But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

WinterBorn said:
Your ego is astounding. You are challenged to tell us how society will be harmed by allowing gays to marry. There is no legitimate reason to deny them, except your own bigotry, and you still repeat the same inane question.
Click to expand...

/shrugs....then I will answer it yet again....whenever the minority forces change upon society against it's will for the sole purpose of their gain, society has been harmed.....
 
theMAJORITY said:
People can start their own religions in this nation---did you know that? How about gays just start their own religion, and marry eachother if they want---instead of forcing another religion with a different value system to cater to you?
Click to expand...

Show me where Gays are forcing a religion to cater to them.
 
Southern Man said:
With freedom comes personal responsibility. Queers and their enablers for queer marriage can't accept that.
Click to expand...

Total bullshit! What are you talking about? You just make this up as you go along so you can try and have a reason to maintain your bigotry, don't you?
 
Southern Man said:
Why do you want to harm society?
Click to expand...

You have made this claim twice in this thread, and have never backed it up.

How will gay marriage harm society? The gay couples are already there. There won't be any more of them because they are allowed to marry.


How will gay marriage harm society.
 
Southern Man said:
Why do you want to harm society?
Click to expand...

how...by causing the divorce rate to be greater than 50%? by causing more murders? more immorality? more britney spears one day marriages? more non christians 'marrying'?

if we keep homosexuals from marrying, is your contention that there will be LESS immorality? less homosexuals? less britney marriages? less non christians marrying? lower mortgage rates? what....
 
RStringfield wrote:

I throw this in to show that your point of target identification is irrelevant to the determination of whether discrimination exists or whether it violates the rights of others. YOU ARE STILL EVADING. Everyone can be Catholic.
Click to expand...

Once more for the mentally challenged:

A black man who is gay and a Catholic is driving an expensive car through a predominantly white neighborhood while casually dressed. A cop pulls him over and asks him for ID, drivers license, etc. His reason: black people who are not dressed nicely but drive an expensive car through a neighborhood that is non-black probably has criminal intent or have priors (drugs, theft, gangs). The cop only finds out about the man's sexual preference and religious beliefs after he questions him.

Last time I checked, there hasn't been cases of "catholic profiling" or "gay profiling", but RACIAL profiling as I've described above has been documented numerous times.

THAT is the major difference between discrimination of gays in general and a RACE of people specifically. THAT is why I've pointed out the flaw in gay advocates continually making a general comparison that is NOT accurate on many levels.

The FACTS are irrefutable...but folk like String seem to think that pointing out such a flaw is a homophobic attack. So String embarked on a trail of convoluted logic to either misrepresent what I wrote or disprove my point.

He's failed on both accounts.

As the posts shows, String just keeps regurgitating his moot points, distortions of what I wrote, and false accusations he has yet to prove.

All the objective reader has to do is just READ these post to see how dishonest and insipidly stubborn String is being here: Posts #331, 332, 333

And that is that. String will just repeat himself ad nauseum...but the chronology of the posts will always be his undoing. His beliefs just don't trump FACTS and the logic derived from them....but faith is a proven deterrent to logic. I leave him to his folly.
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
Once more for the mentally challenged:

A black man who is gay and a Catholic is driving an expensive car through a predominantly white neighborhood while casually dressed. A cop pulls him over and asks him for ID, drivers license, etc. His reason: black people who are not dressed nicely but drive an expensive car through a neighborhood that is non-black probably has criminal intent or have priors (drugs, theft, gangs). The cop only finds out about the man's sexual preference and religious beliefs after he questions him.

Last time I checked, there hasn't been cases of "catholic profiling" or "gay profiling", but RACIAL profiling as I've described above has been documented numerous times.

THAT is the major difference between discrimination of gays in general and a RACE of people specifically. THAT is why I've pointed out the flaw in gay advocates continually making a general comparison that is NOT accurate on many levels.

The FACTS are irrefutable...but folk like String seem to think that pointing out such a flaw is a homophobic attack. So String embarked on a trail of convoluted logic to either misrepresent what I wrote or disprove my point.

He's failed on both accounts.

As the posts shows, String just keeps regurgitating his moot points, distortions of what I wrote, and false accusations he has yet to prove.

All the objective reader has to do is just READ these post to see how dishonest and insipidly stubborn String is being here: Posts #331, 332, 333

And that is that. String will just repeat himself ad nauseum...but the chronology of the posts will always be his undoing. His beliefs just don't trump FACTS and the logic derived from them....but faith is a proven deterrent to logic. I leave him to his folly.
Click to expand...

Please give it up. There has been discrimination that has many things in common with the discrimination suffered by blacks.

Is it exactly the same? Of course not.

But that continued ranting about how gays are not discriminated against like the blacks were is ridiculous. The examples you provided were specifically tailored to prove your point, but it only works if you ignore the large number of they have in common.
 
Would a CU still require a blood test? (Do marriages still require them? What were they for, anyway?)

I mostly agree with your proposal, Dixie. I "married" my atheist husband at City Hall. On a Tuesday. At lunch break. No church, if truth be told, would ever have endorsed this union.

Cost, for you fathers with marriageable daughters, was $27.40. Best investment we ever made.

So, I guess we have a "friendship with benefits" ... tax breaks, my son and I are covered under his health insurance, we enjoy a multi-car auto insurance discounts. And we love each other.

I don't think anyone with love and commitment should be denied these things.

But my question is: Can't these benefits already be secured by gay couples? I guess I'll have to ask my gay friends who have been in committed relationships for 20+ years.

"Marriage" is a religious designation and government should never have entered into it. Legal designation of a contract between two people should never be religious.



Dixie said:
Again, for those who may have lost my proposal amidst all the yammering back and forth...

My compromise solution which gives everyone what they claim to want, and solves all the problems:

1. Governments no longer issue "Marriage" licenses.
2. They are replaced with a Civil Union contract instead.
3. Churches can continue to "marry" whoever they please.
4. CU contracts would be between two consenting adults regardless of their relationship.
5. Tax breaks, insurance, and other benefits associated with "married" couples, would then apply to any couple with a CU contract.
6. Old "Marriage Licenses" would be recognized as a CU contract.

This solution removes any issue of sexuality, and any issue of religious beliefs. It puts the issue of "gay marriage" to rest forever, and removes our government from the sanctioning of a religious tradition and custom or basing laws on sexual behaviors. There is no 'slippery slope' and there is no 'discrimination' and everyone is happy! Problem Solved!

WHY are you opposed to doing THIS?
Click to expand...
 
egordon0315 said:
Would a CU still require a blood test? (Do marriages still require them? What were they for, anyway?)

I mostly agree with your proposal, Dixie. I "married" my atheist husband at City Hall. On a Tuesday. At lunch break. No church, if truth be told, would ever have endorsed this union.

Cost, for you fathers with marriageable daughters, was $27.40. Best investment we ever made.

So, I guess we have a "friendship with benefits" ... tax breaks, my son and I are covered under his health insurance, we enjoy a multi-car auto insurance discounts. And we love each other.

I don't think anyone with love and commitment should be denied these things.

But my question is: Can't these benefits already be secured by gay couples? I guess I'll have to ask my gay friends who have been in committed relationships for 20+ years.

"Marriage" is a religious designation and government should never have entered into it. Legal designation of a contract between two people should never be religious.
Click to expand...

I am not sure about the tax breaks, but many companies don't allow non-married partners to be covered on company insurance plans. There is also the assumed ability to make medical choices for your spouse should they be unable. Even with a limited power of attorny, if they are away from home a gay partner may not be allowed to do so. And there are adoption limitations, as in only one may be the adoptive parent. If they die, they remaining parent loses custody.

There are roughly 1,400 benefits extended to married couples. Many can be secured using other methods. But it seems hypocitical to claim that this equals equality.
 
Yurt said:
how...by causing the divorce rate to be greater than 50%? by causing more murders? more immorality? more britney spears one day marriages? more non christians 'marrying'?

if we keep homosexuals from marrying, is your contention that there will be LESS immorality? less homosexuals? less britney marriages? less non christians marrying? lower mortgage rates? what....
Click to expand...
Why add fuel to the fire?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Once more for the mentally challenged:

A black man who is gay and a Catholic is driving an expensive car through a predominantly white neighborhood while casually dressed. A cop pulls him over and asks him for ID, drivers license, etc. His reason: black people who are not dressed nicely but drive an expensive car through a neighborhood that is non-black probably has criminal intent or have priors (drugs, theft, gangs). The cop only finds out about the man's sexual preference and religious beliefs after he questions him.

Last time I checked, there hasn't been cases of "catholic profiling" or "gay profiling", but RACIAL profiling as I've described above has been documented numerous times.

THAT is the major difference between discrimination of gays in general and a RACE of people specifically. THAT is why I've pointed out the flaw in gay advocates continually making a general comparison that is NOT accurate on many levels.

The FACTS are irrefutable...but folk like String seem to think that pointing out such a flaw is a homophobic attack. So String embarked on a trail of convoluted logic to either misrepresent what I wrote or disprove my point.

He's failed on both accounts.

As the posts shows, String just keeps regurgitating his moot points, distortions of what I wrote, and false accusations he has yet to prove.

All the objective reader has to do is just READ these post to see how dishonest and insipidly stubborn String is being here: Posts #331, 332, 333

And that is that. String will just repeat himself ad nauseum...but the chronology of the posts will always be his undoing. His beliefs just don't trump FACTS and the logic derived from them....but faith is a proven deterrent to logic. I leave him to his folly.
Click to expand...

So it would be okay to not allow Catholics to marry or to marry outside of their faith? No comparison can be made between racial and religious discrimination? I bet the Jews would disagree as would Muslim's in post 9/11 America. So would the writers of the 14th who explicitly mention creed. How could the 14th possibly cover both of these incomparable forms of discrimination?

There have been many cases of religious profiling.

Again, no one is saying they are identical in all ways. They are not. They are similar enough that they may both be accurately labeled discrimination. On those similarities they WILL be compared by the courts.

Identical cases become settled matters by precedent. This case is not identical and therefore not settled. But common law and precedent are set, extended, refined and even limited through similar cases. That's what's gonna happen here.

You can shout and scream all you like that they are not the same thing. Since we all know that, nobody is going to fucking care. The courts would laugh at your idiotic arguments and dismiss them without as much care as I have shown in attempting to understand. I am going to do the same thing now.

Since you continually fail to tell us why this difference justifies discrimination, your point is moot.

Racial discrimination is different from discrimination against gays, religious groups, gender, etc..

:gives:
 
And btw, you already explained how homosexual or religious profiling can and does take place. The cops or some bigot sit outside a gay bar or church and harass people that come out. The fact that they can not just pull over people that look gay or Catholic does not change the fact that they can target them unfairly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top