Same-Sex marriages banned ?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
Is that directed at me Valhal? If so, I never said I wanted your approval...nor do I need it. I couldn't give two #s about what you approve of or disapprove of.

Now as far as making me a second class citizen in your state, that is when your approval or disapproval has gone too far. I'm not saying you don't have that right, but I also have the same right to try and change this law.

What's next? People who have a mental illness banned from marriage? Mentally retarded? Deaf, blind, sterile? Where are the bannings going to end?


OOOPS misrepresentation of the law! There have been no bannings...there has been the rejection of using the state marriage license (reads "certification") on same sex marriages. You can get married all you want. You don't get the state's license (certification).

I do not consider anyone a "second class citizen".




posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by RedOctober90
They deserve marriage rights.. no reason to discriminate agains them.


I'm not - they would get exactly the same rights given by marriage but their union but be named 'State Union' thus keeping the christian extremeists happy because homosexuls won't be able to marry but homosexuals will have a equal union.


Ahh.. good deal there.

But I don't think we should have to make the christian extremists happy.. I'd rather see them roll around screaming and kicking there pathetic facist feet.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Originally posted by RedOctober90
They deserve marriage rights.. no reason to discriminate agains them.


I'm not - they would get exactly the same rights given by marriage but their union but be named 'State Union' thus keeping the christian extremeists happy because homosexuls won't be able to marry but homosexuals will have a equal union.


I agree with this but believe it should be expanded further to include all people, straight and gay.

I noted earlier in this thread that neither the State or the Federal government has any business regulating marriage between two consenting adults. Marriages are in fact, civil unions, recorded to protect property rights and various legal interests.

Get married in church - record your legal union with the State. Keep the two separated.

B



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by MacMerdin


OOOPS misrepresentation of the law! There have been no bannings...there has been the rejection of using the state marriage license (reads "certification") on same sex marriages. You can get married all you want. You don't get the state's license (certification).

I do not consider anyone a "second class citizen".


ban

n 1: a decree that prohibits something [syn: prohibition, proscription] 2: 100 bani equal 1 leu 3: 100 bani equal 1 leu 4: an official prohibition or edict against something [syn: banning, forbiddance, forbidding] 5: a bachelor's degree in nursing [syn: Bachelor of Arts in Nursing, BAN] v 1: prohibit especially by legal means or social pressure; "Smoking is banned in this building" 2: forbid the public distribution of ( a movie or a newspaper) [syn: censor] 3: ban from a place of residence, as for punishment [syn: banish] 4: expel from a community or group [syn: banish, ostracize, ostracise, shun, cast out, blackball]

Wasn't the thread title "gay marriage banned?" Therefore, I had every right to use the word banned. I live in DC, I don't know the semantics of your backwoods home states laws....sorry. Furthermore....by your definition of rejecting something sounds like a ban on it to me.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 02:06 PM
link   
The law does not prohibit a same sex union - therefore it is not a ban. It does deny a same sex union a state certification as a legitimate marriage in the eyes of the state government system, which is not a ban, its a refusal to certify.

I did not create the title of this thread...so I can't help you there.



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   
So it is still a ban on same-sex unions being legal in the eyes of the law then, is it not? Either way, it is semantecs on a word.....just like marriage and civil union.

You still didn't answer the question though. Should prisoners who have raped, murdered etc. not be allow to have this state certificate of a union either? Where does this end......once any non desirable can't have a state certificate?



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
So it is still a ban on same-sex unions being legal in the eyes of the law then, is it not? Either way, it is semantecs on a word.....just like marriage and civil union.

You still didn't answer the question though. Should prisoners who have raped, murdered etc. not be allow to have this state certificate of a union either? Where does this end......once any non desirable can't have a state certificate?


It's a denial of licensure, not a ban, and not semantics by the way.

How the heck would I know where it ends...the majority of the general populace in a state would be the one to answer that, now wouldn't they?

What makes you think a state couldn't pass a law that a repeated wife-beater wouldn't be able to obtain a marriage license in the future? Serious, what makes you think they couldn't do that if the majority wanted to?



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall


What makes you think a state couldn't pass a law that a repeated wife-beater wouldn't be able to obtain a marriage license in the future? Serious, what makes you think they couldn't do that if the majority wanted to?


Thanks for proving my point that I'm trying to make. Right now a repeated wife beater can marry whom he wants as long as it's to one woman. Yet, I can't marry (receive the but-bang certificate as you call it) the man I love? And I'm not considered a second class citizen? BS!!!!!

[edit on 3-11-2004 by MacMerdin]



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
How do we have the right to tell someone who they can love and marry? I think its a shame that so many people are so insecure with themselves that they voted yes on this

So kidfinger from your response am I to understand you would support NAMBLA, and or pedophilia?



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Did John Kerry not say he wanted to let the states decide this issue?? That's what the states did. The people voted and I know some of you don't like that.

But, this is much, much better than having a state-level judge in Mass. defining marriage for the rest of the country.

Following the issue in Ohio, I'll only speak for my state: to think that this was a distraction from real issues, or any thinking along those lines, is laughable. Politicians wouldn't touch this issue with a 10ft pole. They all completely stayed away from this and many people were surprised to see this issue on the ballot, it wasn't widely advertised. Also, there was no opposition to the issue, consider that. No one came out against it. Why is that I ask?



posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by Kidfinger
How do we have the right to tell someone who they can love and marry? I think its a shame that so many people are so insecure with themselves that they voted yes on this

So kidfinger from your response am I to understand you would support NAMBLA, and or pedophilia?


Man, thats just stupid! You know damn good and well that I ment between 2 concenting adults. Are you a sicko? Why would you even bring up a pedophile? I take great offence to this as I have a 6 year old daughter, and I guarentee that she is more open minded than half the people on this thread. Take your childish insults somewhere else. If you have a serious question about my replies to this post, then ask and I wil answer to the best of my abilitites.


IBM

posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Yes im not clear on the issue either. Hopefully their is either a court ruling or a constitutional amendment that will outlaw this activity. Once Bush puts a few judges on the bench it will hopefully happen.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by IBM
Yes im not clear on the issue either. Hopefully their is either a court ruling or a constitutional amendment that will outlaw this activity. Once Bush puts a few judges on the bench it will hopefully happen.



Why outlaw? It's not even really affecting your life.

Your suffering from the usual homophobia.. fear of people you don't even know.

"Marriage" is not universal. Ah but yes, you conservatives think your christian ideals are the only true ideals.

I and most people probably wouldn't want to live in a christian theocracy.

Like most conservatives, you have this paranoid delusion that everyone is coming after you.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by RedOctober90]

[edit on 4-11-2004 by RedOctober90]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Sigghhhhhh....so much arguement over irrelevancies, my head feels like it will soon expode.

God, majority rules, etc etc....it seems to me that people are forgetting the uppermost concept of Nunya.

The definition of Nunya, for those not in the know means quite simply:

NUNYA #IN' BUSINESS !!!!!!!!

Why some people can't get it in their heads that what other people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of their business is beyond me.

Quite frankly, as far as the votes went in this direction we are going backwards instead of forwards.

A sad day today was indeed.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Monitoring an exchange between keholmes and kid,
kid,


How do we have the right to tell someone who they can love and marry? I think its a shame that so many people are so insecure with themselves that they voted yes on this

keholmes,


So kidfinger from your response am I to understand you would support NAMBLA, and or pedophilia?

Kid,


Man, thats just stupid! You know damn good and well that I ment between 2 concenting adults. Are you a sicko? Why would you even bring up a pedophile?


KID, you miss the point and have fallen into the NAMBLA trap that is often misunderstood.
Kehlomes is not a sicko, and is not trying to equate gays to either of these groups, nor promote illegal acts.

The POINT is...which special interest minority group is next to try and force their agenda onto the democratic culture thru devisive means, illegal tactics, and by demonization of opposition?

The example groups "NAMBLA" and "pedophiles" are used to ask this question because almost 100% of the time EVERYONE aggrees that they are ideals that our culture should NOT accept into society.
Yet it seems that in the most recent 11 examples of democratic principals being used to accept/reject the gay marriage idea, that it is somehow ok for the pro gays to use these devisive, illegal (the california case), and demonizating methods to get what they want...
If we wouldnt put up with these tactics from NAMBLA, why would we from ANY special interest minority group including gays?

If using our democracy, NAMBLA was somehow able to manage to get a majority of voters to pass laws favorable to their cause, then like them or not, we'd have to acknowlege them. (until we could reverse the majority)

RedOct still clinging to lies says,


It's not even really affecting your life.
Red is trying to hide behind the LIE that "noone is being harmed".
Red, how can you even begin to say this logically?
i asked on page ONE of this thread how anyone could say no harm is being done when 11000 things that gay marriage affects havent been discussed/examined to know where/if harm is occuring. Simply the fact that more couples would suddenly become able to get the marriage tax credit would drop overall income tax revenue used to support our society...this isnt a direct affect to everyone?

Red claims,


Your suffering from the usual homophobia.. fear of people you don't even know.
Back to devicive name calling as a support tactic? Pathetic.
We are suffering from a special interest minority group, its devicive attacks, its demonization of opposition, its attempted THEFT of our societal right to cultural self determination either thru outright means (california case) or thru basically saying our culture cant use democracy to determine which values it wishes to uphold.
Now comming from a self proclaimed SOCIALIST, i understand that you will NEVER say use DEMOCRACY.
Anyone else want to become a socialist, theocracy, dictatorship, communist or any other form of governance here other than the DEMOCRACY we are founded upon, just see RED. We KNOW his reasons for not supporting democracy he's a socialist.

KayEm tries to get back into the fray by spewing a fallicy...again,


Why some people can't get it in their heads that what other people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of their business is beyond me.
Its very simple, ill try to not use big words here....
Its because when you leave your private bedroom, and go to the courthouse to demmand the culture gives you a special interest minority group ENTITLEMENT hand out, it becomes a PUBLIC matter. This is NOT the government trying to force its way into your bedroom, its you trying to force your bedroom onto the government/culture at large.
A democratic society has the right to set its boundaries for acceptable/not acceptable behaivior within its jurisdiction. Unless your ready to toss out the democracy and adopt socialism like Red...are you?
I cant get it in my head why people think their private bedroom extends to the courthouse steps.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia
KayEm tries to get back into the fray by spewing a fallicy...again,

Why some people can't get it in their heads that what other people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of their business is beyond me.

Its very simple, ill try to not use big words here....
Its because when you leave your private bedroom, and go to the courthouse to demmand the culture gives you a special interest minority group ENTITLEMENT hand out, it becomes a PUBLIC matter. This is NOT the government trying to force its way into your bedroom, its you trying to force your bedroom onto the government/culture at large.
A democratic society has the right to set its boundaries for acceptable/not acceptable behaivior within its jurisdiction. Unless your ready to toss out the democracy and adopt socialism like Red...are you?
I cant get it in my head why people think their private bedroom extends to the courthouse steps.


Please feel free to use however many big words you wish, Caz.

The fact remains, it's none of YOUR business or however many uber-religious, majority people voted what people do within their own homes.

And yes, I've been away awhile but I'm BACK.....so suck it up and move on like a good ATSer, willya ?

Regarding your comment about Red. The answer is YES. Does that satisfy you ? Somehow I doubt it, but you asked and I answered and if you don't like it I guess it's tough titty.

[Edited on 4-11-2004 by KayEm]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Kay,
welcome back! You know things were dry around here without you.

where is the boundary between your private bedroom and the courthouse exactly? At what point does the culture owe you a special interest minority group entitlement, meaning when does this become public enough that the culture has to give you something?

Hmm, well, you need to argue no further if you side with socialism over the democracy that is in use here, spelled out in our constitution and laws.
You are not for democracy...thats all you had to say..what took you so long?

You do not agree that a democratic culture has the right to self determination in saying what behaiviors are/are not accepted.
(any culture really but democracy is seemingly most fair to the people)
why waste time debating the somantics of if gays are "good/bad" as you feel that the minority should mandate things to the majority.

If you dont like the democracy being used here in the USA, participaton in a democracy is voluntary. Perhaps there is a socialist government somewhere where gay mariage is mandated by the government as accepted where you could go.
Otherwise
please dont attempt to steal away my democracy and replace it with socialism....this is America, not France. We, the majority here, like our democracy, and the way we've defined ourselves culturally....welcome to the minority...enjoy.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by CazMedia]



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia

Its because when you leave your private bedroom, and go to the courthouse to demmand the culture gives you a special interest minority group ENTITLEMENT hand out, it becomes a PUBLIC matter. This is NOT the government trying to force its way into your bedroom, its you trying to force your bedroom onto the government/culture at large.
A democratic society has the right to set its boundaries for acceptable/not acceptable behaivior within its jurisdiction. Unless your ready to toss out the democracy and adopt socialism like Red...are you?
I cant get it in my head why people think their private bedroom extends to the courthouse steps.


I think someone has finally gotten the point accross about the difference between privacy and forced compliance to a political agenda. Good job and good explaination. This defining amendment to these state's statutes does not ban anyone doing anything in the privacy of their bedroom as long as they are both consenting adults. What it does is prevent a deviant,attention seeking, wreckless lifestyle from being forced on the rest and majority of society.

This is not about a lifestyle of decorating sense, comradery between same sexes or anything else. Its about and will always boil down to the sexual act...and thats why you will never sell it to mainstream America.

With all the propaghanda thats hit us over the last decade in media like sitcoms and reality shows dealing with it, would you not have thought that if that pitch was going to work, it would have already taken? Sure, to portray gays as having a fabulous sense of humor and witty and nice and just someone wanting to live their life is all well and good. But could we not do the same in TV for Castro? Would that change who he really is or what he does and stands for?

You all call American people sheeple and I agree with it sometimes but you have to give credit where its due, people have not been distracted by the enormous amount of lies on this subject which have been piped into their homes weekly for 10 plus years. As a society, we will not be forced to comply with this political agenda by these means. Its time to re-think and re-tool the effort so to speak. We will not be forced to foot the bill for health issues that arise from a wreckless lifestyle. So, in the end, it all comes down to money. It always does. Not religion like so many of you tend to want to blame this "bigotry" on...just money.

I've asked everyone I know who voted yes to this amendment in my state why they are against gay marraige and the one and only answer I get is the healthcare issue. If we are forced to give those insurance who cannot afford it via medicaid and medicare, then their medical issues should be accidental and not the result of self-inflicted wreckless behavior. That goes for infections from peircing genitalia to cancer from smoking and any other thing you can think of where its known that an unneccesary act will result in health issues. It all goes back to responsibilty going along with liberties.

Too many think they are entitled to such things for no more a reason than being born. They do not look at these programs as help that doesn't really have to be there but is there because we care for those who cannot care for themselves.

Now, here comes the arguments that healthcare isn't available for all but it is. I know many people bitching about the cost of healthcare driving new SUVs and live in state of the art homes. Most of us only have so many resources. Its up to each to form our priorities.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Caz, you can give us as many speaches as you want. You can attempt to sound like a guiding voice in the night for the rest of your time here, but your unwillingness to answer even one of my original questions just says to me and everyone else reading this, that you have no desire to here the other side of the story. The fact is, everyone is not being treated equal. If a group of people is not being treated as equals in EVERY way, then we are undermining our own society and it is doomed for failure. Of course, with Bush still in office, I expect to be eating a neuclear bomb for breakfast some day soon, but thats another thread.

I think YOU are the one who misunderstood Keyholmes sarcastic remarks. And as I said to him. It is between 2 concenting adults, so it should be none of our business. If Keyholes had a valid point, he would have replied to my reply to him. He didnt, and that tells me he was just trying to start something.

You also said Red was resulting to name calling by saying some of you were homophobic. Well, I will have to agree with Red. This is not a derogatory comment. It simply means that you are unwilling to accept what you do not understand. That statment is true, and describes a few people on this thread.

So, no matter how well you write you speaches to cover your disdain for homosexuals, it still shows through and is seen for what it truly is. Homophobia.

One last thing. Another reason this is wrong is it starts to bring church and state together. I guess you think this is a good idea though.



posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
No its actually not discrimination.
Gay men have just as much right to marry women as I do.
Gay men can not marry men, and neither can I a straight man.
All men are alowed to marry women and vice versa.
N men are allowed to marry other men and no women are allowed to marry ther women.
Its perfectly fair we all live by the same rules.





top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join