Gay marriage advocates, on the wrong track?

[Anachronism]

I'm not sure if why you put women's sufferage in a comparison to gay marriage. I generally think the emancipation of women is a good thing, for no other reason than I don't always have to pay for the date.

Two ideal that in the past were solidly amongst the items that no decent society would ever even consider and which are now helping to quickly and effectively destroy American Society on a daily basis.

Any man who is not prepared to financially cover his dates with a young lady doesn't deserve her time or attentions so far as I am concerned.

Now funny you should mention that. My brother had a pit bull that was the nicest dog in the world. Until the day it bit his mother-in-law's face and she needed 120 stitches to put it back together again. (Suffice to say, the dog was put to sleep after that.)

Yep. A genetic predisposition that can only be controlled for so long. Once it can no longer be controlled the animal is removed from society. Sounds like a very good analogy for homosexual relations to me.

I have a different definition of morality. You shouldn't harm people and should try to help them when you can. Now, frankly, the gay stuff doesn't appeal to me personally, but if you are into that kind of thing, one man's meat is another man's poison.

Yes you do have a different definition of Morality than I do. Suffice it to say, I don't think our definitions are even remotely compatible with each other.

Frankly, I really have a hard time buying that a diety with a 14 billion year plan for a universe is really upset what kind of sex I'm having.

Who is talking about religion? I'm talking about MORALITY, which supercedes all religion and spirituality in my mind.

 

[Seawytch]

Now I do think Lawrence v. Texas has opened the door to the legalization of gay marriage nationally. ONce the actual act is no longer a crime, what logic is there in keeping the marriage illegal. I personally would rather this be decided in the legislative arena than the judicial one, though.

Of course it has...which is why Scalia was so freaked out about the ruling. When you look at legal marriage rulings (precedent) and couple those with Lawrence v Texas...baby, you've got gay marriage equality.

 

[Too Tall]

ShackledNation

Your argument was very good until you made this statement:

Government force sanctions upon us, nor will Catholics be forced to accept gay marriage in the Church. The sacramental or religious portion of marriage will remain exactly the same

.

If you think the ACLU won't sue the hell out of the first church that refuses to marry a gay couple in a state that has sanctioned such, you are rather naive.

 

[JoeB131]

Two ideal that in the past were solidly amongst the items that no decent society would ever even consider and which are now helping to quickly and effectively destroy American Society on a daily basis.

Any man who is not prepared to financially cover his dates with a young lady doesn't deserve her time or attentions so far as I am concerned.

These comments seem to indicate to me you have a fear of partners who are equals. So I have to wonder if you went with the Filipina mail order bride, as no American would put up with this stuff.

Yep. A genetic predisposition that can only be controlled for so long. Once it can no longer be controlled the animal is removed from society. Sounds like a very good analogy for homosexual relations to me.

Of course it does. Seems like you are a fighting down some demons yourself. Only conclusion I can come to. Can we say "Larry Craig". "Ted Haggard". Hmmmm.

Yes you do have a different definition of Morality than I do. Suffice it to say, I don't think our definitions are even remotely compatible with each other.

Yup. It does. It seems your definition is a puritan one- living in mortal fear someone might be enjoying himself.

Who is talking about religion? I'm talking about MORALITY, which supercedes all religion and spirituality in my mind.

Again. Slavery was moral up until about 150 years ago. Beating your wife was moral up until fairly recently. Morality changes based on where society is at generally.

 

[JoeB131]

Now I do think Lawrence v. Texas has opened the door to the legalization of gay marriage nationally. ONce the actual act is no longer a crime, what logic is there in keeping the marriage illegal. I personally would rather this be decided in the legislative arena than the judicial one, though.

Of course it has...which is why Scalia was so freaked out about the ruling. When you look at legal marriage rulings (precedent) and couple those with Lawrence v Texas...baby, you've got gay marriage equality.

Again, I personally have no problem with this. I have lots of gay friends and only wish them the best and happiness.

I just have a concern about the courts doing the job of the legistlature. Take Roe v. Wade for example. If left to it's own devices, we'd probably have abortion laws as liberal as the ones we have today. But a court mandating it has the stink of imposition on it. So it is still controversial today when it shouldn't be.

I have a real problem with courts doing the job of the legislative branch. (And this isn't a partisan thing, I have a problem when Right Wing judges overrule Congress or state legistlatures as well.)

 

[bodecea]

The primary role of Government is to protect and uphold the society of this nation. The foundation of this country is Morality and Values. Homosexual relations does not fall under either of those headings. Therefore it is most definitely the role of the Government to step in and protect this nation from further undermining by allowing those improper arrangements.

Homosexuality is not illegal. Your moralizing has no legal standing. In fact, it's wholly un-American to discriminate on flimsy, arcane moral grounds. We no longer burn witches. And your position is against the very freedoms, not morals, this nation was founded upon.

Homosexuality is still illegal in most states. An act of an unelected unaccountable group of judges suspended enforcement of those laws. They were not repealed by any vote.

What a hoot!

 

[bodecea]

ShackledNation

Your argument was very good until you made this statement:

Government force sanctions upon us, nor will Catholics be forced to accept gay marriage in the Church. The sacramental or religious portion of marriage will remain exactly the same

.

If you think the ACLU won't sue the hell out of the first church that refuses to marry a gay couple in a state that has sanctioned such, you are rather naive.

Just like the ACLU sued the hell out of the first church that refuses to marry interracial couples and interfaith couples...no, wait.

 

[Anachronism]

These comments seem to indicate to me you have a fear of partners who are equals. So I have to wonder if you went with the Filipina mail order bride, as no American would put up with this stuff.

Nope. I'm pleasantly single, thank you very much. I likely always will be since I'm also a Nationalist and an Isolationist, so the mail order bride concept (which you're by no means the first to suggest) is just not a potential option.

Of course it does. Seems like you are a fighting down some demons yourself. Only conclusion I can come to. Can we say "Larry Craig". "Ted Haggard". Hmmmm.

I'm going to ignore the fact that you even insinuated what you have. That's your one warning. Next time it's straight to the Ignore List with you.

Yup. It does. It seems your definition is a puritan one- living in mortal fear someone might be enjoying himself.

Life isn't about enjoyment. Never has been and never will be. It's about living a Good, Decent, Proper, and Moral Life. Yes that is somewhat Puritanical. Then again you have to realize that some of my relatives came to this country while the Puritans were still one of the major settlement groups in this part of the country.

Again. Slavery was moral up until about 150 years ago. Beating your wife was moral up until fairly recently. Morality changes based on where society is at generally.

Slavery (based on criteria other than race) is still moral in many cases. Proper Domestic Discipline is necessary in any family and relationship. Morality does not change, ever. The idea that it does is one of the things that is destroying this nation.

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexuality is not illegal. Your moralizing has no legal standing. In fact, it's wholly un-American to discriminate on flimsy, arcane moral grounds. We no longer burn witches. And your position is against the very freedoms, not morals, this nation was founded upon.

Homosexuality is still illegal in most states. An act of an unelected unaccountable group of judges suspended enforcement of those laws. They were not repealed by any vote.

What a hoot!

The law is on the books. It is unenforceable but still there.

 

[konradv]

Fact: The city issuing a marriage license is a civil and legal, not a religious, issue.

Getting married in a church means nothing without a marriage license. Two atheists can go get married by a justice of the peace in a parking lot. Therefore your argument that christian religious doctrine somehow applies to who the city provides a civil service to is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The primary role of Government is to protect and uphold the society of this nation. The foundation of this country is Morality and Values. Homosexual relations does not fall under either of those headings. Therefore it is most definitely the role of the Government to step in and protect this nation from further undermining by allowing those improper arrangements.

OR...., YOU COULD MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

It's funny how a lot of the same people who become incensed because the government wants to register firearms, have no problem telling people how to run their personal lives. I think gays should take the same attitude, i.e. "just try and tell me what I'm allowed to do and you may be looking down a barrel."

 

[The Rabbi]

Fact: The city issuing a marriage license is a civil and legal, not a religious, issue.

Getting married in a church means nothing without a marriage license. Two atheists can go get married by a justice of the peace in a parking lot. Therefore your argument that christian religious doctrine somehow applies to who the city provides a civil service to is nothing more than wishful thinking.

The primary role of Government is to protect and uphold the society of this nation. The foundation of this country is Morality and Values. Homosexual relations does not fall under either of those headings. Therefore it is most definitely the role of the Government to step in and protect this nation from further undermining by allowing those improper arrangements.

OR...., YOU COULD MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

It's funny how a lot of the same people who become incensed because the government wants to register firearms, have no problem telling people how to run their personal lives. I think gays should take the same attitude, i.e. "just try and tell me what I'm allowed to do and you may be looking down a barrel."

The health of society is his own business, dunderhead.

 

[konradv]

The primary role of Government is to protect and uphold the society of this nation. The foundation of this country is Morality and Values. Homosexual relations does not fall under either of those headings. Therefore it is most definitely the role of the Government to step in and protect this nation from further undermining by allowing those improper arrangements.

OR...., YOU COULD MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

It's funny how a lot of the same people who become incensed because the government wants to register firearms, have no problem telling people how to run their personal lives. I think gays should take the same attitude, i.e. "just try and tell me what I'm allowed to do and you may be looking down a barrel."

The health of society is his own business, dunderhead.

The you're an Obamacare supporter, I guess? That's about the health of a society. Who a person marries ISN'T. Live your life anyway you please. We all have to answer seperately for our actions, but don't assume you've got the right to play the morality on anyone not in your own sect.

 

[Nosmo King]

The primary role of Government is to protect and uphold the society of this nation. The foundation of this country is Morality and Values. Homosexual relations does not fall under either of those headings. Therefore it is most definitely the role of the Government to step in and protect this nation from further undermining by allowing those improper arrangements.

OR...., YOU COULD MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

It's funny how a lot of the same people who become incensed because the government wants to register firearms, have no problem telling people how to run their personal lives. I think gays should take the same attitude, i.e. "just try and tell me what I'm allowed to do and you may be looking down a barrel."

The health of society is his own business, dunderhead.

That's one hell of a business! To determine through his own warped sense of "morality" how to save society from itself! I know of no mortal man qualified to speak as the moral arbiter of society, let alone someone whose ideas about women and homosexuals is so hateful. Perhaps he should just concern himself with himself and let freedom ring.

 

[Anachronism]

OR...., YOU COULD MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

It's funny how a lot of the same people who become incensed because the government wants to register firearms, have no problem telling people how to run their personal lives. I think gays should take the same attitude, i.e. "just try and tell me what I'm allowed to do and you may be looking down a barrel."

konrad, the health of the society I live in most definitely IS my business, thank you very much. Since I am forced to deal with people every day as I move through my life, it becomes my business when I have to go to three different banks to find a male teller, or I have to see two men/women engaging in public displays of affection in a public area or on a public conveyance (I will say I'm no happier about seeing male/female engaging in these displays either).

Your firearms analogy is flawed because the equivelant would be the issuance of Firearms Licenses/Permits, not the registration of firearms themselves. I have absolutely no problem with the Licensing of gun owners. In fact I'd like to see it done on a Federal rather than a State level for ease and consistancy.

 

[The Rabbi]

OR...., YOU COULD MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

It's funny how a lot of the same people who become incensed because the government wants to register firearms, have no problem telling people how to run their personal lives. I think gays should take the same attitude, i.e. "just try and tell me what I'm allowed to do and you may be looking down a barrel."

The health of society is his own business, dunderhead.

That's one hell of a business! To determine through his own warped sense of "morality" how to save society from itself! I know of no mortal man qualified to speak as the moral arbiter of society, let alone someone whose ideas about women and homosexuals is so hateful. Perhaps he should just concern himself with himself and let freedom ring.

Don't you have a toilet to inspect or something? Go improve the commodes in your city.

 

[konradv]

The health of society is his own business, dunderhead.

That's one hell of a business! To determine through his own warped sense of "morality" how to save society from itself! I know of no mortal man qualified to speak as the moral arbiter of society, let alone someone whose ideas about women and homosexuals is so hateful. Perhaps he should just concern himself with himself and let freedom ring.

Don't you have a toilet to inspect or something? Go improve the commodes in your city.

Why don't you take your own advice. You're only contributing hate to the board.

 

[konradv]

OR...., YOU COULD MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

It's funny how a lot of the same people who become incensed because the government wants to register firearms, have no problem telling people how to run their personal lives. I think gays should take the same attitude, i.e. "just try and tell me what I'm allowed to do and you may be looking down a barrel."

konrad, the health of the society I live in most definitely IS my business, thank you very much. Since I am forced to deal with people every day as I move through my life, it becomes my business when I have to go to three different banks to find a male teller, or I have to see two men/women engaging in public displays of affection in a public area or on a public conveyance (I will say I'm no happier about seeing male/female engaging in these displays either).

Your firearms analogy is flawed because the equivelant would be the issuance of Firearms Licenses/Permits, not the registration of firearms themselves. I have absolutely no problem with the Licensing of gun owners. In fact I'd like to see it done on a Federal rather than a State level for ease and consistancy.

You go from bank to bank to find a MALE teller?!? Pray tell why, before we start thinking you're a closet case! This isn't some form of "sharia" is it? Aren't women allowed in the public sphere?

 

[8537]

some peole are still living in 1930

While this is true, those folks are doing OK compared to the large number of people living in 1859.

 

[Seawytch]

OR...., YOU COULD MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS!!!

It's funny how a lot of the same people who become incensed because the government wants to register firearms, have no problem telling people how to run their personal lives. I think gays should take the same attitude, i.e. "just try and tell me what I'm allowed to do and you may be looking down a barrel."

konrad, the health of the society I live in most definitely IS my business, thank you very much. Since I am forced to deal with people every day as I move through my life, it becomes my business when I have to go to three different banks to find a male teller, or I have to see two men/women engaging in public displays of affection in a public area or on a public conveyance (I will say I'm no happier about seeing male/female engaging in these displays either).

Your firearms analogy is flawed because the equivelant would be the issuance of Firearms Licenses/Permits, not the registration of firearms themselves. I have absolutely no problem with the Licensing of gun owners. In fact I'd like to see it done on a Federal rather than a State level for ease and consistancy.

You go from bank to bank to find a MALE teller?!? Pray tell why, before we start thinking you're a closet case! This isn't some form of "sharia" is it? Aren't women allowed in the public sphere?

He wants to go back to a time when women were property. He doesn't believe they should work and certainly doesn't believe they should hold public office. He refuses to deal with women professionals. There's something wrong with him, but I doubt it's that he's a closet case.

 

[Anachronism]

You go from bank to bank to find a MALE teller?!? Pray tell why, before we start thinking you're a closet case! This isn't some form of "sharia" is it? Aren't women allowed in the public sphere?

Personally, I try to do almost all of my banking electronically. I probably have 5-7 times a year when I actually have to go INTO a bank and deal with a human being for some reason. On those occasions I go out of my way to make sure I deal with a male teller.

It has nothing to do with Islam or the public sphere. It has to do with my beliefs on what the appropriate and inappropriate types of work for each gender are. Just as I wouldn't take my car to a female mechanic nor would I get a haircut or a massage from a guy.