Why we shouldn't allow gay marriage.

[glockmail]

PS....





John 8

1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=8&version=31





well.. WHAT do ya know....

Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

 

[glockmail]

hey.. it's either a choice like you say or an orientation like I say, eh dude? can't have it both ways just because you want to discriminate....



so.. at what age did you decide that you wanted to be sexually attracted to the same sex?


your silence and/or vitriolic retort speaks VOLUMES.

Answer my question.

 

[MtnBiker]

Shogun banned from the thread. No need to be an antagonistic asshole.

 

[Gunny]

not only is it a relevant question but it is a helluva comparison when looking back on American history from day one until today. Sure, we ALSO had the first amendment while sending Scopes and Ferlinghetti to the supreme court. The attitude toward equal application of the Constitution is as spotted today as it was before blacks were allowed to vote and, I daresay, when the last "debate" of this nature was weather or not American values would allow blacks to have relationships with whites. Don't believe it? Go ask whether or not blacks and whites should procreate together on the Rants and RAves forum on the Atlanta Georgia Graigslist. If you don't think applying the jesus standard to these so called christians is relevant then so be it... I never signed up to wear your team jersey anyway.

Comparing interracial marriage to homosexuality is a bullshit argument. A worn out one. Race is not a choice, nor it is it a behavior, nor does it lead to any specific behavior.

 

[Gunny]

Shogun banned from the thread. No need to be an antagonistic asshole.

Damn. Wish I'd seen this before i bothered responding.

 

[007]

Who says the default is straight?

Nature.

 

[glockmail]

Shogun banned from the thread. No need to be an antagonistic asshole.

Thank you, thank you. There truly is a God.

 

[OCA]

Who says the default is straight?

All the decades and billions spent on research to find that queer gene and to date none found, so logically one has to to believe that we are all born heterosexual.

Are you logical?

 

[theHawk]

"Exactly what parts of the US Constitution are they being denied?"


equal protection: an overview

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html). In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances. A violation would occur, for example, if a state prohibited an individual from entering into an employment contract because he or she was a member of a particular race. The equal protection clause is not intended to provide "equality" among individuals or classes but only "equal application" of the laws. The result, therefore, of a law is not relevant so long as there is no discrimination in its application. By denying states the ability to discriminate, the equal protection clause of the Constitution is crucial to the protection of civil rights. See Civil Rights and Discrimination.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Equal_protection




If you want to strip away EVERY legal benefit to hetero marriage in order to put marriage and civil unions on an even ground then so be it. OR, you can allow civil unions the EXACT SAME legal qualification as hetero marriage.

YOUR CALL.





"Are you sure its me thats manipulating scripture? You are the one asking 'wwjd'.
And until you actually point out what rights gays are being denied I don't really care how they are getting 'fucked'."




see above. Do you think that disqualifying christians from voting conflicts with the 14th amendment? I do too. Similarly, by holding an unequal standard according to discriminatory factors is a direct conflict with the Equal Application of the 14th Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend14.htm


SO... praytell.. even if the scriptural FACT is that ole jebus hung out with hookers and the like.. and despite his SPECIFIC instruction not to judge lest ye be judged... AND that little line about falling short of the glory of god that comes in handy when YOU feel as if you are being judged... are you STILL going to tell me that your dogma namesake would be out to use ceasar to discriminate?

well.. this IS the message board with the "god only gave me two cheaks" chrstians so....




"If it was the majority opinion, I really wouldn't care if the government recognized any marriage or not. Its a religious ceramony."



A religious cerimony with legal ramifications. AGain, i don't care about churchs that choose not to let gays get married in their church cerimony... However, when the STATE starts discriminating according to dogma...

well... i'll refer you to the 14th Amendment.






"That was the whole point, that society does not want to give the same benefits of marriage to gays, such as being allowed to adopt, join the military, ect ect. Homosexuality is detrimental in most cases, thats why the military doesn't allow openly gay people in. Drug addiction is the same, thus why its not allowed in the military neither. Homosexuality is an act, so stop treating homosexuals as a minority that is being oppressed."



yadda yadda.. just like blacks were all shifty eyed and lazy and want to rape white women too, right dude? say, go pick up a DSM-IV and tell me why you dont see homosexuality since the days of the archi bunker racists... I find that fundie christians are more dangerous than the Andrew Sullivans out there would would LOVE to have that traditional monogomous lifestyle you seem to talk about but only allow for strait people. I assure you that comparing DRUG ADDICTION to homosexuality only deepens your looniness. Homosexuality is an ORIENTATION.



but hey.. dont' ask me! By all means admit at what age you weighed the facts and decided to get turned on by girls intead of boys! I can't wait to hear at what age you decided that vagina is more your style than penis!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

After all of your yapping you have yet to answer my question of exactly which Constitutional rights are being denied to gays. You brought up voting, but I have never heard of a case of someone being denied the right to vote because they were gay. Gays can write up wills or delegate power of attorney just as easily as hetro people can. Otherwise all your tripe about religion and race baiting are completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

 

[OCA]

Hawk, ol' Shogun has been shown the door.

 

[glockmail]

Hawk, ol' Shogun has been shown the door.

I hope it didn't hit him in the ass on the way out.:happy2:

 

[OCA]

I hope it didn't hit him in the ass on the way out.:happy2:

It wasn't the door that hit him!

You see I get accused from time to time of purging people purely out of spite which for the most part isn't true, but this asshole........yesterday before I even posted in this thread I sent him a pm asking him politely to tone his style down since basically he was a newbie.........he tells me today in a pm to go fuck myself.........not very smart.

 

[5stringJeff]

hey.. it's either a choice like you say or an orientation like I say, eh dude? can't have it both ways just because you want to discriminate....



so.. at what age did you decide that you wanted to be sexually attracted to the same sex?


your silence and/or vitriolic retort speaks VOLUMES.

What a waste of bandwidth.

 

[mattskramer]

After all of your yapping you have yet to answer my question of exactly which Constitutional rights are being denied to gays. You brought up voting, but I have never heard of a case of someone being denied the right to vote because they were gay. Gays can write up wills or delegate power of attorney just as easily as hetro people can. Otherwise all your tripe about religion and race baiting are completely unrelated to the topic at hand.

Why should gay couples have to jump through extra hoops to get what married couples get? Consider the situation if intestate. When a partner in a married couple dies without a will, part of the estate goes to the remaining partner. When a partner in a gay relationship dies without a will, none of the estate goes to the remaining person.

For information on another issue concerning gay couples, read this old story:

http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/...ciety/legal?record=738&trycookie=1?record=738

 

[glockmail]

It wasn't the door that hit him!

You see I get accused from time to time of purging people purely out of spite which for the most part isn't true, but this asshole........yesterday before I even posted in this thread I sent him a pm asking him politely to tone his style down since basically he was a newbie.........he tells me today in a pm to go fuck myself.........not very smart.

I'm glad we have a loose canon rolling around on deck.

 

[glockmail]

Why should gay couples have to jump through extra hoops to get what married couples get? .....

Why should a drunk have to walk instead of drive? Both the drunks and the gays made their choices, now they have to live with the consequences. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

[mattskramer]

Why should a drunk have to walk instead of drive? Both the drunks and the gays made their choices, now they have to live with the consequences. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Drunk driving is clearly a danger to other drivers. Even if my neighbors were a homosexual couple, it would not endanger me. There is a big difference.

 

[glockmail]

Drunk driving is clearly a danger to other drivers. Even if my neighbors were a homosexual couple, it would not endanger me. There is a big difference.

That's just your opinion. Mine is that they would be a danger to my children by promoting their lifestyle as normal and healthy and all that, when clearly it is not, and their choice damns them forever in the flames of Hell. So IMO the danger is far worse.

 

[sitarro]

Why should gay couples have to jump through extra hoops to get what married couples get? Consider the situation if intestate. When a partner in a married couple dies without a will, part of the estate goes to the remaining partner. When a partner in a gay relationship dies without a will, none of the estate goes to the remaining person.

For information on another issue concerning gay couples, read this old story:

http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/...ciety/legal?record=738&trycookie=1?record=738

Sad story, what makes you think anything would have been different if they were "married"? The hospital staff wouldn't have necessarily done anything differently and the hospital would still be getting sued. AIDS in this country was brought here and brought to epidemic proportions by the homosexual community by the way.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Why should gay couples have to jump through extra hoops to get what married couples get? Consider the situation if intestate. When a partner in a married couple dies without a will, part of the estate goes to the remaining partner. When a partner in a gay relationship dies without a will, none of the estate goes to the remaining person.

For information on another issue concerning gay couples, read this old story:

http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/...ciety/legal?record=738&trycookie=1?record=738

that is THEIR PROBLEM that they didn't protect themselves and prepare for that kind of situation. They shouldn't expect the government to bail them out for being il-prepared.

As for the AIDS story, the guy who had it could easily have notified the hospital staff who his partner was and made sure that he was allowed in on the deathbed or whatever. The guy had AIDS, not a fucking heart attack or stroke. He HAD the time. At least 5 years from the story. In all that time, he didn't bother to pick up the phone and let the hospital know about his situation? Knowing only what I have read about AIDS, there were likely more hospital stays prior to the last one, so I assume that there was no problem with those visits, or the lawsuit would have been started prior to the guy's death. Why was it this time he wasn't allowed?

Something with this story seems to be missing. I think we are only getting one side of the story or not the whole thing. I am not saying that the hospital isn't in the wrong here (based on the legal info, it seems they were because of the will and PoA file and definition of 'family' under national standards of hospitals), but if only family are allowed, there are other ways of avoiding that obstacle. Not only that, the 'family only' rule has been a long-standing one. So they didn't take that into account? Had they been living under a rock? It isn't like that is a brand new concept.

And so what if the gay community has to go do something different to protect themselves? No one said life was easy, and unless the majority wants to change it, you have to live with the current situation. Don't like it? Tough shit. Move to a country where they do allow that-they'll be happy to have you. You can't have your cake and eat it too.