"Gay Marriage" apparently not all it was cracked up to be

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
let's compromise

Compromise? Compromise on Equal Rights?

Would you? Would you really?

This is a secular government. We have a secular government marriage license. It is a government contract - - that every single adult human has a right to.

Religion has no say in the matter.

Want me to really open up a can of worms???


I feel a need to qualify this statement first, lol, I'm just playing devil's advocate here OK

Let me first say my father was Hispanic, so don't take my next comment as being racially motivated.

But,

If gay marriage is legalized in Texas, how many Mexicans are going to magically become gay to gain citizenship through false gay marriages?

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
Want me to really open up a can of worms???


I feel a need to qualify this statement first, lol, I'm just playing devil's advocate here OK

Let me first say my father was Hispanic, so don't take my next comment as being racially motivated.

But,

If gay marriage is legalized in Texas, how many Mexicans are going to magically become gay to gain citizenship through false gay marriages?

That argument is silly and irrational. Whats to stop them from marrying women? Moreover, any marriage related green card is vetted. Simply getting married doesnt grant citizenship.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

Are you trying to be argumentative ot ignorant on purpose?

I can tell you are a smart enough individual to understand what I'm saying.

In the United States the authority over seeing marriage licenses has always been the individual States.

The current law in the United States give individual States the authority to issue marriage licenses.

If certain States laws are found to be unconstitutional then the Federal Government can change that law.

Since it's been 45 years since the interracial marriage issue made it to the Supreme Court.

Comparing interracial marriage to same sex marriage is obviously not so clear cut.

The burden of proof is on you the prove that homosexuality is the same as skin pigmentation or racial ethnicity.

Definition of Discrimination:

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.

en.wikipedia.org...

Discrimination can be against any group or category. Why did it take so long for interracial marriage to be ruled unconstitutional after it was found unconstitutional to deny women the vote? Why did it take so long for the civil rights movement to take hold after slavery was abolished? Why don't all injustices of discrimination be ruled unconstitutional at the same time? This isn't the way life works. It doesn't mean that each issue I have listed can't be compared as similar acts of discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
If gay marriage is legalized in Texas, how many Mexicans are going to magically become gay to gain citizenship through false gay marriages?

And I live in Arizona on the Mexican border.

I don't even have a response for that. Grasping for straws - maybe.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz

if gay couples can get the rights they want AND keep tensions down between homophobic people, then call it a civil union, not marriage.

gays get the rights they want, and religious people keep their "sanctity". win win.

if you disagree with my logic, then the issue isn't about rights. if it isn't about rights, then there is no issue.

Well said, this really has been my point the entire time.

Believe me, this would be a compromise from both sides of the issue. In fact the religious side would probably still fight it. But people like me would actually be willing to vote for same sex civil union. You would not be sacrificing any civil rights. You would showing that the gay community is willing to give some respect to the religious community and others who do not agree with same sex "marriage".

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
i'm fine with homosexuals, and i have two gay best friends.

personally, i think it is wrong, but personally i think the best color is blue. i love my friends and i wish them the best.

lets be completely honest. gay couples want the same rights that straight couples get. let's compromise (not for my personal sake, but for the country at large, as most religious folk are stubborn)

if gay couples can get the rights they want AND keep tensions down between homophobic people, then call it a civil union, not marriage.

gays get the rights they want, and religious people keep their "sanctity". win win.

if you disagree with my logic, then the issue isn't about rights. if it isn't about rights, then there is no issue.

So tell me why blacks should get the same rights as whites. Why weren't blacks satisfied with sitting at the back of the bus? They got to ride on the bus, so what's the big deal? Why couldn't blacks be happy having their own separate water fountain and bathrooms (even though they weren't usually maintained as well as white fountains and white bathrooms)? Couldn't they have just kept tensions down by accepting what was given to them? They get the same bus rides, they get water fountains and bathrooms, AND the whites don't have to mix with them. Win/win, right? (something tells me not to be too surprised if you actually agreed with that hogwash)

You see if the Federal Government takes over the rights of individual States to issue marriages licenses and then legalizes same sex marriage in all States.

It will then set a new precedent. In the gay community gaining their "civil right of marriage". You take away the rights and the power of the State. Which we all know is a dangerous thing.

Trust me, the gay community does not want this to go to the supreme court. And it would be even worse should they win. It will just be one step closer to the North American Union and a police state. One World Government.

Be careful what you wish for. At least don't be blind to the problems concerning taking away the rights of indiviual States to create their own laws and vote on their own local public policies.

reply to post by kaylaluv

So tell me why blacks should get the same rights as whites. Why weren't blacks satisfied with sitting at the back of the bus? They got to ride on the bus, so what's the big deal?

Actually, that issue is 45 years old and if you want to keep using it then the burden of proof is on you to show that homosexuality is some how the same a racial ethnicity.

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


Again-states do NOT have the right to take away the individuals rights without due cause. Everyone starts with the same rights. That is the point of this.

You have made things up to defend your point of view, appealed to religious sentiment, made similar slippery slope arguments of animals, included racism in the forms of mexicans using gay marriage to get green cards and now its "Gay marriage will result in everyone being in a fema death camp"...

How long ago exactly did you realize that you didn't actually have a rational argument for this?

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


1 out of 14 is a lower divorce rate than hetrosexual marriage

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
You see if the Federal Government takes over the rights of individual States to issue marriages licenses and then legalizes same sex marriage in all States.

It will then set a new precedent. In the gay community gaining their "civil right of marriage". You take away the rights and the power of the State. Which we all know is a dangerous thing.

Trust me, the gay community does not want this to go to the supreme court. And it would be even worse should they win. It will just be one step closer to the North American Union and a police state. One World Government.

Be careful what you wish for. At least don't be blind to the problems concerning taking away the rights of indiviual States to create their own laws and vote on their own local public policies.

A state CAN create their own laws and vote on their own local public policies, UNLESS those laws and policies are found to be unconstitutional. Unless you are ok with your state enacting a law that says it will now become a communist state...There has to be some checks and balances.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

So tell me why blacks should get the same rights as whites. Why weren't blacks satisfied with sitting at the back of the bus? They got to ride on the bus, so what's the big deal?

Actually, that issue is 45 years old and if you want to keep using it then the burden of proof is on you to show that homosexuality is some how the same a racial ethnicity.

See my previous post on the definition of discrimination. Discrimination doesn't have to be only against a racial ethnicity.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
You see if the Federal Government takes over the rights of individual States to issue marriages licenses and then legalizes same sex marriage in all States.

I was just reading about this recently. About state rights. And actually they are limited.

They have rights up to a point. State rights are not "carved in stone".

States can not deny rights based on race. Federal law takes priority. The "writing is on the wall".

reply to post by Annee

The "writing is on the wall".

"The lunatic is in your head"

Another brick in the wall

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew

If gay marriage is legalized in Texas, how many Mexicans are going to magically become gay to gain citizenship through false gay marriages?

Seriously, is that even a realistic issue? I dont see IRS recognizing same sex marriages for citizenship qualification in this lifetime, or the next, regardless of any federal recognition in our lifetime! Does anyone here actually do? I say dream on until it happens... gay marriage is still up in the air as it is, state to state.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

1 out of 14 is a lower divorce rate than hetrosexual marriage

That does say volumes, if true. what is the heterosexual divorce rate, in comparison??

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
reply to post by Annee

 

The "writing is on the wall".

"The lunatic is in your head"

Another brick in the wall

Is this what you do when you have no real answer?

reply to post by Annee


No real answer to what ?

What is the question?

Looked to me like you made a statment. Gave your opinion.

That was just my reaction. If you have an actual question go ahead and ask and I will try to answer it.

Oops I meant INS not IRS

but same difference anyways, prolly!

reply to post by ignant


Now they got an agency called ICE so don't feel bad.

Hard to keep track now days IRS, INS, ICE, FBI CIA, NWO

www.ice.gov...