Activist Judges

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
What does "sanctity of marriage" mean?

I agree that marriage is more than a contract for property, it is a union and testament of love. That is why gay people aren't satisfied with merely civil unions. They want to be able to make this testament to their love for one another just like any straight couple should.

Except marriage was meant to be between a man and a woman! They'll have to learn to profess their love another way. I don't want my marriage to be grouped with a perversion.

 

[Reilly]

The issue of whether it is strictly between a man and a woman is the very debate that is occuring.

Many people don't classify it as a perversion at all, but regardless, if you are secure in your marriage, why does it matter to you how other people choose to define the general practice? Are you injured in any way?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
Whatever "sactity of marriage" means, it seems that a far graver danger to it is the practice of divorce? Wouldn't you efforts be better served seeking laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting divorce and criminalizing adultery. I, and most people, wouldn't agree with this, but it seems a better way of protecting the "sanctity." I think letting two people with professed and demonstrated love for one another marry is a wonderful way of promoting the sanctity of marriage.

Once again though, provided your own marriage is strong, why should you even care about the sanctity of the general practice?

Divorce and adultery are completely different, and should be looked at for improvement.

Same reason the military, cub scouts and so many other organizations have some sort of ban against gays. I don't want to be lumped together with people that engage is nasty perversions.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
The issue of whether it is strictly between a man and a woman is the very debate that is occuring.

Many people don't classify it as a perversion at all, but regardless, if you are secure in your marriage, why does it matter to you how other people choose to define the general practice? Are you injured in any way?

They aren't getting marriages. The amendment will see to it. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself over and over to you.

 

[Reilly]

No, divorce and adultery speak to the very question of the "sanctity of marriage?"

Isn't the practice itself viewed as less than permanent and less than sacred because 50% of marriages end in divorce and adultery is common. Aren't these real threats to the sanctity of marriage?

 

[Reilly]

Well, I guest it is a shame this had to end then, I was really looking forward to finding out how gay marriages impacted you, if they do at all.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
Well, I guest it is a shame this had to end then, I was really looking forward to finding out how gay marriages impacted you, if they do at all.

I believe I've already explained this at least 50 times on this board and at least twice in this very thread. I don't want the meaning of marriage lowered by a bunch of queers. I feel this way and so does a HUGE portion of America.

 

[acludem]

Divorce and adultery are fine just as long as gay people can't get married, that's the message this sends. We're not talking about a "religious, cultural or moral" issue here, we are talking about only a legal issue - should we allow two adults of the same sex to recieve government issued rights and responsibilities? In a democracy, unless you can find good reason to the contrary, we must answer yes. As I said in another related threat, there is absolutely NO solid logical reason to deny gay men and lesbians marriage rights and responsibility. The only reason opponents can come up with is we don't like gay people therefore they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Activist judges exist on both sides of the poltical spectrum. Don't believe me? See Bush v. Gore in 2000.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Divorce and adultery are fine just as long as gay people can't get married, that's the message this sends. We're not talking about a "religious, cultural or moral" issue here, we are talking about only a legal issue - should we allow two adults of the same sex to recieve government issued rights and responsibilities? In a democracy, unless you can find good reason to the contrary, we must answer yes. As I said in another related threat, there is absolutely NO solid logical reason to deny gay men and lesbians marriage rights and responsibility. The only reason opponents can come up with is we don't like gay people therefore they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Activist judges exist on both sides of the poltical spectrum. Don't believe me? See Bush v. Gore in 2000.

acludem

I have a very good argument. THAT'S WHAT AMERICA WANTS!

Can't get much clearer than that.

 

[Reilly]

We are not talking about what America wants, we are talking the existence for any logical reason to deny the right to marry to homosexuals. America didn't want women to vote until 1919-1920 - was that reasonable or right just because America wanted it that way?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
We are not talking about what America wants, we are talking the existence for any logical reason to deny the right to marry to homosexuals. America didn't want women to vote until 1919-1920 - was that reasonable or right just because America wanted it that way?

Nope, and America decided to change that.

Maybe in 200 years playing hide the salami with your buddy will be socially accepted. Right now it's not, and the people are going to get their way.

 

[Reilly]

Your statement contains two contradictory notions.

First, you say that denying women the right to vote was wrong (presumably you mean even in 1910), even though it was the socially accepted position at one time.

Second you suggest denying marriage to homosexuals is the right thing to do because it is the socially accepted position.

Which is it? Is "social acceptance" the standard for right and wrong? If that isn't enough, then by what other basis do you hold a position against gay marriage?

I think acludem is right. Your position is basically that you don't like homosexuals because you classify them as perverts, and so you don't want to give them rights, even when it doesn't have a real impact on you at all. That is pretty intellectual and high-minded of you.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
Your statement contains two contradictory notions.

First, you say that denying women the right to vote was wrong (presumably you mean even in 1910), even though it was the socially accepted position at one time.

Second you say this is right because it is the socially accepted position.

Which is it? Is "social acceptance" the standard for right and wrong? If that isn't enough, then by what other basis do you hold a position against gay marriage?

I think acludem is right. Your position is basically that you don't like homosexuals because you classify them as perverts, and so you don't want to give them rights, even when it doesn't have a real impact on you at all. That is pretty intellectual and high-minded of you.

I really don't care what you think. I don't want to be associated with a bunch of pole smokers, nor does the rest of America. 'Nuff said!

 

[Reilly]

If you don't care what other people think, perhaps a political chat room is not the best fit for you.

 

[jimnyc]

First, you say that denying women the right to vote was wrong (presumably you mean even in 1910), even though it was the socially accepted position at one time.

I said all that with "Nope"?

Second you say this is right because it is the socially accepted position.

Majority rules, tough luck.

Which is it? Is "social acceptance" the standard for right and wrong? If that isn't enough, then by what other basis do you hold a position against gay marriage?

What America wants.

I think acludem is right. Your position is basically that you don't like homosexuals because you classify them as perverts, and so you don't want to give them rights, even when it doesn't have a real impact on you at all. That is pretty intellectual and high-minded of you.

They do have rights, the EXACT same rights as you and I. No more and no less.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
If you don't care what other people think, perhaps a political chat room is not the best fit for you.

I need to give a rats behind what you think about gay marriages in order to post my views?

 

[acludem]

This a democracy, jimmy, that means majority rule with protection for the minority. The majority of Germans wanted to slaughter Jews wholesale while Hitler was in power. Was that okay? The majority of Americans (and some on this list still) though blacks were inferior and should be segregated and discriminated against? Was that okay since it was "socially acceptable"?

This is a democracy. We have made many strides toward equality for all in our 225 year history. This is one more stride for equality we must make. It took 80 years to get rid of slavery. It took nearly 100 years after that to guarantee equality for blacks after that. Women fought until 1920 to vote and have any type of rights. People with disabilities fought until the ADA in 1990. It took years but we did the right thing in those cases. Now it's time to do right for our gay and lesbian citizens.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
This a democracy, jimmy, that means majority rule with protection for the minority.

Yes, the majority rule - which is why there will be an amendment to protect marriages as between a man and a woman.

The minority can have their protection, the right to form civil unions.

This is really very simple.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Reilly
The issue of whether it is strictly between a man and a woman is the very debate that is occuring.

Many people don't classify it as a perversion at all, but regardless, if you are secure in your marriage, why does it matter to you how other people choose to define the general practice? Are you injured in any way?

Its not a perversion????????? A guy buggering another guy in the pooper or two chicks screwing each other with strapons is not a perversion to some people??????? WOW! Regardless two guys or two women were never meant to spend the rest of their lives together in the manner that marriage denotes, end of story.

 

[Reilly]

What is clear Jimmy is that you don't have one logical reason to stand against gay marriages. All that I suspect that you have is homophobia and paranoia, and while I am sure that I could argue gay marriage with you for many hours, I am sure that I cannot change that aspect of yourself. Nonetheless, I wish you health, enlightenment, and a nice day.