It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Same-sex marriage ban wins; opponents sue to block measure

page: 22
5
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Absolutely.

You have a rare way of making a point.

These are people, with the same rights as any other person - if they are in love, why shouldn't they get married.

I can't remember anything in Jesus' teachings against homosexuality.

Which begs the question of why they are so opposed to it.




posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

However, if a state recognizes "marriage" then it must recognize it the same for everybody. A state cannot specify that "marriage" is the union between two people of different race, or height, or religion; those decisions are up to the participants. Likewise, a state has no business saying that the union is to be of people of different gender. The 14th Amendment prohibits that.


Actually, there are precedents for gender-specific discrimination. The US Military only recently (in my lifetime, anyway
) accepted female applicants. And even today, the number of female candidates on the front lines of battle are severely limited. It is a biological fact that women are not as physically strong or aggressive as men on average, and this leads to the determination that men are typically better front-line soldiers than women. They are also harder for the enemy to rape.


As far as interracial marriages go, there is no functional difference between a black female and a white female. So to say that there should be no restriction concerning interracial marriage is to deny something based only on racial ideals and no biological condition. But when sexual relations are concerned, the natural state of humanity is heterosexual, as is the natural state of sexuality for all species. If this were not so, the species in question would have died out long ago, as we all know it requires input from one of each gender to create offspring. Yes, there are exceptions within each species, but these are indeed the exception and usually the result of some malfunctioning environmental condition.

Again, I state that restricting marriage to a person of the opposite sex is not a denial of marital rights. It is a restriction based on biology and tradition, and is not a parallel to racial discrimination. There is no person that I can marry which a gay man cannot marry, legally.

And again, I state that my position on this subject has indeed changed, in no small part from the actions of those arguing the pro-gay marriage position here on these forums and in the demonstrations, news reports, and other events country wide. When it is more about equality and less about superiority and getting even, someone please let me know.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by budski

Thank you. A compliment from you is an honor indeed.

I'm truly sorry that I have to side against you on this subject, but as I mentioned above, the accusations against various mainstream groups with no real foundation in established fact, combined with the specious legal 'arguments' and apparent disregard for the power of public opinion (as well as for others who do not share their views) exhibited by the pro-gay marriage posters on here have turned me away from their cause.

I know it is rare for me to switch sides, and I still support equality in law. I always have and always will. But I no longer see this as an attempt at equality; rather I see it as an attack on those who have traditionally disagreed with homosexual practices. I cannot and will not support vengeance.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actually, there are precedents for gender-specific discrimination. The US Military only recently (in my lifetime, anyway
) accepted female applicants. And even today, the number of female candidates on the front lines of battle are severely limited. It is a biological fact that women are not as physically strong or aggressive as men on average, and this leads to the determination that men are typically better front-line soldiers than women.


Actually, the US military has had female members since at least WWII, albeit not in combat. I agree that men are genetically stronger than women, I'm not so sure I'd go along with "more aggressive". Women can be quite aggressive...

Also, while you are correct regarding physical strength, raw physical strength is not as important in modern warfare as it was even in WWII.



As far as interracial marriages go, there is no functional difference between a black female and a white female. So to say that there should be no restriction concerning interracial marriage is to deny something based only on racial ideals and no biological condition. But when sexual relations are concerned, the natural state of humanity is heterosexual, as is the natural state of sexuality for all species.


Couple of points:

1) Prior to 1967, the state of Virginia outlawed interracial marriages, based on the belief that there were in fact basic differences between races. The Supreme Court case of Loving v Virginia overturned that kind of law.

2) You imply that marriage necessarily includes a sexual component. And most do. But it is not a requirement, nor a necessary attribute of marriage.



Again, I state that restricting marriage to a person of the opposite sex is not a denial of marital rights. It is a restriction based on biology and tradition, and is not a parallel to racial discrimination.


And again, I have to disagree. Restriction of marriage to only opposite gender is precisely equivalent to restriction based on race. The only reasonable restrictions to marriage are those based on the ability to make an informed choice (i.e. children).



There is no person that I can marry which a gay man cannot marry, legally.


Ah, but you can marry the person of your choice (assuming that person agrees). This kind of law seeks to deny a gay man his choice.



And again, I state that my position on this subject has indeed changed, in no small part from the actions of those arguing the pro-gay marriage position here on these forums and in the demonstrations, news reports, and other events country wide. When it is more about equality and less about superiority and getting even, someone please let me know.


I assume this comment is directed at other people than me. I have not made one single comment on this subject based on superiority or getting even, etc. My arguments are based solely on legal grounds.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Actually, the US military has had female members since at least WWII, albeit not in combat. I agree that men are genetically stronger than women, I'm not so sure I'd go along with "more aggressive". Women can be quite aggressive...

I will have to defer to you on this, as I do not actively follow military requirements. I do, however, remember a big to-do some time back about women wanting to serve more active roles in the military, and that is what I was trying (poorly, admittedly) to refer to.

As to aggression, yes, men are more aggressive (at least 28 days of the month
) than women. Women are fierce when provoked, quite possibly moreso than men, but they are also more pacifist.


Also, while you are correct regarding physical strength, raw physical strength is not as important in modern warfare as it was even in WWII.

It is still as important in front-line war. If you are referring to strategic strikes, combat support, etc. you are correct; machinery and technology do the majority of the work today. But on the front line, where men still kill men any way they can before being killed themselves, strength is still a major advantage.


1) Prior to 1967, the state of Virginia outlawed interracial marriages, based on the belief that there were in fact basic differences between races. The Supreme Court case of Loving v Virginia overturned that kind of law.

An argument toward a position does not make that position fact. It has been proven over and over that there is no inherent physical difference between people of differing races, other than a few specific tendencies toward disease (sickle-cell anemia et al)


2) You imply that marriage necessarily includes a sexual component. And most do. But it is not a requirement, nor a necessary attribute of marriage.

Traditionally, marriage is the union of a man and a woman, implying that the purpose is to at least attempt to procreate. Indeed, the marriage vows include the phrase "forsaking all others". Marriages are said to be consummated after the first marital sex act is completed. If there were no sexual component inherent in the practice, there would never have been a widespread tradition to honor the monogamous union.

While you are correct that some marriages are sex-less (primarily in the case of older couples), the fact that marriage is based on the ability to 'honorably' perform sexual relations is self-evident.


And again, I have to disagree. Restriction of marriage to only opposite gender is precisely equivalent to restriction based on race. The only reasonable restrictions to marriage are those based on the ability to make an informed choice (i.e. children).

Disagreement is your right. however, in this case it clearly goes against centuries of tradition and the very roots of the ceremony we call marriage.

We are not discussing sexual relations themselves; what two consenting adults do in private is absolutely none of my business. We are discussing a ceremony that is no less than a public declaration that each partner is pledging themselves to the other, financially, spiritually, legally, and sexually.


Ah, but you can marry the person of your choice (assuming that person agrees). This kind of law seeks to deny a gay man his choice.

We have a whole legal code comprised of restrictions to choice. I cannot choose to kill another human being. I cannot choose to rob a convenience store. I cannot choose to rape someone. I cannot choose to drive 200 miles an hour.

There is no right to freedom of choice. Such freedom only exists when society allows it.

I'm not going to include the last section here, because you are correct; it was intended to explain to those who have heard me argue the center of this issue for several days why I changed my position. Your arguments have been civil and reasoned, and I am enjoying this refreshingly pleasant conversation.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Cheers mate, for your candour.

It seems sometimes, that a particular revenue stream can be overlooked.

And with that, covert avenues are opened up.

I guess I just don't trust governments or their affiliates.



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by budski

I don't trust governments either, but somehow I trust lawyers even less. Let's take a look at what has transpired in this country over this issue and especially in the State of California, shall we?

I'll be first to admit that there are discriminations going on against gays that shouldn't go on. I oppose discrimination. But there are too many issues on this that simply do not add up:

The most vocal group pushing for legalization are also vehement about their disregard for religion. This makes no sense that they would be so demanding of the ability to engage in a ceremony from a religion they obviously despise. What is more likely is that someone has the bright idea that by getting marriage declared as a civil right, they can then force ministers to marry them, and force their gay agenda onto the churches at large.

The prospect of equal rights as Civil Unions has been brought up, and is totally objected by those who are fiercely arguing against the ban. Apparently there is something about that word 'marriage' that is so desirable to the community interests that they are willing to risk yet another crushing defeat in pursuit of it. Every argument against civil unions can be satiated easily by very simple legal means, as opposed to major changes in legal precedent and tradition by going after that coveted word. So what real agenda can there be here but an attack on church beliefs?

The legal arguments are precarious at best. A law, such as Prop 22, can be struck down by a judge as unconstitutional, but a constitutional amendment cannot be struck down so easily. There are three possibilities: The vote was contaminated by either monetary exchange for votes or tampering of the results; incorrect (unconstitutional) procedures were used to amend the California Constitution; there is a conflict with the US Constitution.

We know the first possibility is being investigated, thanks to you. The second is obviously not an issue, as every move was perfectly in line with the California Constitution. The third is the only one which at this time has even a precarious possibility of applicability, and that is based on loose wording in the 14th amendment, as has been previously pointed out. Yet, the US Supreme Court has traditionally refused to take up the case of marriage regulation and has regularly designated such as a state issue. DOMA, as was pointed out, states specifically that the US cannot become involved in marriage regulations because it is deemed a state issue. So even the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th amendment requires quite a stretch of legal theory to make it even arguable.

Both arguments have one thing in common: they all involve lawyers, and here is where the financial trail of crumbs you so aptly mention begins to appear. Every lawyer hired to argue on this case will be paid handsomely for their services, win or lose. But if they lose because the battle is unwinnable, they can try a different theory (also unwinnable) and another theory (also unwinnable) and yet another theory (also unwinnable) until the donations are so dry there is no more money. And in the end, the ones who paid for these useless battles will have lost, not just their cause, but their money as well. If somehow they do win, they can argue for the other side, or now there is the chance to go after the religious organizations on violation of civil rights charges, again, with the well-paid lawyers services required. Such would not be possible with civil unions.

I'm watching two sides fighting desperately in a battle whose outcome is easily seen by anyone who simply reads the legal precedents with the eco/demo credentials of a high-schooler. They are both being supplied with legal advice and protection from the same people: the California Bar Association. It's an ingenious plan, to turn two sides against each other, whip emotions into a frenzy, then charge both sides for accomplishing nothing. It reminds me of the stereotypical arms dealer who whips fears from two competing nations into such a frenzy he makes his fortune supplying weapons to each side to counter the weapons he just sold to the other side.

I guess I'm just cynical over this, budski. And frustrated, and disgusted.

But never, ever speechless.


TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Epinephrine

Originally posted by reconpilot
reply to post by Epinephrine
 

WHAT PART OF EQUALITY DONT YOU UNDERSTAND ,BUBBA ?


The part that says "all people are equal but some people are more equal than others" and translated into action as affirmative action, women and minority hiring preferences, and special protections under the law.


Okay so now the white boy majority ,having gloated about winning prop 8 ,are crying victim because of affirmitive action ? The fact that it was latinos and black homophobia that got you over the line however does not factor in to the equation ? The catholic church has always encouraged the debasement of women because 'saint paul ' was a woman hater . He regularly demeans women in his vulgar diatribes , as does the catholic church . Catholicism is the curse of south american latino culture . Its designed to encourage class and sex hatred .

The more you legislate freedom with complex contradictory laws , the more you dilute it . The constitution was written in plain simple easy to understand language to avoid its abuse by politicians ,the church and power brokers .

But as always , religion is used as a wedge to drive common sense out of the equation . Because religion is DESIGNED to do that .

My argument is this .When you take skin colour out of the equation and its is no longer a good excuse , the only thing left is religious prejudice .
Religion , by definition is prejudiced . If you are not born of a jewish mother you are not one of the 'chosen race ' , or unless you accept jesus ( a jew ) as your personal lord and saviour , your goin' to hell son !
Try progarming a computer with that logic and it will crash when you hit the start button.

Its funny how the jews complain endlessly abou persecution and yet they invite it by setting themselves up as 'chosen' . But then all the christian fundamentalists believe they are 'the one true church ' Pah , its just about bums on seats and the collection plate . tax free income for ego inflated priests .

Its funny how I have to put up with christian faith in my face and yet a couple of gay guys saying ' I do ' in a private ,invitation only ceremony gets you guys all hot under the collar . I mean really , was it just the fact that you were not invited or something ?

But i'm a pretty easy going guy .If some god bothering wacko knocks on my door trying to convert me to the one true christian church , I will humour them and talk scripture on the porch as long as they want to.

usually they leave before I have finished reasoning with them . They dont like it when I point out that Jesus said you dont need the church to find god . No , only the gays actually enter the closet and pray to their father in secret ! Ah the irony of it .

Yes , often affirmitive action leads to nepotism , but then nepotism used to be a monopoly for white america was it not ? With your own colour and religious prejudice you have brought this upon yourselves . Historically this land was invaded and stolen from the true americans by greedy ,opportunistic whites who salved their conscience and washed the blood from their hands with sunday service . How many Native americans celebrate thanksgiving ? especially when they remember all the broken treaties and the trail of tears .

No , its the attitude of people like you that made me apologise for being white everytime I met Native americans . So dont give me that crap about natives getting 'special treatment' when you took all the prime agricultural land from them and stuck them in reservations , at the point of a gun of course .

I DARE YOU TO ADDRESS MY STATEMENTS REGARDING YOUR WHITE RAPE OF THE NATIVES . but you wont , will you ? because its eats at the very soul of every white american , your true history , not the guff they made you swallow at school and church .

This country was founded in blood , racism and the mockery of true justice . Nothing much has changed since you first landed on that precious soil . So cry all you want , you will hear precious little sympathy from me until you confess your own sins and those of your forefathers .



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by budski

Read the post just above this one, and then look at my picture to the left. I think you can see the source of my frustration and my change of views on the subject.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


As far the legal system goes , I fear you have many good points redkneck . While I mercifully had only limited exposure to the legal system in the US , it did not take me long to realise how crooked most lawyers are .One tried to steal important personal legal documents by hiding them in his own files when he thought I was not looking . If I had not made him open them in front of me and go through them , I would have been in serious difficulty just from that initial consultation . Of course ,thats what he was banking on . Never ,ever leave valuable documents with those bastards .Give them copies if you must but never ever trust a lawyer .

Corruption pervades the system and it thrives on creating anger and acrimony . divorce lawyers are famous for it . For the sake of arguing over a piddling amount of money I can think of one divorcing couple who spent enough money on legal fees to buy a brand new Mercedes !

The main reason my wife and I left America in disgust was very simply because we were sick of the corruption ,the crime rate , the graft , the compulsive lying cheating and theft in the business community we were a part of . It just was not worth staying .

And now we look back and realise with some sadness that our worst fears about the fate of the US are coming to pass. Its a damn shame because it could so easily be so much better FOR EVERYONE .

While I admire up to a point ,gay activism , I also fear they are being railroaded at a critical ,dangerously unstable phase in US history . Who can say for sure how this will pan out .

Certainly in europe where I grew up , gay couples just quietly lived together and generally speaking did not suffer from any major nastiness ,EXCEPT if they lived in working class catholic communities .

The anglican style churches have always been pretty easy going and tolerant , partly because many in the priesthood are gay . The middle class has historicaly been far more tolerant than the working class . Class resentment IS A FACTOR BUT RARELY ADDMITED TO

I know in my own families past history ,we married in secret to protect ourselves and our loved ones . Nothing to do with religion ,skin colour or nationality . Just because we dare to live as free individuals . The ultimate affront to 'DECENCY' . So in a real sense , I could care less about the laws of the land when they steal justice instead of secure it .

Our battle cry is FREEDOM . always has been ,always will.

The UK and USA are rapidly degrading in to police states ,at which point ,gay rights will be the least of peoples worries . The fact that gays may be used as a whipping boy by angry disspossesed hetro's means that AA and other laws will add fuel to the fire of their anger .

As usual the elite are using the old divide and conquer trick along with religious /racial prejudice to enhance their power over all of you ,white ,black ,gay and straight . And still the people cannot see it .

Why ? Because so many think that they want to be part of the elite that they go along to get along . Humans...............



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


As far the legal system goes , I fear you have many good points redkneck . While I mercifully had only limited exposure to the legal system in the US , it did not take me long to realise how crooked most lawyers are .One tried to steal important personal legal documents by hiding them in his own files when he thought I was not looking . If I had not made him open them in front of me and go through them , I would have been in serious difficulty just from that initial consultation . Of course ,thats what he was banking on . Never ,ever leave valuable documents with those bastards .Give them copies if you must but never ever trust a lawyer .

Corruption pervades the system and it thrives on creating anger and acrimony . divorce lawyers are famous for it . For the sake of arguing over a piddling amount of money I can think of one divorcing couple who spent enough money on legal fees to buy a brand new Mercedes !

The main reason my wife and I left America in disgust was very simply because we were sick of the corruption ,the crime rate , the graft , the compulsive lying cheating and theft in the business community we were a part of . It just was not worth staying .

And now we look back and realise with some sadness that our worst fears about the fate of the US are coming to pass. Its a damn shame because it could so easily be so much better FOR EVERYONE .

While I admire up to a point ,gay activism , I also fear they are being railroaded at a critical ,dangerously unstable phase in US history . Who can say for sure how this will pan out .

Certainly in europe where I grew up , gay couples just quietly lived together and generally speaking did not suffer from any major nastiness ,EXCEPT if they lived in working class catholic communities .

The anglican style churches have always been pretty easy going and tolerant , partly because many in the priesthood are gay . The middle class has historicaly been far more tolerant than the working class . Class resentment IS A FACTOR BUT RARELY ADDMITED TO

I know in my own families past history ,we married in secret to protect ourselves and our loved ones . Nothing to do with religion ,skin colour or nationality . Just because we dare to live as free individuals . The ultimate affront to 'DECENCY' . So in a real sense , I could care less about the laws of the land when they steal justice instead of secure it .

Our battle cry is FREEDOM . always has been ,always will.

The UK and USA are rapidly degrading in to police states ,at which point ,gay rights will be the least of peoples worries . The fact that gays may be used as a whipping boy by angry disspossesed hetro's means that AA and other laws will add fuel to the fire of their anger .

As usual the elite are using the old divide and conquer trick along with religious /racial prejudice to enhance their power over all of you ,white ,black ,gay and straight . And still the people cannot see it .

Why ? Because so many think that they want to be part of the elite that they go along to get along . Humans...............



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:39 AM
link   
There simply is no compelling reason for society to take on the burden of marriage between same-sex couples.

The only compelling reason for society and government to sanction living arrangements between opposite-sex couples is to encourage stability of the relationships and to foster good homes for the off-spring of such pairings.

Something has gone terribly awry with the marriage institution in modern America, not the least of which is the fact that an apparently large portion of the society can't even define the institution of marriage or make a good argument for it at all, insofar as about half fail, anyway, and so many women just seem to get pregnant without any intention of marrying, or even attempt a lasting relationship with the father.

Maybe it's time for society, and especially government, to abandon the institution of marriage all together and see where that leads.

Why should I support other peoples sexual proclivities their consequent tax exemptions?



[edit on 2008/11/16 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by budski

Read the post just above this one, and then look at my picture to the left. I think you can see the source of my frustration and my change of views on the subject.

TheRedneck


Your point being exactly ? Or are you a little worried that having stated it plainly I will dare to question it . What is democracy without debate and diversity of opinion ?

Many christians make a pretence of tolerance to appease jesus ,only to do the very things he said they should not .

Are you a practising christian or just a church going one ?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


There is no compelling reason to vote for a president either when they are both manifestly corrupt but what can you do ?

If marriage was just about procreation you would not need it . Pregnancy does not need a marriage certificate to occur . Parents either honour their commitments or they dont .

but love ? well thats what people are really sanctifying .

Personally , I could not give a bugger . I married my wife the moment I set eyes on her , the rest is just legal BS .

but if the monkey needs a rattle to keep it quiet ...



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
But when sexual relations are concerned, the natural state of humanity is heterosexual, as is the natural state of sexuality for all species. If this were not so, the species in question would have died out long ago, as we all know it requires input from one of each gender to create offspring.
[...]
It is a restriction based on biology and tradition...


By those standards, the State would also have to prevent infertile heterosexual people to get married. Just a thought.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot

Your point being exactly ? Or are you a little worried that having stated it plainly I will dare to question it . What is democracy without debate and diversity of opinion ?

You stated things very plainly. My point, reconpilot, being this:


Originally posted by reconpilot
Okay so now the white boy majority ,having gloated about winning prop 8 ,are crying victim because of affirmitive action ?

Did I mention I was white?


The more you legislate freedom with complex contradictory laws , the more you dilute it . The constitution was written in plain simple easy to understand language to avoid its abuse by politicians ,the church and power brokers .

Then why are those on the side of gay marriage trying to read another right into it?


But as always , religion is used as a wedge to drive common sense out of the equation . Because religion is DESIGNED to do that .

Did I mention I am a Christian?


Religion , by definition is prejudiced .



But then all the christian fundamentalists believe they are 'the one true church ' Pah , its just about bums on seats and the collection plate . tax free income for ego inflated priests .



Its funny how I have to put up with christian faith in my face



No , its the attitude of people like you that made me apologise for being white everytime I met Native americans .



I DARE YOU TO ADDRESS MY STATEMENTS REGARDING YOUR WHITE RAPE OF THE NATIVES .

You wrote all that to Epinephrine, but apparently you forgot something: there are others here who share his characteristics. This is not about equal rights or equal treatment under the law; those are excuses. Maybe it was in the beginning, but after all of the hatred I am seeing, both from you and from others pushing for the same 'rights', I believe it is about vengeance.

Let me make something very clear and open:
I have never owned a slave.
I have never killed a Native American.
I did not help write Prop 8.
I do not advocate discrimination.
I take my religion seriously.


Now, if you want to dig up my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather and prosecute him, by all means, be my guest. But when you cast that wide net in the post I just quoted from, you attacked me, directly. Not only that, but you attacked who I am. How dare you even suggest I or anyone else apologize for their race?

You scream for equal rights for all, but that is not your desire. Your desire is revenge on those people and organizations who do not bend to your will. You are so full of hatred and jealousy that I believe you honestly yearn deep inside for the destruction of this country and all it holds dear.

Would you dance on the ashes of a burned church building? Would you sing praises to Heaven over a slaughter of Christians? Would you celebrate the enslavement of whites as 'due retribution'?

I believe you would, as would many others on this thread. So, until you have decided that equality is for all, not just for your group or cause, I will not support you. Ever.

Have your rights, have your civil unions. They do not affect me. But marriage is a traditional ceremony of my religious beliefs, and I have seen nothing in these types of arguments that shows me people only want 'equal rights'... they want superior rights they can use to attack their so-called oppressors. That net catches me, and I will not support any action taken directly against me.

Marriage is, and should always remain, between one man and one woman.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by reconpilot
 


This post is so blatantly racist that it speaks for itself as to what kind of angry, racist person you really are. The belief of collective racial guilt and responsibility for the actions of a few of a race's ancestors is outrageously racist. If race is more important in your mind than personal actions and personal responsibility then you, sir, are a true, undeniable racist.

And for what it's worth, my relatives didn't come to America until after WW1 and WW2, respectively, so my forefathers never owned slaves, "stole the natives' lands", lynched anyone, or were Nazis(both sides fought them). I have no ancestors that were in America before WW1. That you place blame, guilt, and culpability on me and my ancestors for actions that none of them had even the slightest connection to based solely on the fact that we are white is blatant prejudice and racism.

How do you live with so much hate and bitterness inside of you?



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I sure hope the special rights people keep on protesting, harrassing, and intimidating their opposition.

What better way to change people's minds?


Special Rights? Yes, no one is disallowing marriage to these people. They just can't marry someone of the same sex, just like you can't marry multiple people, and you can't marry your family pet.



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
YOU ARE THE PRODUCT OF YOUR FOREFATHERS . Genetically ,socially, culturaly and spiritually .

And now you fear your ill gotten privilages are gonna have to be shared out equally instead of being your 'white birthright' by virtue of succesfull conquest .

NO . Empires founded on greed never last long . They lay the seeds of destruction in their very foundation stones . The myth of freedom liberty and justice for all ( as long as your a well connected white man with guns ,money and a crooked congressman representing your best interests at the cost of someone else's ) is about to be demanded instead of granted to the ones who stole those rights from under your nose .

Your forefathers founded the US gov on the same principals as the roman empire . The Roman empire was built on slavery, brutal oppresion and a dumbed down, greedy ,vain populace who liked throwing christians to the lions .

And whats so laughable is that now your 'white superiority' is being challenged you cry like poor innocent babies and start rattling your second amendement rights around in the hope you can put the genie back in the bottle . Its to late for that now.

When Rush Limbaugh gets into an APC it will be so he can escape to his remote country hide out . Those ranting organs of right wing propaganda wont be seen for dust when the crap really hits the fan .

This is not about hate , this is about putting right the injustices meeted out by your forefathers when they allowed greed to get the better of reason .
You know ,the carpet baggers who used slavery as an excuse to steal the wealth of the south . Who financed Hitler so they could steal the british Empire .

Who lend you money through the federal reserve so that they could bankrupt you and 'owe your soul to the company store'.

I dont hate White people . I despair about what some have allowed themselves to become .

Trouble is your fresh out of excuses for a failed war in Iraq because my people have intervened . you lost your little adventure in to ossetia ,again because we refused to allow american backed grunts to commit genocide and butcher innocent women and children .

So you need someone , a soft target that cant hit back because they prefer peace to guns and pool bars . I know ,lets pick on the gays .

Truth is ,you are just stupid white republicans with guns , a chip on your shoulder and desperate to blame anybody except your selves for the crumbling of the american empire .


A house divided against itself will always fall......
jesus did have a point there didnt he .

oh ,and by the way , we have women in our front line units and they can kick ass as well as any man .



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Radiobuzz

By those standards, the State would also have to prevent infertile heterosexual people to get married. Just a thought.

I never said the tradition of marriage was to produce offspring. I said it was based on sexual relations, which are naturally heterosexual in nature, with the obvious biological aim to produce offspring.

It is a fact that biology dictates that it requires a make and a female to produce offspring. It is also a fact that such actions are inherently pleasurable, because if they were not there would be little drive to continue the species. A dog, for example, does not care about producing offspring; it cares about the fact that there is an internal drive (pleasure) to couple with a dog of the opposite gender. A large part of this drive is based on pheromones, and in an environment where similar olfactory impulses abound, it is a simple matter to understand how un-natural activity (homosexual attempts, 'humping' one's leg) can occur. It's not 'evil' or an indication of a physical malfunction, but simply a result of environmental noise.

Applying this logic to humans, we have another factor to consider: cognizance. As humans we have the ability to consciously control our sexual drives (despite what society would have us believe). We alone have the ability to understand the things which make us attracted to others for the purpose of sexual relations. Witness the entire perfume industry and the recent mass of aphrodisiac products that have been advertised on media (Axe Body Wash comes to mind). We have developed this tradition of marriage, as a religious ceremony, around these urges. If I may be allowed a philosophical diversion here, I believe the reason we have these ceremonies is due to some inner desire to somehow separate us from the rest of the animals.

Marriage has never been a prerequisite to sexual relations, and most certainly not to reproduction. In cultures where monogamy is the cultural norm, it is used as a way to publicly demonstrate adherence to this societal restriction and at the same time publicly acknowledge bonding of each party to the other.

To simply state 'why can infertile heteros marry?' is to show ignorance of the very purpose of marriage. It is very true that offspring is not a requirement for marriage, but it is inversely also true that marriage has little or nothing to do with producing offspring. It is a public declaration of acceptance of cultural normalcies. One cannot at the same time accept cultural norms while denying such. The thing that is being debated here is not the word marriage. It is the definition of marriage. And those who would change that definition apparently do not even understand what it is in the first place.

I must also state that this lack of offspring requirement has nothing to do with any possible benefits that a child reaps from being part of a traditional family structure. Practicality is different from definition, although both are aspects.

There is no law I know of which will prohibit anyone from performing a ceremony to their likings, as long as other legal boundaries (such as human sacrifice being illegal) are not violated. There is no law that says two individuals cannot claim to be 'married'. The only thing the law can do is either condone or refuse to condone the marriage.

This is thus about an attempt to force the majority in society to condone an action. Nothing more, nothing less.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join