Poll For Conservatives:

[Avorysuds]

Oppressing? Seriously??

Lets change the law a little... Only gays can get married. Everyone else can just live together.

 

[Avorysuds]

18 to 9

Well hell that is even higher than the 50% I predicted lol.

As I said, even though I set up the poll it is flawed for a couple of reasons:

1) All cons on the board would have to vote on it
2) As I didn't stipulate you could see who voted, I have no idea who has actually voted. Some libs could have voted.

That aside, you do get the win...the why's and wherefor's are my fault...

Or 3) liberals would vote No as it makes conservatives look worse and there is no name shown for them to be caught... I'd bet5 more would do this than accidently vote yes.

 

[Samson]

The really interesting poll results are the very recent ones that Seawytch posted, with a links on p. 4 of the thread (too bad they're burried)


Anyway, most interesting is the changing acceptance of Queers among their bigest nemisis: The Roman Catholic Church (which, lets face it, is only a shadow of the Roman Empire, which introduced Christianity, and its associated Jewish prejudices against buggery, into popular culture).

 

[The Rabbi]

Oppressing? Seriously??

So...to you, it's only a question of degree. If gays are being discriminated against by law...just a little bit...it's ok?

Discrimination? Really? tell me what gays cannot do that straights can do.

 

[DiveCon]

Oppressing? Seriously??

So...to you, it's only a question of degree. If gays are being discriminated against by law...just a little bit...it's ok?

Discrimination? Really? tell me what gays cannot do that straights can do.

in some states they dont have the legal rights to have a domestic partnership be recognized by the state

 

[The Rabbi]

So...to you, it's only a question of degree. If gays are being discriminated against by law...just a little bit...it's ok?

Discrimination? Really? tell me what gays cannot do that straights can do.

in some states they dont have the legal rights to have a domestic partnership be recognized by the state

Sure they do. Just the same as straight people.

 

[DiveCon]

Discrimination? Really? tell me what gays cannot do that straights can do.

in some states they dont have the legal rights to have a domestic partnership be recognized by the state

Sure they do. Just the same as straight people.

that argument is a FAIL

 

[The Rabbi]

in some states they dont have the legal rights to have a domestic partnership be recognized by the state

Sure they do. Just the same as straight people.

that argument is a FAIL

Why? Because you can't refute it?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Actually, there is....the Constitution and our laws restrict when they need to restrict...otherwise, we are free...having the right to do as we please as long as we do not hurt others.


But please....continue on with how Horse riding is a "special" right.

No, there is no enumerated right anywhere to ride a horse. Or a boy.
Sorry.

Yes the clearly is.

We have the right to life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness do we not.

Riding a horse is for many pursuing happiness.

You could also argue the right to free expression gives you the right to Express yourself by riding a horse

The Declaration of Independence

What you state is not in the US Constitution. It is in the of the Declaration of Independence.
BTW, none of us have the right to happiness. We have the right to pursue happiness.

 

[DiveCon]

Sure they do. Just the same as straight people.

that argument is a FAIL

Why? Because you can't refute it?

it has already BEEN refuted
if those rights were given to gays, you would have them also
you wouldnt lose a single right that you currently have

but dont confuse me with someone that believes the government should have anything to do with marriage, to me marriage is a sacrament of the church and the government shouldnt be "vesting" powers of any kind onto the clergy

 

[The Rabbi]

that argument is a FAIL

Why? Because you can't refute it?

it has already BEEN refuted
if those rights were given to gays, you would have them also
you wouldnt lose a single right that you currently have

but dont confuse me with someone that believes the government should have anything to do with marriage, to me marriage is a sacrament of the church and the government shouldnt be "vesting" powers of any kind onto the clergy

Should government have anything to do with divorce, custody, inheritance, or child custody? Or are those sacraments of the church too?

 

[DiveCon]

Why? Because you can't refute it?

it has already BEEN refuted
if those rights were given to gays, you would have them also
you wouldnt lose a single right that you currently have

but dont confuse me with someone that believes the government should have anything to do with marriage, to me marriage is a sacrament of the church and the government shouldnt be "vesting" powers of any kind onto the clergy

Should government have anything to do with divorce, custody, inheritance, or child custody? Or are those sacraments of the church too?

that wouldnt be a part of marriage any more
it would fall under civil unions
and one doesnt have to be "married" to have child custody(etc) issues

 

[Gunny]

Are you for or against gay marriage.

This is a yes or no question. This relates to another thread whereby Dive and Charles believe 'some' conservatives are against it as opposed to most/majority are.

I submit that the majority are...

This is about as current as ... oh ...8 years ago.....

 

[The Rabbi]

it has already BEEN refuted
if those rights were given to gays, you would have them also
you wouldnt lose a single right that you currently have

but dont confuse me with someone that believes the government should have anything to do with marriage, to me marriage is a sacrament of the church and the government shouldnt be "vesting" powers of any kind onto the clergy

Should government have anything to do with divorce, custody, inheritance, or child custody? Or are those sacraments of the church too?

that wouldnt be a part of marriage any more
it would fall under civil unions
and one doesnt have to be "married" to have child custody(etc) issues

Custody, inheritance, bankruptcy and a host of otehr things are involved with marriage. There is a strong common law recognition of the importance of marriage. Do away with that and everyone is floating in the dark. The alternative of "civil unions" are just marriages by another name.

Initially I thought the idea of civil unions for same sex partners wasn't a bad idea and addressed the very legitimate concerns they had. Then I saw the radical homosexual lobby didnt want them because it would defeat the gay agenda.
So I decided screw them and their agenda. If they can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[DiveCon]

Should government have anything to do with divorce, custody, inheritance, or child custody? Or are those sacraments of the church too?

that wouldnt be a part of marriage any more
it would fall under civil unions
and one doesnt have to be "married" to have child custody(etc) issues

Custody, inheritance, bankruptcy and a host of otehr things are involved with marriage. There is a strong common law recognition of the importance of marriage. Do away with that and everyone is floating in the dark. The alternative of "civil unions" are just marriages by another name.

Initially I thought the idea of civil unions for same sex partners wasn't a bad idea and addressed the very legitimate concerns they had. Then I saw the radical homosexual lobby didnt want them because it would defeat the gay agenda.
So I decided screw them and their agenda. If they can't do the time, don't do the crime.

yeah, cause none of those things have to be addressed to unmarried couples with children

 

[The Rabbi]

that wouldnt be a part of marriage any more
it would fall under civil unions
and one doesnt have to be "married" to have child custody(etc) issues

Custody, inheritance, bankruptcy and a host of otehr things are involved with marriage. There is a strong common law recognition of the importance of marriage. Do away with that and everyone is floating in the dark. The alternative of "civil unions" are just marriages by another name.

Initially I thought the idea of civil unions for same sex partners wasn't a bad idea and addressed the very legitimate concerns they had. Then I saw the radical homosexual lobby didnt want them because it would defeat the gay agenda.
So I decided screw them and their agenda. If they can't do the time, don't do the crime.

yeah, cause none of those things have to be addressed to unmarried couples with children

Brilliant response.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

 

[DiveCon]

Custody, inheritance, bankruptcy and a host of otehr things are involved with marriage. There is a strong common law recognition of the importance of marriage. Do away with that and everyone is floating in the dark. The alternative of "civil unions" are just marriages by another name.

Initially I thought the idea of civil unions for same sex partners wasn't a bad idea and addressed the very legitimate concerns they had. Then I saw the radical homosexual lobby didnt want them because it would defeat the gay agenda.
So I decided screw them and their agenda. If they can't do the time, don't do the crime.

yeah, cause none of those things have to be addressed to unmarried couples with children

Brilliant response.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

and the point is, none of that should be attached to a religious ceremony
and no religious leader should be vested with state powers

 

[The Rabbi]

yeah, cause none of those things have to be addressed to unmarried couples with children

Brilliant response.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

and the point is, none of that should be attached to a religious ceremony
and no religious leader should be vested with state powers

And I should be in a hot tub with Cindy Crawford. But none of that is going to happen. Marriage is too intertwined in the legal system to separate it without substituting something that is virtually the same but insulting to the population.

 

[bodecea]

Brilliant response.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

and the point is, none of that should be attached to a religious ceremony
and no religious leader should be vested with state powers

And I should be in a hot tub with Cindy Crawford. But none of that is going to happen. Marriage is too intertwined in the legal system to separate it without substituting something that is virtually the same but insulting to the population.

So, you pretty much are saying that Marriage, legal Marriage, is the only way to go for gay couples to be treated equally under the law.

 

[asterism]

Should government have anything to do with divorce, custody, inheritance, or child custody? Or are those sacraments of the church too?

that wouldnt be a part of marriage any more
it would fall under civil unions
and one doesnt have to be "married" to have child custody(etc) issues

Custody, inheritance, bankruptcy and a host of otehr things are involved with marriage. There is a strong common law recognition of the importance of marriage. Do away with that and everyone is floating in the dark. The alternative of "civil unions" are just marriages by another name.

Initially I thought the idea of civil unions for same sex partners wasn't a bad idea and addressed the very legitimate concerns they had. Then I saw the radical homosexual lobby didnt want them because it would defeat the gay agenda.
So I decided screw them and their agenda. If they can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Those are all issues with or without marriage, whenever there is a shared legal ownership or responsibility. Some states even have "common law marriage" as a legal distinction, no ceremony involved.