Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 396

Thread: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

  1. #16
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,655

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    Truth is we don't live in a theocracy.

    Anyway, I can tell you that life continues at its generally happy and prosperous pace here in gay-marriage-friendly Massachusetts. Why it's like they let gay folks get married and everyone just carried on with their lives completely unaffected by it. Go figure.
    Well, once decadence reaches a certain level...
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,655

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    I'd rather just avoid sloppy nonsense words such "natural" and "unnatural."
    Heck, lets just quit using words altogether. Then we can start interpreting nods, grunts, arm farts, and scratches. And we might even invite some men to the debate.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  4. #18
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,984

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Good points, M2. Maybe your state's men and women are just stronger and can resist temptations of unnatural acts and gay marriages better than states that don't allow gay marriage. That's why they need a law, because they all would be doing the nasty with animals.

    Of course I'm being sarcastic.

  5. #19
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,963

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor
    Heck, lets just quit using words altogether. Then we can start interpreting nods, grunts, arm farts, and scratches. And we might even invite some men to the debate.
    Brilliant comeback.

  6. #20
    Member TeamCasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    TeamBoone's Attic
    Posts
    12,317

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor
    Truth is truth whether or not one accepts it as such.
    That may be YOUR truth, but not THE truth.
    Pots and Kettles

  7. #21
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,963

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by TeamCasey
    That may be YOUR truth, but not THE truth.
    Come on, TeamCasey, you should know better: this isn't the land of toleration, this is the land of good guys and bad guys, where right and wrong settle their differences at the OK Corral.

  8. #22
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,984

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    TC, I'm not tolerant of your Avatar, it gives me the creeps.

  9. #23
    Member TeamCasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    TeamBoone's Attic
    Posts
    12,317

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican
    TC, I'm not tolerant of your Avatar, it gives me the creeps.
    I'm overdue to switch him out.
    Pots and Kettles

  10. #24
    Member TeamCasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    TeamBoone's Attic
    Posts
    12,317

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Traderumor and I acknowledge that we're on opposite sides of a few fences .... we don't take it personally.
    Pots and Kettles

  11. #25
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,668

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by M2
    Truth is we don't live in a theocracy.
    No. We live in a democracy. And if the people of the state of MA, or any state for that matter, garner the signatures to make it a ballot issue (and they did), then it now is up to the vote of the people - that is what a democracy is all about. It wasn't legalized in MA by the people; but by an activist judiciary. The people had no voice in the matter.
    Last edited by GAC; 09-10-2005 at 03:36 PM.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  12. #26
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,984

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    No. We live in a democracy. And if the people of the state of MA, or any state for that matter, garner the signatures to make it a ballot issue (and they did), then it now is up to the vote of the people - that is what a democracy is all about. It wasn't legalized in MA by the people; but by an activist judiciary. The people had no voice in the matter.
    Just the Constitution.

  13. #27
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,655

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by TeamCasey
    That may be YOUR truth, but not THE truth.
    I am not God, therefore cannot be a source of truth. I simply agree with the Bible's self-proclamation that it is the inspired Word of God and is THE truth. I didn't make the claim, the Bible does. I simply agree with the claim the Bible makes about itself. There is no such thing as MY truth, or YOUR truth, by definition.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  14. #28
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,655

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    Come on, TeamCasey, you should know better: this isn't the land of toleration, this is the land of good guys and bad guys, where right and wrong settle their differences at the OK Corral.
    You are a funny person to be talking about tolerating varying points of view.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  15. #29
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,668

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by RedBloodedAmerican
    Just the Constitution.
    And a matter of interpretation too. One can try to hide behind the Constitution on alot of things.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  16. #30
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    15,987

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Very long post -- feel free to skip. I'm writing this because I miss college, lol. I can't stand how the arguements of substance are rarely discussed. It almost always devolves in to name calling and semantics.

    One argument I rarely hear get brought up is that the difference between homosexuality and gay marriage. Homosexuality is not being outlawed. The marriages between two persons of the same gender is. The government is not saying homosexuality is wrong. (I will admit however, that most of those who are against gay marriage believe this to be the case. But the government is not saying two men/women can't have a romantic relationship.) Let's moved past the idea that the government is attacking invidual persons and 'who they are'. The arguement here is what individuals should be allowed to participate in an instiution. This can be an issue of discrimination (in the negative sense of the word), but isn't necessarily. Only those under 21 can drink alcohol. Only those who are 16 can drive. This isn't because the government hates young people. It's because it(we) have decided that due to the specific nature of the instution itself, certain individuals cannot participate. Please don't confuse the fact that some people are discriminatory with the laws which are correlated with thier beliefs. Some people hate teenagers, that doesn't mean that's the rationale to keep them from drinking.

    It is saying that the institution of marriage is by definition a union between a man and a women, not any two people. There are three aspects to marriage, and that is what confuses the issue. There is the relgious/moral aspect of two individuals pledging their lives to each other, under God. Then there is the social aspect of being recognized by the community and peers as a fixed couple, operating as a single unit. The label of being a "married" couple is viewed by some people as necessary for achieving this. The third is the governmental aspect, which bestows certain rights and responsibilities to the couple.

    The problems arise because all of these aspects are combined in a single institution. A disruption of any of these 3 aspects can upset the instituion and those who support it. In the case of religion, mainsteam Christianity makes the claim that homosexuality is immoral. Making a promise to God obviously entails obeying the morals he's provided. To base a promise to God on a sin makes is contradictory on it's face. Of course, lying, jealousy, and murder are all immoral as well. Immoral does not necessarily mean illegal and visa versa. They certainly tend to correlate, but is it a causational relationship? You need to ask yourself, "is murder illegal because it is immoral or because of the effect it has on a stable society? When is lying illegal? Why is jealousy never illegal?" I personally would argue that any good law can be justified without religious moral reasoning. (I believe in the moral goodness of a stable society which recognizes the protection of certain enuerated rights) However, keep in mind the basis of the US Constitution is that our government exists for the purpose of protecting our "inalienable", "God" given rights. According to the US Government, murder is illegal because it interferes with your God given right to life.

    The second aspect is the social recognition. There are those who wish to have gay marriage legalized in part so that the community at large will recognize their relationship under the same terms as a heterosexaul couple. They want to be able go to a party, or meet new people, and introduce their spouse as such. The terms boyfriend/girlfriend or partner have an implication of a lesser commitment than does the term marriage. I understand this claim. However, to use this as justification would be a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. Verbiage in society changes to better reflect the conditions (see Nego -> Black -> African-American). Besides, there are boyfriend/girlfriends who are much more committed than some married couples, thus the basic assumption made by society is perhaps a bit ignorant and should not be used as any type of justification.

    Lastly is the issue of rights -- the big one. Historically, the rights given to married couples are meant to aid the management of assests which the couple has accumlated. The idea is that the immediate family is behaving in such a way that their actions are intended for the support and betterment of the familiy rather than the individual. Those rights are meant to provide an environment which makes this collective action more efficient, and to protect the family from malicious action, or inability of action, by any one member. Essentially, it is recognizing the family as a type of cooperation. In this regard, it is logical to extend these rights to any individuals who so choose to enter in to such an agreement. Of course, the family also has the added aspect of the potential of adding a new member to the cooperation, who is immediately granted a stake in the cooperation for a period of 18 years, unless the couple chooses to petition the government to relieve them of such. One camp of the anti-gay marriage side, argues that because gay coulpes cannot naturally concieve, they have no reason to marry. However, many straight couples cannot conceive either, or choose not to. This arguement simply does not hold water. Furthermore, to claim a homosexual couple should not be allowed to adopt on moral grounds, ignores the severe failure of many heterosexual couples to successfully raise children and the ability of some single parents to succesfully raise children.

    The only solution which seems to respect all 3 aspectsconditions is to more clearly differentiate between a relgious/social marriage and a governmental recognition of the creation of a family unit. Limiting the family unit as recognized by the government to just a man and women cannot be done without bringing in a purely relgious arguement. However, simply expanding classic marriage to all gender combinations is to blantantly disregard and impinge the link between marriage and religion, which freuqently holds the man/women aspect as a crucial, unremoval, tenet of the institution.

    Semantically, asking a religious community to recognize gay marriages as "marriages" is just as disrespectful and offensive as the name calling and bigotry directed to the gay community and individuals.

    Thus, I feel the government should recognize gay couples with the same rights accorded to married individuals, but in doing so should recognize and emphasize the purely legal aspects of such a decision. This includes calling such a recognition something besides marriage and letting society sort how it would like handle the semantic differentiation between the commitment of two persons to each other and the legal rights accorded to a "family" cooperation.

    One comment on the idea of homosexuality being "natural" in regards to the religious discussion. Serial murderers have a "natural" proclivity to kill people. Other's have a "natural" proclivity towards lying or stealing. It is to some extent, a function of genetics which have predisposed individuals towards acting upon such impulses. Homosexuality may be a condition, but sexual activity is a choice. The bible states that two men lying together is a sin. It also says lust is a sin, as is deceit. There are plenty of people engaging in heterosexual lust everyday. Before you stand behind your pulpit and preach the gospel of homosexual sin, consider your own failings. Also, don't forget to hate the sin, and be clear not to hate the sinner. If two men wish to enter a marriage in which they remain abstinent, should they be allowed? If still no, should an abstinent heterosexual couple be allowed to marry?

    Food for thought. Sorry for the length -- it was a fun mental exercize for somebody who has been playing way too much Playstation over the last few months.

    (BTW, I almsot always vote Republican - I'm no left winger)


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25