is rarely a problem. Since I am not a CA lawyer, however, this is only my own ill-informed opinion. Even if I am correct, these marriages may be voided for other reasons.

Nope - not full of myself, just going on what state officials have stated and what Ms. Evans said the Dept. of Health and Human services said.

From my earlier link:None of these forms will be accepted, Ms. Evans said yesterday.
"We have to follow the law when we process these forms. It's part of public statute, so we are following state law in the way we record and register marriages," she said, adding that, to her knowledge, the state agency hasn't received any same-sex "marriage" forms yet.

<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://beta.kpix.com/news/local/2004/02/22/CA_Attorney_General_Prepares_to_Enter_Court_Battle_Over_Gay_Marriage.html">California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer is expected to bring the state into the legal fray over gay marriages as early as Monday.
He told KCBS the law is clear that only marriages between a man and a woman are legal in the state.</a>

But you may be right -they probably aren't legal based on more than just rewritten forms.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

No, being "open minded" only applies when the so-called "tolerance" crowd says it does.

CkG

Is anyone suggesting that your religion should be outlawed? Is anyone suggesting what religions are "OK" with the majority and that you worship only those religions? Nope, I didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

Thanks

Is anyone saying homosexuality should be outlawed or that you can only be hetrosexual? Nope, I didn't think so(except for the fringe which also apply to your scenario). Thanks for playing.

*note - not being able gain a marriage license doesn't outlaw the practice of homosexuality

CkG

When you propound your own straw man arguments you look real dumb knocking them down. Not being able to gain a marriage license means being excluded from something others can have. It's just like saying gays can't live in your neighborhood. It's discrimination rooted in nothing but bigotry. Try looking at yourself as a bigot. Don't hide.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

No, being "open minded" only applies when the so-called "tolerance" crowd says it does.

CkG

Is anyone suggesting that your religion should be outlawed? Is anyone suggesting what religions are "OK" with the majority and that you worship only those religions? Nope, I didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

Thanks

Is anyone saying homosexuality should be outlawed or that you can only be hetrosexual? Nope, I didn't think so(except for the fringe which also apply to your scenario). Thanks for playing.

*note - not being able gain a marriage license doesn't outlaw the practice of homosexuality

CkG

When you propound your own straw man arguments you look real dumb knocking them down. Not being able to gain a marriage license means being excluded from something others can have. It's just like saying gays can't live in your neighborhood. It's discrimination rooted in nothing but bigotry. Try looking at yourself as a bigot. Don't hide.

Right, they are discriminated against, because they don't meet the requirements of marriage. I've stated this before but I'll say it again. Discrimination is not a "bad" word, it just takes on an image of being that way when someone feels shorted. If I don't have enough money to buy something(house or whatever) should I still be able to buy it for whatever I can afford to pay? Why am I discriminated against because I don't earn enough money to pay for it? I didn't choose to go to college to get a teaching license so that means I can't teach even though I know enough and am good enough to teach....I must be "discriminated" against.
This whole thing boils down to a group of people wanting something that others earn because they want things done differently. Every man in America has the right to marry a woman and likewise every woman in America has the right to marry a man. There is no "rights" issue here - there is only a perceived issue because some people think they should get something more.

Ofcourse people like to scream "bigot" and chant rhetoric about being "open-minded" when infact they don't accept that other people have a differing opinion. Do I want to "ban" homosexuality? No - and I don't think people are suggesting that, but preserving marriage as man&woman is NOT bigotry and it is NOT a "rights" issue.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The bigots will vote for Bush as he fully anticipates. People of conscience and intelligence will reject this appeal to bigotry.

Isnt bigotry also when someone holds prejudice against religions?

No, being "open minded" only applies when the so-called "tolerance" crowd says it does.

CkG

Is anyone suggesting that your religion should be outlawed? Is anyone suggesting what religions are "OK" with the majority and that you worship only those religions? Nope, I didn't think so. Thanks for playing.

Thanks

Is anyone saying homosexuality should be outlawed or that you can only be hetrosexual? Nope, I didn't think so(except for the fringe which also apply to your scenario). Thanks for playing.

*note - not being able gain a marriage license doesn't outlaw the practice of homosexuality

CkG

When you propound your own straw man arguments you look real dumb knocking them down. Not being able to gain a marriage license means being excluded from something others can have. It's just like saying gays can't live in your neighborhood. It's discrimination rooted in nothing but bigotry. Try looking at yourself as a bigot. Don't hide.

Right, they are discriminated against, because they don't meet the requirements of marriage. I've stated this before but I'll say it again. Discrimination is not a "bad" word, it just takes on an image of being that way when someone feels shorted. If I don't have enough money to buy something(house or whatever) should I still be able to buy it for whatever I can afford to pay? Why am I discriminated against because I don't earn enough money to pay for it? I didn't choose to go to college to get a teaching license so that means I can't teach even though I know enough and am good enough to teach....I must be "discriminated" against.
This whole thing boils down to a group of people wanting something that others earn because they want things done differently. Every man in America has the right to marry a woman and likewise every woman in America has the right to marry a man. There is no "rights" issue here - there is only a perceived issue because some people think they should get something more.

Ofcourse people like to scream "bigot" and chant rhetoric about being "open-minded" when infact they don't accept that other people have a differing opinion. Do I want to "ban" homosexuality? No - and I don't think people are suggesting that, but preserving marriage as man&woman is NOT bigotry and it is NOT a "rights" issue.

CkG

Idiot, you aren't preserving marriage, you are denying it to a class of people who can't have it, not because they don't have train education or money, but because they are the same sex but feel just like people of different sex do. You are a bigot because your reasoning is irrational and colored and driven by prejudice, or perhaps, in your case because you are simply stupid. I do have to discriminate and make special allowance for you. You have a long history of demonstrably inane thinking. A good thing too, because this news won't phase you at all.

 

[nutxo]

moonbeam is the thing he hates the most. A bigot. No matter how ya paint it if you are prejudiced against another because of thier beliefs, no matter if you want them banned or not, it's bigotry.

I know i'm prejudiced. I'm probably even bigoted to some extent. The difference is I choose not to act upon my base instinct because I know it isn't right.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Idiot, you aren't preserving marriage, you are denying it to a class of people who can't have it, not because they don't have train education or money, but because they are the same sex but feel just like people of different sex do. You are a bigot because your reasoning is irrational and colored and driven by prejudice, or perhaps, in your case because you are simply stupid. I do have to discriminate and make special allowance for you. You have a long history of demonstrably inane thinking. A good thing too, because this news won't phase you at all.

Wow, so because someone leads a certain lifestyle they should be allowed to participate in things they choose not to follow the rules of? No one said people can't be "gay", but just because they are "gay" doesn't mean they should be allowed to change how marriage works.

A gay man has every right to marry a woman that any other male has. There is no "rights" issue here. You may not like that fact but it is true none the less.

You may continue to spout your "tolerant" and "open-minded" psychobabble but I am not an idiot, bigot, or anything else you seem to think I am. Your perception of "rights" is your opinion and just because my opinion is different is not bigotry...but yeah, I forgot - only the "tolerance" crowd is allowed to have an opinion.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Right, they are discriminated against, because they don't meet the requirements of marriage. I've stated this before but I'll say it again. Discrimination is not a "bad" word, it just takes on an image of being that way when someone feels shorted. If I don't have enough money to buy something(house or whatever) should I still be able to buy it for whatever I can afford to pay? Why am I discriminated against because I don't earn enough money to pay for it? I didn't choose to go to college to get a teaching license so that means I can't teach even though I know enough and am good enough to teach....I must be "discriminated" against.

Discrimination is not bad? OMG, what's next? That's got to be the all-time worst analogy ever, Cad. Simply pathetic.

This whole thing boils down to a group of people wanting something that others earn because they want things done differently. Every man in America has the right to marry a woman and likewise every woman in America has the right to marry a man. There is no "rights" issue here - there is only a perceived issue because some people think they should get something more.

Earn? WTH? How do straight people "earn" the right to be married? Simply by virtue of being straight? Weak, seriously weak.

Ofcourse people like to scream "bigot" and chant rhetoric about being "open-minded" when infact they don't accept that other people have a differing opinion. Do I want to "ban" homosexuality? No - and I don't think people are suggesting that, but preserving marriage as man&woman is NOT bigotry and it is NOT a "rights" issue.

CkG

It's just a word, Cad. Just like "homophobe." You should embrace it because you've proved over and over that you are one. The thing you fail to realize is that those with "a differing opinion" aren't the ones infringing. It's you and people like you who are so intolerant of gays that you would create for them a secondary class in which they do not have the same privileges in our society as all other people.

Preserving marriage? What a load. How in the world are you preserving marriage? By creating a privileged class of people who are the only ones eligible? I'm sure white slave-owners felt the same way -- that by God's will they are the chosen ones and the minorities were less than human.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Right, they are discriminated against, because they don't meet the requirements of marriage. I've stated this before but I'll say it again. Discrimination is not a "bad" word, it just takes on an image of being that way when someone feels shorted. If I don't have enough money to buy something(house or whatever) should I still be able to buy it for whatever I can afford to pay? Why am I discriminated against because I don't earn enough money to pay for it? I didn't choose to go to college to get a teaching license so that means I can't teach even though I know enough and am good enough to teach....I must be "discriminated" against.

Discrimination is not bad? OMG, what's next? That's got to be the all-time worst analogy ever, Cad. Simply pathetic.

This whole thing boils down to a group of people wanting something that others earn because they want things done differently. Every man in America has the right to marry a woman and likewise every woman in America has the right to marry a man. There is no "rights" issue here - there is only a perceived issue because some people think they should get something more.

Earn? WTH? How do straight people "earn" the right to be married? Simply by virtue of being straight? Weak, seriously weak.

Ofcourse people like to scream "bigot" and chant rhetoric about being "open-minded" when infact they don't accept that other people have a differing opinion. Do I want to "ban" homosexuality? No - and I don't think people are suggesting that, but preserving marriage as man&woman is NOT bigotry and it is NOT a "rights" issue.

CkG

It's just a word, Cad. Just like "homophobe." You should embrace it because you've proved over and over that you are one. The thing you fail to realize is that those with "a differing opinion" aren't the ones infringing. It's you and people like you who are so intolerant of gays that you would create for them a secondary class in which they do not have the same privileges in our society as all other people.

Preserving marriage? What a load. How in the world are you preserving marriage? By creating a privileged class of people who are the only ones eligible? I'm sure white slave-owners felt the same way -- that by God's will they are the chosen ones and the minorities were less than human.

Seriously you don't seem to understand the word "discriminate".
And yes you "earn" a marriage license. You have to meet requirements and follow procedure to get it.
And again for the weak minded - just because someone doesn't hold the same opinion of gay marriage as you does not mean that they are "bigots" or "homophobes".
Must be that "open-mindedness" showing again because clearly you don't seem to understand it when I type - "Do I want to "ban" homosexuality? No"
No where did I say they were second class citizens or that they shouldn't have the same rights as every other individual. They already have those "rights".
Anyway - bringing up slaves is a sure way to look like a fool and it has nothing to do with this issue. Homosexuals have every individual right as everyone else. Not supporting changing marriage to include something that marriage is not - is not bigotry. Every man in America has the opportunity to marry a woman - be he gay or otherwise. There is NO "civil rights" issue here no matter how you or anyone else try to claim there is.

What I find funny is that people seem to think that you aren't "open minded" or "tolerant" if you don't hold the same opinion as them, when infact these "open minded" and "tolerant" people are saying some can't have or share their opinion because it is "wrong" according to them. I don't much care if a person is gay or not. It doesn't affect me, but I also think that changing marriage to mean spouse & spouse isn't right.

There is more to my stance than I've let on, it's just that the whole marriage "rights" issue is silly because that right already exists, and I find it amusing to see people spin circles around themselves trying to claim gays don't have "marriage" rights. If people were serious about allowing for gay couples to have gov't recognized union then there is a much better approach. Someday someone might realize that and put an end to this game of calling people bigots and bleating about "marriage rights". Civil unions aren't the answer either since the Constitution doesn't allow for separate but equal.
If people want to seriously address this issue then I'll share the way to allow for all(some people have touched on this in a way) this to be Constitutional AND preserve "marriage" as it is and intended, but until people understand that everyone who doesn't support gay marriage isn't a bigot or homophobe it doesn't pay to offer it to the "open minded" among us.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Definition of "bigot:"

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.

The issue of gay marriage essentially comes down to a matter of religion. That's most likely the background to your statement "...more to my stance than I've let on..." All you have to do is quickly scan this thread to see the religious chiming in on how gay marriage is evil, etc. In fact, religion is quite possibly the only explanation for why someone would be against gay marriage. What other reason could there be?

Fact is, if you use your intolerant religious views to block a particular segment of the population from enjoying the same privileges as everyone else, then you are a bigot. Blacks were denied civil rights in this country as were women (until suffrage); there's more in common between these cases and gay marriage than you are willing to admit. It's OK Cad, I understand you don't want to seem like a bad person. Nobody wants to admit to being a bigot. It's like the blind leading the hateful.

 

[Moonbeam]

"Seriously you don't seem to understand the word "discriminate"."

Seriously, you don't seem to understand the word "bigot".

"And yes you "earn" a marriage license. You have to meet requirements and follow procedure to get it."

There's my buddy, Caddy, the idiot talking again. 'You have to earn a marriage license.' What a butt load. You have to meet requirements established by bigots. That means that some people can't earn. Why not say you have to be white to be a doctor. Black people can't earn that right. You are blinded by bigotry and can't even think coherently. You are truly sad.

"And again for the weak minded - just because someone doesn't hold the same opinion of gay marriage as you does not mean that they are "bigots" or "homophobes"."

Opinions based on bigotry are bigoted opinions. Yours is a bigoted opinion because it is based on irrational feeling and false discrimination.

"Must be that "open-mindedness" showing again because clearly you don't seem to understand it when I type - "Do I want to "ban" homosexuality? No""

Again you play your absurd little mind games with yourself. You want to ban homosexuals from marrying. That is banning homosexuals. It's bigotry because there is no rational reason to do that. Your reasons are all feelings, sick feelings.

"No where did I say they were second class citizens or that they shouldn't have the same rights as every other individual. They already have those "rights"."

You use this absurd little mind trick again and again. It is utterly ridiculous. People marry the person they love not because of their sex but because of the love. Otherwise, we would just assign parters, boy girl boy girl, at random.

"Anyway - bringing up slaves is a sure way to look like a fool and it has nothing to do with this issue."

Sadly you are the fool. The example has everything to do with the issue. They are totally analogous forms of bigotry. You are a bigot. That means you are blind. That means you can't see the analogy. That means it's actually you who is the fool.

"Homosexuals have every individual right as everyone else. "

You lie to us and yourself. They don't have a legal right to marry. This is obvious to a two year old.

"Not supporting changing marriage to include something that marriage is not - is not bigotry."

Of course it is. You don't support it because of irrational and illogical feelings. You have a mental problem you can't escape that colours everything you say. Where do you get this absurd notion that you can define marriage, that you can impose your bigotry on others? Something that marriage is not....What a presumptuous prick you are. Your definition excludes those who have every right to be included. That's what the pursuit of happiness is all about. You are basically unAmerican.

"Every man in America has the opportunity to marry a woman - be he gay or otherwise. There is NO "civil rights" issue here no matter how you or anyone else try to claim there is."

Wrong, and repeating it over and over from bigotry won't make it so. You have to provide logical reasons for your irrational bigoted feelings. Repetition doesn't count.

"What I find funny is that people seem to think that you aren't "open minded" or "tolerant" if you don't hold the same opinion as them, when in fact these "open minded" and "tolerant" people are saying some can't have or share their opinion because it is "wrong" according to them."

More absurd and repetitive nonsense. This isn't a difference of opinion. It is bigoted opinion vs unbiased objectivity unclouded by emotion. You cannot give a logical reason for your opinion because it is based solely on how you feel. Nothing could be more clear then that preventing people who love each other from marrying is irrational. In order to deny that you need a logical reason. There aren't any. It's pure bigotry.

"I don't much care if a person is gay or not. It doesn't affect me, but I also think that changing marriage to mean spouse & spouse isn't right."

You don't think in this area at all. You can't think because you feel. You feel it isn't right and the feeling is irrational. That's why it's bigotry. Getting the idea yet? When all is said and done, at the end of the day, you are an irrational bigot.

"There is more to my stance than I've let on, it's just that the whole marriage "rights" issue is silly because that right already exists, and I find it amusing to see people spin circles around themselves trying to claim gays don't have "marriage" rights. If people were serious about allowing for gay couples to have gov't recognized union then there is a much better approach. Someday someone might realize that and put an end to this game of calling people bigots and bleating about "marriage rights". Civil unions aren't the answer either since the Constitution doesn't allow for separate but equal."

There is no more to your stance than irrational bigotry. You are the one spinning round in circles looking for a reason on which to hang your irrationality.

"If people want to seriously address this issue then I'll share the way to allow for all(some people have touched on this in a way) this to be Constitutional AND preserve "marriage" as it is and intended, but until people understand that everyone who doesn't support gay marriage isn't a bigot or homophobe it doesn't pay to offer it to the "open minded" among us."

Preserve marriage as it was intended. Irrational bunk. Can't you see that there isn't any reason to preserve the injustice of the past. Bigots made the rules and want to continue to do so. Time to update our outlook and law. Gays are entitled to the same right to marry whom they love exactly as do straights. It's not about the sex; it's about the love. To deny others that right is to injure their souls. It is hate. So sad, bigotry. So sad. Your opinion is evil, Caddy. Sorry! It must be very comforting to know you're not alone.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Here's my motto about politics: stray neither to the left, nor to the right. Jesus is always relevant

 

[Mill]

WTF? I agree with Moonbeam? WTF?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Yep, more of that wonderful "open mindedness" from the "tolerance" crowd.

Doesn't suprise me though.

CkG