Story
Does anyone still really care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom? Why is this still an issue? Because the 3 idiots left in this country that want to ban gay marriage are the only ones that write Washington? I really don't think anyone cares anymore. Let's let it happen so that homosexuals can enjoy their constitutional right to be as miserable and dysfunctional as the rest of us!
I'm glad to see the ruling. But I understand that by no means is this decision the final word. And until this decision is upheld in the SCOTUS, it's only in one state. If SCOTUS upholds it, though, then it would set a precedent for any laws in other states to be struck down once a case would rise to that level. And unfortunately, there will be more to this case than just the right and wrong of allowing us to get married. Other legal factors will play in as well, and those may end up being what keeps the SCOTUS from ruling in favor or marriage. But today is a good day!
The government should have nothing to do with the commitment people make to each other. Get them out of the bedroom.
Marriage is a public contract, not a bedroom.
Everyone gets a say in public policy.
Slavery was the popular public policy at one time as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacLean
Doesn't mean it's right.
What does this have to do with slavery?
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...zpetvghG-AspIg
met·a·phor [met-uh-fawr, -fer] Show IPAQuote:
Originally Posted by Five-0
noun
1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile ( def. 1 ) .
2.
something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhino
Definition of STRAW MAN
1
: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2
: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction
all I know is that if gay dudes are allowed to gay marry each other, I will have no more free time because I will have to SAVE MY MARRIAGE FROM CRUMBLING APART (because gay marriage destroys the foundation of the institution and all).
I have no problem if gays want to marry. Hell, the straight couples have been messing it up pretty good lately, let somebody else have a shot.
My problem is this, the majority voted and agreed to ban gay marriage. Aren't we supposed to be governed by majority rules? Why does the opinion of three people out-weigh the opinion of the public at large?
Take government permission to marry out of the equation, and the problem solves itself...
I think homosexuality is wrong as a practice, but I don't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom. I don't care who wants to call themselves married ( as if the term really means that much anymore ).
I don't want anyone telling me what I can or cannot do in my bedroom ( except my wife, of course ), so why should I want to tell other people what they may do in theirs?
Stop asking goverment permission to be married. It's not their business.
Last I checked, we are still a Republic. "Majority rules" is democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyme
51% of voters is a majority. That can mean as many as 49% can disagree with "majority rules". Democracy doesn't work long as a system of government.
I would have preferred that the anti-marriage law in California would have been overturned by a new vote rather than by ruling. But, it becomes an issue of if people can/should be allowed to vote on issues of civil rights. Should it be allowed to have a state vote on whether or not to deny women the legal ability to vote? Should it be allowed to have a state vote on whether or not to make it legal to discriminate against non-whites in employment and housing? That's the core issue of if a court should overturn a vote of the people of the state. For some issues, the importance of maintaining or establishing civil rights supersedes the right of the people at large to vote to deny such rights. There is always a balance or fight for balance of individual rights vs. the rights of the people. Of course, some will argue that marriage is not a right but a privilege. But I think when so many governmental rules/regulations/benefits/etc. are attached to marriage, then it becomes an issue of rights, to be able to gain such benefits/abilities/responsibilities.
It's not JUST asking the gov't for permission to be married. It's asking for the ability to file joint taxes with my spouse the same as you are already allowed to do so with your wife. It's asking for the ability to have my spouse make legal medical decisions and have visitation rights if I am incapacitated in the hospital the same as your wife can make such decisions and have visitation rights. It's asking for my spouse to be able to receive my death benefits/pension if I'm killed in the line of duty the same way your wife/family is allowed to get your death benefits/pension if you are killed in the line of duty. It's asking for all these things (and many more things) that you are allowed that I am not allowed. I agree that it's not the government's business who I am partnered with. However, it is the government's business to make sure I am allowed the same rights/privileges/responsibilities/etc. as you are allowed.Quote:
Originally Posted by GunmetalGray
Don't even get me started on taxes...
Again, take the government "approval" of who is married and who is not out of the equation, and the problem will solve itself.
Government turns too many RIGHTS into "privileges". What you do with your property ( i.e. your body ) is your business. If you and your partner of choice decide to call yourselves married and present yourselves as such to the public at large, then that is your RIGHT. Marriage should be between two people and ( insert deity or lack thereof here ).
The medical issue can be solved with a power of attorney. The pension/insurance/benefit/etc... can be solved by reform, although I personally believe that if an insurance company chooses to serve or not serve a particular niche, then that is their business as a private company. The market is smart enough to sort out bigotry on its own.
As I said, I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong, and my homosexual friends/relatives know that. I don't let it affect my feelings toward the person. "Hate the sin, not the sinner.", and all that jazz. I refuse to believe that companies would turn down money from gay people when there is a profit to be made. I know that if I were a company or corporation, I'd be trying to make as much profit as I possibly could.
No, we are not a democracy, we are a republic. If the majority ruled, then the civil rights movement never would have happened. Blacks would still be segregated, or would have been segregated for a lot longer than they were.Quote:
Originally Posted by luckyme
To anyone that brings up the "homosexuality is not natural" argument, I present this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKqKsXdokCM
Is it a cartoon as to be geared to educating children? And Christian is the hard head? Okie dokie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewisipso
The cartoon is from a documentary. I believe the documentary is about same-sex marriage. I thought it was clearly spoofing those children's educational cartoons we watched as children.
I'm a straight, married to a woman, Christian Republican. With age has come the realization that everyone has their own life to live, and everyone has the riight to live that life with a partner of their choice.
Yeah, that cartoon isn't the best. I think that theory about each successive son having a higher chance of being gay because the mom more feminizes the baby is just as stupid as anything else the cartoon is trying to make fun of. That just furthers stereotypes that gay male=more feminine male.