Page 2 of 7 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#26928 - 07/08/09 02:41 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
hellbent666
Unregistered



Nemesis,
It was your choice in the first place to get married or were conned into it by your ex-wife. Women are quick to play house, and unfortunately it makes sense because the biological clock is ticking away and they only have a certain time frame to accomplish being a mom. Being a mom typically means settling down with a good man and entering into marriage. I've seen plenty of couples do the whole parental thing with no legal attachments whatsoever but I guess this is a matter of taste. I'm not into social status, I'm into personal accomplishments. I also rarely like being claimed in public unless the woman is of high caliber and I'm actually proud to be her man. Marriage is a form of materialism, and I despise materialism.

My wiccan ex made interesting vows with her husband. It was not indefinite, there was a stipulation that said she would remain married unless something made it impossible for her to honor her vows, basically leaving room for a divorce, only if necessary. That's okay I guess because at least she's being realistic. That until death do you part section of the vows are enough to make even strong men pass out in the aisle.

Top
#26929 - 07/08/09 07:16 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Nemesis Offline
senior member


Registered: 09/01/07
Posts: 2175
Loc: US
Excuse me, Señor, but I AM a woman. And I can tell you, I have no desire to play house, nor bear a child. I hate kids. Even as a child, I had no desire to bear and raise another human being. I have too many selfish pursuits in my life that having a child would interfere with.

Concerning the issue of divorce, I was speaking on behalf of my father, my friends and my relatives who have been fucked over by women who simply got bored. The majority of divorces these days are instigated by the wife. She either feels suffocated/trapped in a loveless marriage, is being abused (those tend to stay with their men, however--Stockholm Syndrome), or she has ambitions that her husband does not share. I am wary of marriage for the above reasons. I do not want to become another statistic, which is what I tell my relatives when they hassle me about why I haven't "married that boyfriend of mine".

Just taking the time to learn from your mistakes, mom.;)
_________________________
Nothing is sacred.

Top
#26931 - 07/08/09 08:50 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Nemesis]
Jester Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/05/09
Posts: 62
Loc: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Seems this has turned from a discussion about gay marriage to a discussion on marriage in general. I recently got out of a 2 and 1/2 year relationship with a girl I really loved. I would have married her, but I would have married her because it's what she wanted. I'm normally not a marriage kind of person. I think a relationship can be successful without having to go through the ceremony, the wasting of money etc. If her and I got married I don't think it would have been any different, we lived together, so I got a taste of married life so to speak (although, others have said that it is different.)

I don't feel marriage is necessary and I hate those who jump into marriage because, "It's about time we did," or whatever excuse people come up with. I'm definitely not a marriage expert, but no thanks. I entertained the idea with my ex, only because I loved her. Now I can honestly say I plan to never get married. Relationship with someone? Sure, it's possible. Marriage? Kids? No thank you.

Edit. As well, Nemesis, you rule, a lot of people break under the pressure of their family and rush into things, glad to see you are smart enough to listen to your head. \:\)


Edited by Jester (07/08/09 08:53 AM)
_________________________
"...And I thought my jokes were bad."

Top
#26933 - 07/08/09 09:07 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
LOL! Do you want websters definition of marriage, or are we going to go around in circles like Socrates did, getting nowhere?


That is a one liner cop out. Firstly, it was a one liner which we do not do here. You have been warned. Secondly, it did not answer the question. I asked quite a few specific questions and this is your answer? Weak.

Never the less, clearly you and TC need a little civics lesson. You see... under Western systems of govt you actually need to DEFINE things with WORDS in order to enact them in law. Get it?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#26934 - 07/08/09 09:33 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
Saligia Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/03/09
Posts: 37
Loc: Manchester, England
In my eyes marriage is predominantly about financial security and ritual.
People want a stable relationship and a stable household, they want to know that if they break up they aren't going to be left homeless and destitute because they looked after the house while their partner earned a living (sometimes a divorce causes these problems anyway, but I think in general it leaves both people with something they can use to get "back on track". At least this is what it should provide). In my eyes this sort of financial security should be available to everybody, not just heterosexual couples.
As for the ritual element of marriage I think that the couple in question need to respect the beliefs of others. If a religious organisation considers homesexuality a sin then the couple should know not to ask them to perform a marriage for them. It would be a bit like a christian couple going to a Satanic/Wiccan organisation and asking to be married in the name of jesus christ. Personally I don't understand why certain religions take such a hostile stance against homosexuality, but unfortunately they do and it makes no sense (in my opinion) for a homosexual couple to go anywhere near them, let alone ask to be married by them.
In short, I personally believe that governments should allow access to the financial benefits (or problems?) of marriage to couples of any sexual orientation. However I would argue that finding the appropriate ritual element of marriage should be down to the couple in question.

Top
#26949 - 07/08/09 04:08 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Saligia]
hellbent666
Unregistered



Here's to you Fist ;\)
Marriage...
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

So in Socrates' search for forms this confines itself to a man and woman entering into a legal commitment. They really don't share one solid "thing", but it will suffice to say that ole' webster hasn't gotten PC on us just yet. Also, you couldn't engage Socrates in any kind of conversation without him asking a boat load of questions with rarely any answers. I do know my philosophy sir.

Nemesis, sorry for the assumption. You just made a comment on how difficult it is for people going through divorces. Well, if they had never gotten married in the first place that wouldn't have happened.

Top
#26952 - 07/08/09 05:35 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.


Ok......

That is a definition but it is not a particularly useful LEGAL definition. It does not enumerate what legal rights and responsibilities are conferred parties involved. It also does not state the process by which the parties are legally bound nor does it provide for the terms of contract. Furthermore, it does not state the entities responsible for regulating marriage contracts. There is some vague language about religious ceremonies but that would seem to indicate that marriage is of a religious nature. However, this would seem to contradict the 'separation of Church and State' that has long been the practice of Western secular democracies.

Anyone care to clear any of this up? Anyone? Anyone?......
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#26954 - 07/08/09 06:24 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
A "condensed" look at marriage and how it is defined:

 Quote:
Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

A marriage is often formalized by a ceremony called a wedding, which in modern times is usually performed by a religious minister or a civil officer. The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons.

Marriage practices are very diverse across cultures and may take many forms. Some examples include:

A heterosexual marriage uniting a man and woman as husband and wife (also known as a monogamous heterosexual marriage)

A same-sex marriage uniting a man and a man as husband and
husband, or a woman and a woman as wife and wife (also known as a monogamous homosexual marriage).

Polygamy in which a person takes more than one spouse has historical precedent in the Old Testament (for example, Abraham). While illegal in most Western societies as in many others, it still remains common in some societies. Most countries where polygamy is still legal are moving to repeal those laws.

Anthropological definitions


Attempting to encompass the various types of marriage in various cultures without knowing if they have a common origin, anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage.

Edward Westermarck, in his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), defined marriage as "The more or less durable union between man and woman and marital and paternal care probably due to instincts once necessary for the preservation of the species" including both monogamous and polygamous unions.

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union of a man and a woman such that children of the woman are recognized as legitimate by both parents." Because the Nuer of Sudan allow for female-female marriage, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons." A legitimacy-based definition has been criticized because some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy. In societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular.

Edmund Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.

Duran Bell proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.


Legal definitions

Roman law described "Marriage as a union of man and woman and the inseparable association of their lives. "An English common law definition was established in 1866 as: "...marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others". In Canada, this definition was ruled unconstitutional and altered to refer to "two persons" to include same-sex couples.

State recognition

In the early modern period, John Calvin and his Protestant colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage" for recognition.

In England and Wales, Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753 required a formal ceremony of marriage, thereby curtailing the practice of Fleet Marriage. These were clandestine or irregular marriages performed at Fleet Prison, and at hundreds of other places. From the 1690s until the Marriage Act of 1753 as many as 300,000 clandestine marriages were performed at Fleet Prison alone. The Act required a marriage ceremony to be officiated by an Anglican priest in the Anglican Church with two witnesses and registration. The Act did not apply to Jewish marriages or those of Quakers, whose marriages continued to be governed by their own customs.

In England and Wales, since 1837, civil marriages have been recognised as a legal alternative to church marriages under the Marriage Act of 1836. In Germany, civil marriages were recognised in 1875. This law permitted a declaration of the marriage before an official clerk of the civil administration, when both spouses affirm their will to marry, to constitute a legally recognised valid and effective marriage, and allowed an optional private clerical marriage ceremony.

Same-sex Marriage

While it is relatively new phenomenon that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex marriage was a socially recognized institution in some Native American tribes, regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history . A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in 342 CE prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist. Suetonius mentioned (in the context of Nero's vices) that Nero married a slave boy, and also a male friend; Martial also mentions same sex marriages taking place.

Rights and obligations

A marriage bestows rights and obligations on the married parties, and sometimes on relatives as well, being the sole mechanism for the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). These may include:

Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouseís sexual services, labor, and property.

Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouseís debts.

Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.

Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouseís affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.

Establishing the second legal guardian of a parentís child.

Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.

Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

These rights and obligations vary considerably between societies, and between groups within society.

Right to marriage

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam gives men and women the "right to marriage" regardless of their race, colour or nationality, but not religion.

State recognition

In many jurisdictions, a civil marriage may take place as part of the religious marriage ceremony, although they are theoretically distinct. Some jurisdictions allow civil marriages in circumstances which are notably not allowed by particular religions, such as same-sex marriages or civil unions.

Marriage relationships may also be created by the operation of the law alone, as in common-law marriage, sometimes called "marriage by habit and repute."

The status in the eyes of one authority may not be the same as for another, e.g., a marriage may be recognised civilly, but not by a church, and vice versa.

Financial considerations

The financial aspects of marriage vary between cultures and have changed over time.

In some cultures, dowries and bride prices continue to be required today. In both cases, the financial arrangements are usually made between the groom (or his family) and the bride's family; with the bride in many cases not being involved in the arrangement, and often not having a choice in whether to participate in the marriage.

In Early Modern Britain, the social status of the couple was supposed to be equal. After the marriage, all the property (called "fortune") and expected inheritances of the wife belonged to the husband.

Modern customs

In many countries today, each marriage partner has the choice of keeping his or her property separate or combining properties. In the latter case, called community property, when the marriage ends by divorce each owns half. In many legal jurisdictions, laws related to property and inheritance provide by default for property to pass upon the death of one party in a marriage firstly to the spouse and secondly to the children. Wills and trusts can make alternative provisions for property succession.

In some legal systems, the partners in a marriage are "jointly liable" for the debts of the marriage. This has a basis in a traditional legal notion called the "Doctrine of Necessities" whereby a husband was responsible to provide necessary things for his wife. Where this is the case, one partner may be sued to collect a debt for which they did not expressly contract.

Critics of this practice note that debt collection agencies can abuse this by claiming an unreasonably wide range of debts to be expenses of the marriage. The cost of defence and the burden of proof is then placed on the non-contracting party to prove that the expense is not a debt of the family.

The respective maintenance obligations, both during and eventually after a marriage, are regulated in most jurisdictions; alimony is one such method.

Some have attempted to analyse the institution of marriage using economic theory; for example, anarcho-capitalist economist David Friedman has written a lengthy and controversial study of marriage as a market transaction (the market for husbands and wives).


Taxation

In some countries, spouses are allowed to average their incomes; this is advantageous to a married couple with disparate incomes. To compensate for this somewhat, many countries provide a higher tax bracket for the averaged income of a married couple. While income averaging might still benefit a married couple with a stay-at-home spouse, such averaging would cause a married couple with roughly equal personal incomes to pay more total tax than they would as two single persons. This is commonly called the marriage penalty.

Moreover, when the rates applied by the tax code are not based on averaging the incomes, but rather on the sum of individuals' incomes, higher rates will definitely apply to each individual in a two-earner households in progressive tax systems. This is most often the case with high-income taxpayers and is another situation where some consider there to be a marriage penalty.

Conversely, when progressive tax is levied on the individual with no consideration for the partnership, dual-income couples fare much better than single-income couples with similar household incomes. The effect can be increased when the welfare system treats the same income as a shared income thereby denying welfare access to the non-earning spouse. Such systems apply in Australia and Canada, for example.


Other considerations

Sometimes people marry for purely pragmatic reasons, sometimes called a marriage of convenience or sham marriage. For example, according to one publisher of information about "green card" marriages, "Every year over 450,000 United States citizens marry foreign-born individuals and petition for them to obtain a permanent residency (Green Card) in the United States." While this is likely an over-estimate, in 2003 alone 184,741 immigrants were admitted to the U.S. as spouses of U.S. citizens.

Some people want to marry a person with higher or lower status than them. Others want to marry people who have similar status. Hypergyny refers to the act of seeking out those who are of slightly higher social status. In most cases, hypergyny refers to women wanting men of higher status. Isogyny refers to the act of seeking out those who are of similar status.


Termination

In most societies, the death of one of the partners terminates the marriage, and in monogamous societies this allows the other partner to remarry, though sometimes after a waiting or mourning period.

Many societies also provide for the termination of marriage through divorce. Marriages can also be annulled in some societies, where an authority declares that a marriage never happened. In either event the people concerned are free to remarry (or marry). After divorce, one spouse may have to pay alimony.

Several cultures have practiced temporary and conditional marriages. Examples include the Celtic practice of handfasting and fixed-term marriages in the Muslim community. Pre-Islamic Arabs practiced a form of temporary marriage that carries on today in the practice of Nikah Mut'ah, a fixed-term marriage contract. Muslim controversies related to Nikah Mut'ah have resulted in the practice being confined mostly to Shi'ite communities.


I think that should about covers it. As you can see, hellbent, there is alot more to the definition of marriage than what you offered.

It only took about 15 minutes to compile all of this. Amazing what one can find on the internet...
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#26987 - 07/09/09 07:40 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: ]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: hellbent666
Hey, TC. Most words have specific meanings, and there is nothing you can do to change that!

Yes you can... the dictionary changes all the time.

 Originally Posted By: hellbent666
You could write your own dictionary and pervert words if you wanted, but in AMERICA, marriage means primarily ONE specific thing.

No it doesn't, otherwise there wouldn't be such a huge outcry.

 Originally Posted By: hellbent666
Your terminology may mean multiples of things, I have no idea. Specific words mean specific things like duck fucking means a water bird with a bill!

It also means "to crouch, squat, lean downwards or bend at the back or neck in order to lower the height of ones head." (definition taken from my own brain, I don't need to look it up to know what "duck" means).

 Originally Posted By: hellbent666
I didn't make up the word! Yell at webster for that and I don't reclaim offensive words either, although it is funny to call my white friends cracka! LOL! Instead of relying on a word that has a specific meaning, join 2 words like you already did, civil-union. Why you would advocate that is like I said beyond me.

Yeah, we already have a word for a civil union, it's 'marriage'.

Edit - Thank you for that 6, that was a well compiled article. Granted much of it you can get from wikipedia but still, it was concise enough to get the point across without being a damn chore to read.


Edited by TornadoCreator (07/09/09 07:48 PM)
Edit Reason: Adding comment.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27006 - 07/10/09 09:04 AM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Again, I will continue to point this out. In order to codify a 'gay marriage' into law, one must first provide a legal definition of marriage. In the US this was done. Under the Defense of Marriage Act marriage was defined. A few states do allow 'gay marriage' but they only have legal standing in those states. In the fullness of time, I am sure the state law and federal law will find themselves in conflict and a case will be sent to the SCOTUS.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#27009 - 07/10/09 02:30 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Fist]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
I understand that Fist. I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that the act is unjust and unconstitutional and should be changed in my opinion. However that's USA, and as I'm not American I'm not really that bothered. If the UK allows gay marriage I'm happy. They do but they insist on calling it "civil union", which pisses me off. After all, women don't need to vote, why don't they do something like voting but call it something different like "suggesting", and black people don't need to be freed from their slave masters, why don't they do something like being freed and call it something different like being re-branded as a servant. Doesn't work now does it?

Gay people are the new niggers. Not the new black people, the new niggers. They're treated as lower class citizens and it's not fair.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27011 - 07/10/09 03:56 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3119
 Quote:
They're treated as lower class citizens and it's not fair.

So what? That's part of life: coping with actions, laws and people against you. It's your fair choice to feel pity about them, mine not to pity them.

Preconceptions are just those things which keep floating around the world, nothing to do about it. Politics know about such preconceptions (I wouldn't be surprised if they used some in their private life.. sounds very natural don't you think?) and within their position it is their duty to soften these things to evade mass histery. Most of the time before making an actual change to a law or to let new "shocking" laws pass they soften it by making a description and using lengthy synonims with words the average people barely understand or use.

I got the impression you are quite influenced by the moral statemens all the moralknights make....
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#27013 - 07/10/09 07:17 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Honestly, Tc...

What have you done other than bitch about shit?
Have you joined any action groups in real life?
Did you march in any parades?
Did you vote or support any political groups that support your views?

So these ideas about right or wrong laws affect you on a mental level, but not your daily life.

Do you expect at one point to get out of your armchair soapbox and do something about how you feel?

Gay people may have problems depending where they live, but they are not lower class people. I find that statement offensive.

If you are living someplace and not happy with the laws, MOVE!!!

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#27018 - 07/11/09 04:05 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: Morgan]
TornadoCreator Offline
member


Registered: 10/24/07
Posts: 586
Loc: No Fixed Address
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Honestly, Tc...

What have you done other than bitch about shit?

Discussing things in open discussion raises conciousness. It may not be much but it's something.
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Have you joined any action groups in real life?

Not really. I've signed petitions and wrote letters to my MP, most of the groups are dismissed as rabble. It's often easier to get results if you're not affiliated to a group.
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Did you march in any parades?

I don't support the gay pride parade. Shoving gay stereotypes down everyone's faces, I feel, hurts gay rights more because it makes the homophobic masses see gay people as strange and even scary. I want people to see gay people as normal and marching down the street in boy toy leather gear with a neon pink sign saying "I kiss boys" isn't going to help that. How are straight people supposed to feel comfortable around gay people when they act like lobotomised hormone therapy experiments as a means to show themselves as a group. I know many gay people who are more in the closet now because they don't want to be associated with the gay pride stereotypes.
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Did you vote or support any political groups that support your views?

There honestly isn't one. UKIP is the best example of my political affiliation at the moment and that's still far from my ideals. I've considered forming a party myself but I'm not deluding myself into thinking I'll actually make it into office. I know how politics works in UK and if you're not part of a big party you're not going anywhere. The best way for me would be to join a party that's close (like UKIP) and try to influence it.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
So these ideas about right or wrong laws affect you on a mental level, but not your daily life.

Pretty much.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Do you expect at one point to get out of your armchair soapbox and do something about how you feel?

I do if I feel the effort is likely to cause a change. Most of the time I'm just debating as a means of recreation though, if it's raises conciousness and awareness of the issue then all the better.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Gay people may have problems depending where they live, but they are not lower class people. I find that statement offensive.

Tuff. It's true. In many places they can't adopt, they can't marry, they can't sign each other over as next of kin, they often can't get jobs in childcare, teaching or health care. There where protests in Bradford recently because a 2nd Grade teacher is a lesbian and some parents where homophobic. But that's just the civilised world, in many countries still homosexuality is illegal. In many African Countries and Middle Eastern countries homosexuality carries the death penalty by hanging. I'm sorry, is this equality. My mistake, I'm sure me pointing out this clear lack of equality is so offensive. Seriously though, offensive or not, it's true, deal with it. I do. I don't like it, but I don't pretend it's not happening.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
If you are living someplace and not happy with the laws, MOVE!!!

It's not that simple and you know it. UK has some of the best laws in the world on these topics, and they are far from my ideal. You need money to move, you need a place to go, and most of all you need to be a fucking coward. Why should I run away like that rather than speaking up for what I believe is right.

People who say "If you don't like the laws move" are naive, and you Morgan already know this. You're saying this to be dismissive. You know you wouldn't emigrate if the laws change in your country, against your liking, unless it becomes ridiculous. You will complain, you may protest, you may be upset. Will you move to a country where you have no roots, no connections, no family and friends, maybe don't know the language or the culture all that well... why? because idealistically, you oppose a law that's not likely to affect your life in your current country? I doubt it somehow.
_________________________
If you can't practice what you preach, at least have the decency to preach what you practice

Top
#27021 - 07/11/09 06:00 PM Re: Gay Marriage [Re: TornadoCreator]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that the act is unjust and unconstitutional...


Ahh, and a again we be getting somewhere. But we are still dancing around the issue.

Never the less, you are correct. When/if this goes before the SCOTUS it will most likely be argued on 9th and 10th Amendment grounds. However, this is dangerous territory indeed!. For (and again we are getting closer to answer) the 'gay rights' crowd is aligned politically to the Left and if this case strengthens the individual and State's Rights argument they may open a whole can of worms that will hurt the American Left in other areas. In fact, the 'gay rights' people of California did not appeal their case to the SCOTUS for this very reason!

Now, we have gone on for nearly three pages now and you have yet to explain just what a 'gay marriage' is.

I await your explanation with baited breath....
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
Page 2 of 7 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.032 seconds of which 0.003 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.