Illinois Approves Gay Marriage!!

reply to post by spav5


That's the opposite of what I'm saying. Asking the state to approve gay marriage is accepting the state has control over marriage and we are conceding.

My point is that the state has nothing to do with any of it.

The state made "marriage" as we know it. The state made "slavery" as it was and still is. The state made the "TSA" and like obscenities.

The state creates the pain then rather than fight it people accept and beg for a little wiggle room.

The state said blacks and women couldnt vote. I didnt. You didnt. The state did. Rather than telling them to f-off we all asked and pleaded for our vote to be counted.

Slaves from the very inception of the state. Getting a lollipop here and a raise in the allowance there isnt getting any of us closer to free.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere



I agree that I did not create the state and I will assume that you didn't either. But none the less it does exist.

Not sure how we can tell them to f off..as much as I would like to.

I think it is a victory for same sex partners as it will open the way for them to be recognized in the same fashion that heterosexual marriage partners are recognized..insurance for one. Nothing is forcing them to get married because they happen to be gay..they will just have the same opportunity to do so.

They were wronged and are wronged by the state now...getting a little piece back is not detrimental to all of our causes.

Unless you have a way to eradicate this monster we call the state...We all have to work inside their rules. [Lest we be labeled terrorist].

Even if you do have a way for us to shed the monster..until it is shed, we have to take the small victories that we can get.

Peace

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Brood

 

It's absolutely a victory for control.

Oh, well... since you said it twice...

I guess disallowing a man to see his husband (whether the State allows that definition or not, as far as he is concerned) on his death bed because he is not legally related to him is absolutely a victory for liberty. Because family law is a fallacy to human rights...?

A victory for liberty would be kicking the state out of all unions. The state has no business sticking its nose in the middle of consenting adults and their god. Marriage as long as it involves the state says the state is equal to or even more powerful than your god or whatever your supreme authority may be.

Hang on, I'm about to go sanctify my union with my partner here before my god but I have to swing by the town hall right quick and make sure they're okay with it.

The issues surrounding family rights are fought against by the gay community all of the time. Wonder why they don't get much help from the heteros .

This "gay marriage" distraction just says to the state that we're okay with asking them for permission before we wed unto god. We just want a tiny bit more leeway.....if that pleases the state.

I'm sure the gay community is super concerned about how they stand under your version of your god. Nothing to do with their rights with eachother in their life as a family together. Surely they are the last people

A few generations of this indoctrinations has apparently wiped out the very concept of liberty in a bunch of you. Now it's "liberty as approved of by the state." In this sense the state and "god" have become interchangeable. Not a good thing to have a bunch of bureaucrats define the limits of your existence.

If you are so against family laws... There's a section about it in most "pride" parades. Unless, of course, you're too afraid of catching it. Or of being "subjected to looking at" the nudists (who are very dominantly heterosexual in population) or drag queens (likewise) that are pushing their (somehow) homosexual agenda (Or maybe you just don't understand this and want to protect your children from understanding it?). No, it's "those damned 'totalitarian asshats!', always fighting for their rights and oppression from bureaucratic legislation and such! They are in the wrong! Good on me!"

If your fight is against marriage laws, the gay community is not your enemy. I don't suggest go around telling them they don't know what they're doing because they want to be in the operating room with their life partner, or share a room in a nursing home. They had their own strategy for addressing their injustices, if you have a different one then bring it to the table, don't tell them theirs is wrong just because it doesn't encompass protection for your personal experiences with marital law.

reply to post by Brood

Your comments on hetro males raping boys are rediculous!
You do realise once a hetrosexual male has intercourse with another male he ceases to be
hetrosexual regardless of age or whether it is concensual.

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by Brood

 

Your comments on hetro males raping boys are rediculous!
You do realise once a hetrosexual male has intercourse with another male he ceases to be
hetrosexual regardless of age or whether it is concensual.

Tell that to penitentiaries everywhere.

And Gay4Pay pornography.

And people whose sexual desires change.

And victims of rape that suffer permanent psychological disorders if not rectal injuries.

Sorry, heterosexual men are more prone to being perverts than anyone else. Why should we judge the entire group based on that small statistic? Pretty sure there's a word for this.

You're spewing nonsense.

You shall not pass.

reply to post by Brood


I've brought the alternative to the table. Keep the state out of marriage altogether.

You mention the common "hospital visit" scenario. There's no law. That's hospital policy if it exists at all in the given hospital. If you want a hospital to change it's policy you don't beg the state to allow you to ask for permission to marry.

Lay off the homophobic accusations. For all you know I am gay or have gay family and friends who believe liberty for all is preferable to this sort of state approval tripe

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by Brood

 

Your comments on hetro males raping boys are rediculous!
You do realise once a hetrosexual male has intercourse with another male he ceases to be
hetrosexual regardless of age or whether it is concensual.

It would be nice if you could back this up with some kind of proof.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Brood

 

I've brought the alternative to the table. Keep the state out of marriage altogether.

And that's great, I'm saying there's no reason to call everyone "totalitarian asshats" for using the only system offered to them right now and tell them that they are in the wrong because they are fighting for what they believe in instead of what you believe in.

You mention the common "hospital visit" scenario. There's no law. That's hospital policy if it exists at all in the given hospital. If you want a hospital to change it's policy you don't beg the state to allow you to ask for permission to marry.

Right, but this problem, along with several others, would not have existed in the first place if not for gay marriage prohibition. So now you get huffy at them for seeking that because you have your own agenda? If you want someone to fight for you, why go around throwing stones at them?

Lay off the homophobic accusations. For all you know I am gay or have gay family and friends who believe liberty for all is preferable to this sort of state approval tripe

What do I care if you're gay or not . Lots of gay people think pride is ridiculous, too and I for one think they don't have a clue. Anyways, that really had nothing to do with you -- just poking fun at how people react to the pride events and civil laws concerning gay people even though they are very productive for the causes that they support.

reply to post by Brood


So in reverse, you are doing the same thing.........sticks and stones my friend. However, murdering a thread? Really, is that possible? I thought debates had two sides, or does only yours matter? This had no place being placed ahead of other far more important issues in todays world, glad they could skip all of those and get to this.

Issues like these should be put to the vote of the people.

Goverment needs to stay out of the bedroom.

reply to post by SWCCFAN


True, but the poeple vote, the homosexuals lose, it goes to court gets overturned and then forced upon the populace anyways. Ah well, like I said, I'm glad that's the most important thing to be dealt with, it means the msm is wrong and the country doesn't have more pressing problems.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
True, but the poeple vote, the homosexuals lose, it goes to court gets overturned and then forced upon the populace anyways..

Minority rights aren't supposed to be put to a vote.

Majority rule, minority rights.

ATTENTION!!!!!

The topic if this thread is Gay Marriage in Illinois
It is not about criminal acts such as rape and pedophilia.

Please return to the topic now.
Further personal attack, barbs, name-calling and off-topic comments will be warned and/or removed.

Courtesy Is Mandatory


Please Stay on Topic

Marriage, marriage is a religious action that has been hijacked by the state in an attempts to gain more money. The arguments have always been there, from the different social issues. The question ultimately should be, is there room in the United States of America for a second class citizen? The answer has always been no, every time a social issue has come up, where it deals with equal rights across the board where every one is treated equally. Something like this, is and is not a news worthy story. The reason why it is, as one poster put out, it is in the heart of the bible belt and a step towards equalization. But in this day and age, is it really not something to make national news, as there are many more pressing matters that we should pay attention to. As another poster had pointed out, about incest marriage, and other stereotypes , that is really not a good thing to mention, as it is the lowest slam, as it is insulting to both sides, no one should ever sink that low as to make references to such. But there are other issues that are needing to be resolved, as things are often never thought of or considered, and are those who have either gone through a sex change or is a hermaphrodites. Do you deny them the right to be happy, all cause one person was born a genetic male and the other was born with both male and female sex organs?
But there should be the concept of equal treatment under the law in the country, that is ultimately the bottom line in all of the arguments where it is a social issue. Before it can be answered then you have to ask the question, taking all aspects out of it, using non labeling terms, the following: Is there a difference between a marriage and a civil union? Does a civil union contain the same rights, protections and privileges under the law? Does it matter if 2 people agree to live together, sharing the same expenses? Is there a difference in the eyes of the law, on how the law treats an opposite sex couple, that is a man and a woman, and that of a same sex couple, say that of 2 men or 2 women?
If the answer is yes, then it sets up a system where you have one group being given preferential treatment, above another group. There can be no difference in how we are treated under the law, nor should there be. Time and time again, the tests of this has come up in front of the people, and the courts have ruled, where there is a definite and visible difference, that such is unconstitutional and the law is thus invalid.
If you think about it, ultimately what most gay couples want is the same treatment under the law. Society asks that they keep their bedroom activities private, that is acceptable; go to work, like everyone else; pay taxes and be productive members of society. The problem is that the law is unbalanced when it affords the rights, protections, and privileges to one group and not the other, where that is very visible and thus sets the second group as a second class citizen, legalized discrimination. The court and the law have to look at the base line questions, taking everything out of the mix, and boil it down to the most simplest of terms, to determine if it is or not.

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
So glad that's the most important thing to consider and worry about passing with the state of the country today.............ah well, nothing new, vote for the liberal causes and let the rest of the state/country go to hell.

Most governments can focus on mroe than ONE concern of the citizens, you know. I am sure the government of Illinois is also working on many other projects as well.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Brood

 

It's absolutely a victory for control. A victory for liberty would be kicking the state out of all unions. The state has no business sticking its nose in the middle of consenting adults and their god. Marriage as long as it involves the state says the state is equal to or even more powerful than your god or whatever your supreme authority may be.

Hang on, I'm about to go sanctify my union with my partner here before my god but I have to swing by the town hall right quick and make sure they're okay with it.

This "gay marriage" distraction just says to the state that we're okay with asking them for permission before we wed unto god. We just want a tiny bit more leeway.....if that pleases the state.

A few generations of this indoctrinations has apparently wiped out the very concept of liberty in a bunch of you. Now it's "liberty as approved of by the state." In this sense the state and "god" have become interchangeable. Not a good thing to have a bunch of bureaucrats define the limits of your existence.

I suppose we could always roll the clock back to medieval superstition and say it's okay to be a slave now because when I die I'll be free?

Maybe I misunderstood your position. You are saying you don't care who marries who, just that the state has no business in the union of anyone, correct? Well I can't argue with that, but until that is the way the country is run I will be happy gays can get married in Illinios now.