Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 396

Thread: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

  1. #46
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,136

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Heeler
    If you go out and kill another person, then you have infringed on their Constitutional right to "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness."

    Homosexual marriage does not infringe on any rights of any individuals outside of the marriage.
    Sure, just be all sensible like that.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,336

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by GAC
    Knowing Chip - I think he was trying to be somewhat sacastic and humorous. Don't take it so hard.
    Actually I was quite serious.

    Michawl, you raise a good point. However, if government does not allow marriages, I'm sure you will see states allow civil unions. A lot of people are already on record as saying they wouldn't allow gay marriages but would allow civil unions between homosexuals. Or, I'm sure if you wanted to get married, you could find some church that would allow you and your partner to get married. Or some minister who got his certificate from a Cracker Jack box. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to start being religious and attend church. How many people have been married in a church and then never attend church again?
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  4. #48
    Potential Lunch Winner Dom Heffner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    6,001

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    What if my morality says it's ok to kill people?
    Hmmm...

    Let's see here. Killing is a non-consensual act, marriage is wholly consensual.

    Yep, apples and oranges.
    If you're watchin' a parade, make sure you stand in one spot, don't follow it, it never changes. And if the parade is boring, run in the opposite direction, you will fast-foward the parade. --Mitch Hedberg

  5. #49
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,873

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom Heffner
    Hmmm...

    Let's see here. Killing is a non-consensual act, marriage is wholly consensual.

    Yep, apples and oranges.
    Legal ethics is virtually always centered around one question: does it harm? If it does no harm to one's person, property, etc, or doesn't lead to harm, then chances are it is or should be legal.

  6. #50
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,577

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom Heffner
    Hmmm...

    Let's see here. Killing is a non-consensual act, marriage is wholly consensual.

    Yep, apples and oranges.
    Unless the one you're killing happens to be growing and developing in a womb, then it doesn't matter. So much for consistency in "legal ethics."
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  7. #51
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,577

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    The only way one can arrive at the conclusion that homosexuals should be a sanctioned legal entity with all the rights and priveleges of a heterosexual couple, if they go the "legal ethics" route, is to determine that there is no harm, no foul in homosexuality in the first place. That is untrue, and I've presented my arguments several times as to why that is, and they are a little more than "the Bible tells me so." Try to dress it up as "consexual sex between two adults" carried into "a loving relationship," but men and women were not made to engage in sexual acts with the same sex. Therefore, any romantic love that springs from that is invalid as well. Of course, the deeper truth is that it is simply erotic love, but then the basis that leads to me that conclusion is not accepted by the very folks who are standing by the sideline shrugging their shoulders like spineless jellyfish wanting an everything goes society with no moral backbone whatsoever. Well, except, don't kill, well no that's not even totally off-limits.

    Hey, only four more days, might as well go out with a bang.
    Last edited by traderumor; 09-11-2005 at 10:25 PM.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  8. #52
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,873

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor
    Unless the one you're killing happens to be growing and developing in a womb, then it doesn't matter. So much for consistency in "legal ethics."
    Do we really have to tolerate another lame attempt at catching people in "hypocrisy?" A fetus isn't a person. Plus more harm is committed by abridging a woman's freedom of choice than in preserving potential and contingent tissue inside said woman.

    And here I thought we might get through a thread without abortion cropping up.

  9. #53
    Hey Cubs Fans RFS62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    16,601

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor
    The only way one can arrive at the conclusion that homosexuals should be a sanctioned legal entity with all the rights and priveleges of a heterosexual couple, if they go the "legal ethics" route, is to determine that there is no harm, no foul in homosexuality in the first place. That is untrue, and I've presented my arguments several times as to why that is, and they are a little more than "the Bible tells me so." Try to dress it up as "consexual sex between two adults" carried into "a loving relationship," but men and women were not made to engage in sexual acts with the same sex. Therefore, any romantic love that springs from that is invalid as well. Of course, the deeper truth is that it is simply erotic love, but then the basis that leads to me that conclusion is not accepted by the very folks who are standing by the sideline shrugging their shoulders like spineless jellyfish wanting an everything goes society with no moral backbone whatsoever. Well, except, don't kill, well no that's not even totally off-limits.

    Hey, only four more days, might as well go out with a bang.

    How on earth could you possible know this, TR?

    That's incredible.

    And spineless jellyfish? No moral backbone whatsoever, just because I don't agree with your viewpoint?

    You've outdone yourself this time.
    "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
    ~ Mark Twain

  10. #54
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,873

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    The thing that's going to win the day for gay marriage isn't going to be any politician's decision; it's going to spring from the almighty dollar--the marriage industry's (hello, conservative small business owners, hello) clamoring for this legislation. Which is fine. Sometimes the private sector has good built into its design.

  11. #55
    Potential Lunch Winner Dom Heffner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    6,001

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Unless the one you're killing happens to be growing and developing in a womb, then it doesn't matter. So much for consistency in "legal ethics."
    You could be right, here, actually. Has nothing to do with gay marriage, but it is an interesting point.

    I was wondering, though. If my pregnant wife tripped and fell down the stairs, killing her unborn human being, should she be brought up on charges of involuntary manslaughter?

    After all, she did actually kill a human being, and in the moral universe you are trying to present, it really isn't any different than me accidentally running over a 5 year old standing at a bus stop.
    Last edited by Dom Heffner; 09-12-2005 at 12:31 AM.
    If you're watchin' a parade, make sure you stand in one spot, don't follow it, it never changes. And if the parade is boring, run in the opposite direction, you will fast-foward the parade. --Mitch Hedberg

  12. #56
    Member TeamCasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    TeamBoone's Attic
    Posts
    12,317

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Homosexual people exist. They are citizens of this country and deserve the same rights and protections as the rest of us. Wishing them away just isn't going to make it so, traderumor.
    Pots and Kettles

  13. #57
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,659

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    No one is "wishing" them away TC. I happen to work with two men who are in upper management here at Honda who are gay. I treat them with nothing but respect, and get along admirably with both. I don't look down upon them as if to say...."Ewwww, you're a homosexual, a despicable human being, and I want nothing to do with you." I don't look at them, or treat them, any differently then I would anyone else.

    In fact, the evangelicals in my department (whom I am very close with) treat these two men with alot more dignity and respect then the unbelievers in our department do. I wish some could be sitting in the breakroom or cafeteria when these two men's names are mentioned or they enter the room. The whispering, the dereogatory and demeaning remarks - it's not pretty, and I don't participate, nor condone it.

    No evangelical, who is true to their faith and allegiance, would condone any type of violence toward another human being out of malice and hatred - including those who are gay. And those who oppose gay marriage should not be seen that way.

    I can differ and disagree, concerning the lifestyle, and not be what some like to throw around - a homophobe (whatever that is).

    Yes - homosexuals exist. They have always existed. It is not homosexuality that is being outlawed. As it was stated earlier - it is the institution of marriage that is being defined and protected. Just because something exists, does not necessarily mean it is right or acceptable (and I'm not simply looking at it from a personal, individual level, but societal). There are an awful lot of people witin society, that have no relgious following/influences, who oppose the homosexual lifestyle. And no, I don't think they are ignorant or stupid either.

    What someone wants to do in their private lives, and in the privacy of their own home, is their business. And if the private sector/industry wishes to extend benefits, etc. to homosexual couples, then that is their right, and I don't oppose that one bit. And if the people of a state want to sanction and legalize gay marriage, even though I pesonally oppose it, then let the people decide that- not some activist judicary, who uses their personal biases/ideology to interpret the Constitution as they see it, and IMO, overstep their authority.

    Even as a Christian I am told to respect the law and governing authorities - even though I may not agree with that law, due to it's violation of Biblical/Christian principles. Above all, there must be order.
    Last edited by GAC; 09-12-2005 at 06:34 AM.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  14. #58
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,659

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Dom Heffner
    You could be right, here, actually. Has nothing to do with gay marriage, but it is an interesting point.

    I was wondering, though. If my pregnant wife tripped and fell down the stairs, killing her unborn human being, should she be brought up on charges of involuntary manslaughter?

    After all, she did actually kill a human being, and in the moral universe you are trying to present, it really isn't any different than me accidentally running over a 5 year old standing at a bus stop.
    Yes, there is a difference. A HUGE difference - between accidental and premeditation.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  15. #59
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,659

    Re: Schwarzenegger to veto gay marriage bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Falls City Beer
    Do we really have to tolerate another lame attempt at catching people in "hypocrisy?" A fetus isn't a person. Plus more harm is committed by abridging a woman's freedom of choice than in preserving potential and contingent tissue inside said woman.

    And here I thought we might get through a thread without abortion cropping up.
    Define "person"? And WHO assigns it that definition? When I asked you and others this question on the other thread, it was avoided.

    Medical science doesn't agree with you when tracking fetal development. But then, what does medical science know when it comes to ideological wranglings.

    And if you want to talk (again) about "viablilty" - Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions; capable of living outside the uterus - then an infant newly born is not viable. Even by the broad definition given by the Supreme Court.

    How about a premature baby in an incubator, born at 5-6 months? Not a person, according to your definition? Why is it that it's not viable while still in that womb, yet minutes later, when it passes from that womb, it's now viable? That newly born infant can no more sustain itself outside the womb then inside it.

    And what about women who have C-sections? Funny - When a cesarean is necessary, it can be a life saving technique for both mother and infant. But acording to you, that baby wasn't a "person".

    How about a baby born with a disability, such as Downs Syndrome? Viable?

    Our is it an issue of life that has rights?

    It's funny how that term equal protection is used and manipulated.
    Last edited by GAC; 09-12-2005 at 06:52 AM.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations

  16. Likes:

    Hubba (10-01-2013)

  17. #60
    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 GAC
    No one is "wishing" them away TC.
    Baloney! (and you know it!)

    It's a civil rights issue no different than a woman's right to vote or segregation. We just can't seem to learn from our own history in this country.
    Pots and Kettles


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