The problem with gay marriage

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Tuck31, Jun 17, 2010.

  1. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    Correct, great example. To be analogous to the marriage issue, passing would be equivalent to choosing another adult who also wants to participate in said endeavor, yet being prohibited. In your position it would be another adult of the opposite sex choosing to participate in said endeavor.


    You claim 'of the opposite sex' can rightfully be included while 'of the same race' cannot yet you can't explain how various other distinctions could not be treated the same way.

    That distinction could also be another consenting adult of the same race, which you apparently would oppose.

    That distinction could also be another consenting adult of the same decade of birth, which you apparently would oppose.

    That distinction could also be another consenting adult of the same hair color.......

    That distinction.........
     
  2. API

    API Political Action Forum Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    21,489
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Location:
    SoCal
    Woo hoo!!! Can you top this? Woman 'married' to Berlin Wall for 29 years

    Looks like absolutely no boundaries thus defaulting to "any size fits all" for making people happy". The sole purpose is to let everybody feel good. Same sex, animals, groups, family members, inanimate objects... Is anyone willing to live within limits or are there no standards for reasonableness or sanity? :nutz
     
  3. blinddog

    blinddog Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,260
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Easton, Maryland

    I am not concerned with what the law could be - it's simply a distraction away from what the law is.

    So deal with the law as is not how it could be.


    And so again you will not deal with group marriage, incest or the federal definition as written - you will just compare to what the law could say if words were substituted.


    I checked the thread and have not found that your position on group marriage or incest is consistent with your position on gays...

    What will you deflect to now??:dv:dv
     
  4. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    No deflection, either no you haven't or you continue to refuse to acknowledge what's been stated.
     
  5. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,364
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    Okie:

    From my original post:

    (The governor of Hawaii stated) "I am vetoing this bill because I have become convinced that this issue is of such of societal importance that it deserves to be decided by all the people in Hawaii."

    You said:

    "Change the topic and insert a lib as the speaker and Kennedy's outraged instead of clapping."

    I said:

    "All I want to know is if you can produce one quote that says such?"

    You said:

    "I'm pretty good with the search function but finding a specific example of such given that especially lately all you seem to do is drop in to note that the gays are destroying the very fabric of our nation? Probably not.:no"

    You can still try to save face.

    For someone who likes to pull out the "lie" card, you'se got some splainin' to do. :l
     
  6. KENNEDY63

    KENNEDY63 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,364
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2005
    Location:
    MINNESOTA
    By blinddog:

    "And so again you will not deal with group marriage, incest or the federal definition as written - you will just compare to what the law could say if words were substituted."

    By Okie:

    "Done it repeatedly, as I've said repeatedly. Heck, dealt with the multi-party issue just a few posts ago. How do you claim such nonsense?"

    Looked back over three pages. I saw some verbal dancing the subject, but no direct answer. Maybe you can re-post your answer for our benefit.
     
  7. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    The rest of the same post which just happened to be left off (why search when said material can be produced simply by you responding?;)):

    You should drop by and post more often on threads that you said you were through on in order to keep up better.;)

    Blinddog's been dancin' for 18 pages now and I dealt with the entire subject with just a post or two about 16 pages ago. My first post referenced already dealing with this subject long before this thread. It's all essentially entertainment now, all aboard.......:D
     
  8. blinddog

    blinddog Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    6,260
    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2003
    Location:
    Easton, Maryland
    The exact same thing could be claimed years ago - :l:l ... the fact is that it was not claimed years ago. You are making up a fictional argument that could have been used as justification for discrimination and twisting it to try and defend your stance today....:reader :joker

    Can't imagine the intelligent people reading reading this thread buy that kind of bunk...:clap
    Dealt with? You have not spoken to groups or incest specifically. You did mention the following...
    Is this what you refer to as your stance on group marriage? If so it is certainly not clear...

    Would you spend time answering irrelevant questions or word scrambles? Of course not, you won't even answer questions directly related to the issue. :flame
     
  9. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    Well... you just blew up your whole argument...:l

    So even though the law was applied "equally" in that no one can marry outside their race.... its discriminatory...

    But... not allowing a man and man to marry is not discriminatory:l:l...

    The fact is one is discrimination based on race..

    The other is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

    It was the case... that was the premise to disenfranchise primarily black voters and again the fact that other poor people got scooped up in that was one way that they justified the law... (it was applied equally, don't you know) though in some cases... the poll tax was exempted if you could show that you had voted in previous elections.. of course... since African americans had only recently gained the right to vote.. they were unlikely to get an exemption...

    Another example of a Jim Crow law was the literacy test... which required voters to pass a literary test before voting... designed of course to exclude mostly african americans


    And yes there are many other examples of Jim Crow laws...
    and these laws were designed to discriminate against black folks BUT..they were defended as being "non discriminatory" because they were applied equally...

    Where the heck do you think the term "separate but equal" came from?
    :doh

    Anyone with a lick of sense can see the similarity between that argument and your argument.


    No your argument is the same and you have repeated shown that.

    So? Again.. they should get to marry who they choose. Who are you and more specifically, who is the federal government to decide which two consenting adults can marry?

    Except for thousands of year there have been gay people.. and for thousands of years various societies have not only accepted homosexeual behavior but some have recognized marriage...

    Now back to the whole procreation thing... again.. does it mean that an infertile man and/or infertile woman shouldn't be allowed to get married... Do all marriages get annulled once the man or woman has a vasectomy or tubal ligation. Do we end marriages once on person gets too old to have children?

    If not.. then it would appear that your whole procreation as the reason for marriage rights goes out the window.

    You are truly ignorant... as bigots are.... hello... where do you think the term SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.. originated....:doh

    Yes they did....

    This is from the Loving V Virginia... the Supreme court decision that decided the unconstitutionality of bans on interracial marriage...

    This is the argument the State of Virgina made defending its law...

    This is the very argument the State of Virginia used defending its law.. That because it was applied equally to ******* and Whites it was not discriminitory... Which is exactly your arguement that since the definition of marriage is "applied equally to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals" it is not discriminitory. So please don't continue your nonsense that its not the same:reader

    What? No they can't.

    Because the government sets rules that treat homosexual couples differently. Your right.. its not just about love.. its about liberty...
     
  10. okie drake

    okie drake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    26,961
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2001
    Location:
    Indian Territory
    I'm not gonna pull a Kennedy and vacate the premises, but I really don't know what more can be said (certain section bolded to avoid any confusion):

    MARRIAGE ISSUE JUST AS PLAIN AS BLACK AND WHITE
    May 19, 1996
    By Eric Zorn

    Statement No. 1: Same-sex marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, "simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

    Statement No. 2. An organization opposed to gay marriage claimed legalizing them would result in "a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development," and rested this belief on the "natural superiority with which God (has) ennobled heterosexuals."

    Statement No. 3. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose gay marriage as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," grumped a noted psychologist. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

    Statement No. 4. A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing gay marriages "necessarily involves (the) degradation" of conventional marriage, an institution that "deserves admiration rather than execration."

    Statement No. 5. "The next step will be that gays and lesbians will demand a law allowing them, without restraint, to . . . have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters," warned a Kentucky congressman. "It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization."

    Statement No. 6. "When people of the same sex marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny," wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. "And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages."

    Statement No 7. Same-sex marriages are "abominable," according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would "pollute" America.

    Statement No 8. In denying the appeal of a same-sex couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are "not only unnatural, but . . . always productive of deplorable results," such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. "They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good . . . (in accordance with) the God of nature."

    Statement No. 9. A gay marriage ban is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it "applies equally to men and women."

    Statement No. 10. Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are "distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race. . . ." The state supreme court agreed, declaring gay marriages would be "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

    Statement No. 11. Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on same-sex marriage is necessary to prevent "traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior. . . . (and entered into by) the dregs of society."

    Statement No. 12. "The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates," thundered a Virginia judge in response to a challenge to that state's non-recognition of same-sex unions. "And not," he continued, "to a class of persons clearly not within the idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage."

    To sum up: Legal recognition of such marriages would offend tradition, God, the sensibilities of the majority and the natural order while threatening conventional marriage, children and the future of our
    civilization.

    The quotes are culled from a Boston University Law Review article and a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, though I did take the minor liberty of changing the subject of the strangled rage, fear and righteous indignation.

    Everywhere I quoted the speakers referring to same-sex marriage, homosexuality and heterosexuality, they were actually referring to interracial marriage and their views of black people, white people and the proper interaction thereof.
    And yes, that includes statement No. 6, which in original form articulated the old white supremacist belief that offspring of whites and blacks were--like mules that result when horses mate with donkeys--sterile.

    The quotes date from 1823 to 1964 and, though the sentiments look hatefully ridiculous to us in 1996, they had sufficient appeal and staying power that 15 states still criminalized black-white marriage until the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned those laws in the appropriately named 1967 case, Loving vs. Virginia.

    Those whose unaltered words today resemble statements 1 through 12 above, take note. The stench is familiar. The future is listening.


    http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/new...ge-theme-surfaces-in-california-campaign.html

    (link is not to original piece but a 2008 article which refers to it and includes it)

    Original article:
    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...1_gay-marriage-same-sex-marriage-virginia-law
     

Share This Page