SEN. OBAMA: I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. by Geezer

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I gotta say I find this disappointing. I was hoping that at least Obama wouldn't pander to the Christians by making gays second class citizens with this 'separate but equal' civil union crap. Yeah, I know McCain would say the same, and pretty much did, but he's not supposed to be a Liberal.

Why does Obama being a Liberal make his opinion on this any more disappointing then McCains? To begin with both Obama and McCain are liberals, but liberals have never embraced same-sex marriage. It was Clinton who came up with the Defense of Marriage Act.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 4:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I gotta say I find this disappointing. I was hoping that at least Obama wouldn't pander to the Christians by making gays second class citizens with this 'separate but equal' civil union crap. Yeah, I know McCain would say the same, and pretty much did, but he's not supposed to be a Liberal.
Why does Obama being a Liberal make his opinion on this any more disappointing then McCains? To begin with both Obama and McCain are liberals, but liberals have never embraced same-sex marriage. It was Clinton who came up with the Defense of Marriage Act.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

Actually, Republican Bob Barr authored that particular piece of shit

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 4:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Actually, Republican Bob Barr authored that particular piece of shit

That’s true, but Clinton signed it into Law.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 4:25 PM

Well then he didn't "come up with" it then did he?

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Well then he didn't "come up with" it then did he?

I’m sorry my loose use of language blasphemed the almighty Clinton. Nonetheless, as much as liberals have tried to hide it, the definition of marriage is one both liberals and conservatives largely agree on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 4:45 PM

EVILDINOSAUR

well that makes me lose A LOT of respect for him

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 4:48 PM

Again, I cry bullshit Finn. Please refrain from telling me, as a liberal, what I think.

Thanks

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
Again, I cry bullshit Finn. Please refrain from telling me, as a liberal, what I think.

I don’t need to tell you what you think. Clinton, Obama, McCain and a host of other liberals have already set the precedent. You don’t have to agree with them, and I’m not saying you do, but if you’re going to tell me that mainstream liberal thought is in favor of same-sex marriage, then there’s your bullshit. Sorry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 5:00 PM

I am telling you that unless you are a mainstream liberal, you have no authority to speak to what they think. So stick to facts that you personally know.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 5:04 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FutureMrsFIllion:
I am telling you that unless you are a mainstream liberal, you have no authority to speak to what they think. So stick to facts that you personally know.

Really? You can tell me that all you want, but lots of people are familiar with facts concerning issues they don't actually support.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.

There’s logic behind it? I thought it was just something you said to mean that same-sex marriage violates a certain moral or ethical code.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 7:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.

I second this, I'd like to hear it too, I could use a good laugh.

Not like I care who someones humping anyway, long as it ain't me.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 8:04 PM

Not really sure about liberals believing the same as consevatives on marriage, finn,

mostly because for goddsakes, could we please stop calling the Clinton's liberals?

Seriously,

aside of Hillary's abandoned plan to revamp health-care to something universal eons ago, they just don't have a liberal record, at all.

Compare them to liberals in our past, FDR, Johnson, Carter, etc.

They are, and have been since Clinton's Presidential bid, centrists. If their hearts are more liberal than their legislation, their legislation has still spoken louder, and so have their words.

My intention isn't neccesarily to knock them for not being liberal either, but they are firmly rooted in the right-wing of the left, the DLC, brokers of most of the power in the party, and it has been pulling right for years.(I think that it has lost some of its grip on the party in the last 4 years though)

So yes, the Clinton's past actions speak for the Democratic Party, but I wouldn't say they spoke for liberals.

The thing is that half of the democratic base isn't liberal. More liberal than the right, sure. But I think we should keep a historic reference to the term for political context.

It's kind of odd as an example, to listen to people on the radio calling Obama an ultra-left wing radical liberal when we've had main-stream presidents tied to far more liberal rhettoric and records.

Obama is left leaning, he seems to 'get' stuff in a way that makes sense to me, and that much I appreciate...i'll even accept the term 'liberal' for him, but I think that he walks a fine line.

...............

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 18, 2008 8:23 PM

Basically, it sounds to me like you agree with me. You’re just playing games with definitions -- trying to define “liberal” to get away from the fact that in mainstream thought a majority of both liberals and conservatives Iwhatever you want to call them) tend to see marriage as an opposite-sex institution.

People aren’t always going to agree on everything, even when they see the world in the same set of colors, so just because a person's views are defined as liberal doesn't mean they will always agree with someone else who defines as liberal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 1:32 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
And while we're at it, can someone explain to me the argument that same-sex marriage could possibly demean or devalue heterosexual marriage? I hear that claim all the time, but not the 'logic' behind it.

I second this, I'd like to hear it too, I could use a good laugh.

Not like I care who someones humping anyway, long as it ain't me.

-F

So marriage can be reduced to a person and their pet ? Or between two siblings ? Father daughter ?

Are you going to force your morality on those situations as well?

Just askin'.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:15 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
So marriage can be reduced to a person and their pet ? Or between two siblings ? Father daughter ?

Are you going to force your morality on those situations as well?

Just askin'.

Inter-species isn't quite same-sex, so not the point of this thread. The prohibition on incest originates in practical genetics, and has just had a layer of 'morality' stuck on top as an enforcement mechanism. Besides, I'm not requiring guys to marry their brothers, or moms to marry their sons, so I'm not 'forcing' my morality on anyone.

But back to the original question in more direct form. How can Ellen DeGeneres marrying Portia de Rossi possibly demean or devalue my marriage, or yours?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:31 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way. Remember your Constituion?

No more than the government have the right to force churches to declare Bush the new Messiah, does it have the right to force so-called gay "marriage".

The line has to be drawn somewhere. (It was drawn back in 1776, but since the 60's that lines has been pushed back).

Also, is it really such a stretch to see (if we allow it), 100 years in the future, inter-species "marriage" or family "union-love"?

All they would have to do is use the same arguments that the gays are using right now.

If you want to argue that the social stigma of "marrying" you dog would stop folks, remember that there used to be a stigma aginst being gay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way. Remember your Constituion?

Enough of the “gay” political view is based on an anti-Christian and anti-establishment view that gay-marriage would probably be used as a bludgeon against religious institutions. But I don’t think preventing gay marriage is necessarily the way to prevent this, rather making sure that we stand up to the haters, whether they’re gay or not (though I’ll grant, many people don’t seem able to do this.)

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Also, is it really such a stretch to see (if we allow it), 100 years in the future, inter-species "marriage" or family "union-love"?

There are people already trying to do this now.]

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But back to the original question in more direct form. How can Ellen DeGeneres marrying Portia de Rossi possibly demean or devalue my marriage, or yours?

Because I want to marry Portia de Rossi? I think Ellen would be better suited with the lumberjack type anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
How can Ellen DeGeneres marrying Portia de Rossi possibly demean or devalue my marriage, or yours?

It can't at all IMO, I'm just not getting why they feel they have to copy what breeders do.....?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:58 AM

WASHNWEAR

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way.

Who said anything about forcing churches to perform anything? It's a semi-serious question - I may have missed an announcement or something...

Quote:
Remember your Constituion?

At least as well as you apparently remember yours.

Quote:
No more than the government have the right to force churches to declare Bush the new Messiah, does it have the right to force so-called gay "marriage".

I'll agree with that as far as it goes.

Quote:
The line has to be drawn somewhere. (It was drawn back in 1776, but since the 60's that lines has been pushed back).

What line? Between what and what? Are you suggesting that the U.S. was some sort of moral utopia between 1776 and the '60s? The repeal of prohibition, for example, was just one of those freaky things?

Quote:
Also, is it really such a stretch to see (if we allow it), 100 years in the future, inter-species "marriage" or family "union-love"?

Wulf (may I call you Wulf?), I find seeing, with any accuracy, 100 days into the future to be pretty damn stretchy; I'd best leave 100 years to intellects and imaginations more fertile than my own. As far as the slippery slope thing goes, I freely admit I have no well-reasoned response to that...except to say that, while I would certainly find it strange if my neighbor, Reg, up and eloped with the family Dachsund, I can't imagine what exact threat that would pose to me or any institution worthy of being instituted. As far as the demise of Reg's current, man-woman marriage goes, what really occurs is that if he's harboring those kind of feelings about Dachsunds, the writing is pretty much on the wall for that marriage, regrdless of what the Constitution bans or doesn't ban.

Quote:
All they would have to do is use the same arguments that the gays are using right now.

You mean the argument that goes, "I'm a human being just like you, and it's none of your gorram business who I marry"...or is there another argument? Again, a semi-serious question...

Quote:
If you want to argue that the social stigma of "marrying" you dog would stop folks, remember that there used to be a stigma aginst being gay.

That makes about as much sense to me as the argument I used to hear about (and which you sort of touch on) how recognizing and "accepting" gays in society in general would result in good folks - who had, I guess, previously been paragons of heterosexual virtue - suddenly running out to get fitted for mesh tuxedos and buying towel sets with the wrong pronouns monogrammed on them. I can tell you this - I ran into my old high school gym coach a few months back, and he's still as flamboyantly hetero as ever (not to mention all-American, bullet-headed, and Saxon-mothered...but I digress). He has apparently, so far, failed to seize his big "coming out" moment.

Finally, as a purely practical matter, I just have a real damn hard time imagining that there will ever be a significant percentage of any population that would MARRY A DOG...EAT a dog, maybe...

EDIT to correct certain inconsequential spelling errors.

It was a question of marrying it or eating it when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:59 AM

Except that finn, I'd argue that you're playing games with the definition. Yes, the majority of Americans must have a problem with men and men getting married. People in both parties do. The parties aren't very different, either, when it comes to policy, in the end.

whereas conservative thinking versus liberal thinking is vastly different, in terms of philosophy.

But yeah, I was originally posting how I was tired of this 'marriage between a man and a woman' thing. I got enough of htat with Kerry and Edwards, and I believed they were pandering too. Sadly, this must be one of those things that they don't think is surmountable with a more heart-felt answer. Lose the Christians, lose the election. Nobody is willing to stand up and say, "I'm a Christian, and I believe in the right of a man to marry whoever he loves."

I just didn't think I was adding much to the conversation, so I dropped that post.

Wulfenstar,

you crazy. Churches are outside of state control. They don't pay taxes and they "supposedly" can't attempt to influence government policy. No law is going to make them marry a gay couple. How the fuck do you people get this shit turned around in your head?

People, "Christians," and I imagine, "Muslims" as well, want laws dictating that a man and a woman can't get married. They want the government to tell different factions of churches, which you and your buddies have no rights over, that they can't perform gay marriages.

These discussions are aout whether the state recognizes "gay marriage," and if it doesn't, quite frankly it is discriminating against religious freedom, and our fellow americans.

You and your biggoted church can continue to bar gays, even from your pews, if you feel that Christianly. You don't have a right to tell another Christian demonitation that they have to do the same thing.

.......

and on edit,

it's good to find some common ground with Finn and Geezer on this one -

not sure how, assuming you both did, you were willing to vote for an administration that used phobias about gay people as a wedge issue then. I appreciate that single issue politics is a little one-dimensional, and you were probably voting on alot of things, but they USED the issue...they intentionally targetted American Citizens in a discriminatory way for the sake of an election, and they were on the side of discrimination, of truncating civil rights.

It may just be one issue, but that seems like a pretty big fucking issue.

And the thing is, there was more difference on the issue of gay marriage than you would suggest Finn, between the candiates of the time,and of today as well(Mccain supported the Arizona ban on gay marriage and civil unions), and the Democrats weren't the ones to stir up the shit in the first place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:32 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Again, (I feel like I say this anytime one of these discussions comes up), marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.

Civil Unions are NOT a religious institution.

The gay party (or partAy) and its supporters made a fatal error in pushing for it to be called/thought of as, marriage. IF they had pushed for a CIVIL UNION (thereby allowing for all rights to be bestowed) they MIGHT have gotten it.

As it is, if a gay couple speaks about their "marriage", I always laugh. Its no more a marriage than if some redneck yokel married his favorite dog, or if some spoiled lib married his mother.

I, by far, am not religious. Don't get me wrong. But I fail to see how following their tenents makes them any more "bigoted" than the ulta-libs who push THEIR beliefs and views on folks.

I'm fine with Civil Unions, should you want to choose to be that way. But calling it a marriage, and expecting people to see it as such, is foolish and the worst kind of hypocrisy.

Gays want to prtoect their "civil rights". Fine, Im all for it. JUST DO NOT IMPINGE ON SOMEONES ELSES RIGHTS WHEN DOING SO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:35 AM

The point is this,

no branch of religion agrees on everything. No branch of religion can tell the other, "I'm sorry dude but the cross is an idol so you can't have those in your church and you can't wear them."

Religions are various, and nobody gets to claim that 'marriage' is theirs, any more than of the many different demoninations, any one of them gets to claim that Jesus is theirs.

Sorry, but your point is ridiculous. If a Christian Church, and htere are Christian churches doing it, decides to marry a man and a man, who the hell is the religious 'authority' that tellls them they are out of line?

the only point you could be making wher ethis might make sense is if you agree that the states have no right to recognize heterosexual marriages either, because marriage, afterall is a religious institution, and should not be sanctioned by the state...

except I remember a post the last time this discussion came up that talked about the history of marriage, and I thought it was state driven, or something to that effect. I'd have to look it up, but maybe the very premise is flawed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I gotta say I find this disappointing. I was hoping that at least Obama wouldn't pander to the Christians by making gays second class citizens with this 'separate but equal' civil union crap. Yeah, I know McCain would say the same, and pretty much did, but he's not supposed to be a Liberal.

BTW, "I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are." Grammar. Use it, MFer?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

I don't believe anything the man says.... well, anymore more than I believe what McCain says anyways.

He's half right here though. It certainly isn't something to regulate on a Federal level....

It's also not a matter to be handled by state law either though, and that's what he got wrong.

Marriage is not a civil matter. Marriage is most often a religious matter and it is always a personal matter. The state has no say in who somebody is attracted to. This is the ultimate example of legislating morality.

Just don't want to see dudes making out in public, kay? I can't smoke around you anymore, so keep that shit in the bedroom. (I can't even smoke in my bedroom according to my lease, so you got it better than me under those conditions)

Bottom line....

The Government telling a church that they cannot marry a gay couple is an equally heinous action as telling a church that they MUST allow gay marriages.

On a related note, telling the Boy Scouts that they MUST allow gays is like telling the people that they CANNOT form an organization like the Boy Scouts that allows gays.

The only thing the state has a say in is if the union is recognized as far as taxes and any public perks that straight couples get. I'm sure that there are states who would vote on that either way. Afterwards, you can choose to live in a state that recognizes the union, or choose to live in one that doesn't.

That's freedom, ain't it?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:50 AM

K,

again

no gay movement is demanding that they be allowed to get married in any church, only that their marriage(if they find a church to do it), is recognized by the state.

which would also mean that judges would have to marry same-sex couples. That isn't a religious matter.
Where does this shit come from?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Just don't want to see dudes making out in public, kay?

Oh, but chicks makin' out in public- that's okay, eh?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:55 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

These 2 are trying to get in to the Whitehouse - no way either of them is going to risk taking a stance that's this close no matter what they feel in their gut.
From June 2008:

"(CBS) Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry - the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004.

Twenty-eight percent think same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions, but more than a third - 36 percent - say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.

Last month, the California Supreme Court struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry there.

Americans’ views on this issue have changed since 2004, although opinion has not changed substantially in the last two years. In November of 2004 (soon after the presidential election) just 21 percent of Americans supported the idea of same-sex couples being allowed to marry.

Majorities of both men and women support some form of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, but more women (36 percent) than men (24 percent) back the idea of same-sex marriage.

More than six in 10 Democrats think same-sex couples should be allowed to either marry or form civil unions. Fifty percent of Republicans are against either of these options.

There are regional differences, too. Four in 10 of those living in the western portion of the U.S. favor same-sex marriage - the highest of any other region. Americans living in the south are least likely to support it.

Groups most likely to support same-sex marriage include those under age 30, liberals, Americans living in the west, and those who never go to church.

Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals, weekly church attendees and Alliance moles are groups that are least likely to support the idea. "

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:56 AM

WASHNWEAR

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Again, (I feel like I say this anytime one of these discussions comes up), marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.

Civil Unions are NOT a religious institution.

The gay party (or partAy) and its supporters made a fatal error in pushing for it to be called/thought of as, marriage. IF they had pushed for a CIVIL UNION (thereby allowing for all rights to be bestowed) they MIGHT have gotten it.

As it is, if a gay couple speaks about their "marriage", I always laugh. Its no more a marriage than if some redneck yokel married his favorite dog, or if some spoiled lib married his mother.

I, by far, am not religious. Don't get me wrong.

It's getting you right that I'm concerned about...

Quote:
But I fail to see how following their tenents makes them any more "bigoted" than the ulta-libs who push THEIR beliefs and views on folks.

I'm fine with Civil Unions, should you want to choose to be that way. But calling it a marriage, and expecting people to see it as such, is foolish and the worst kind of hypocrisy.

Gays want to prtoect their "civil rights". Fine, Im all for it. JUST DO NOT IMPINGE ON SOMEONES ELSES RIGHTS WHEN DOING SO.

Still awaiting illumination on how, exactly, Ellen marrying Portia or Reg marrying Fido is gonna impinge on anyone's rights. Their ideological comfort zone, their often unreasoned sense of moral and immoral, and their apparent belief that they're obligated to ensure that everyone else play by that same moral/immoral sense...yeah, those things might get a little impinged...but I'm not seeing the "rights" part.

Admit it, Wulf - your objections have nothing to do with law or constitutionality or even "morals". At least that's the impression I get from your posts on the subject. You're really just hideously uncomfortable with the notion of boys kissing boys (and maybe girls kissing girls) where they pee. Idn't dat about da size of it?

It was immoral AND really icky when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:57 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Quoting mainstream media here (of all places) is not the best way to win over folks.

Especially on this site.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
Sorry, but your point is ridiculous. If a Christian Church, and htere are Christian churches doing it, decides to marry a man and a man, who the hell is the religious 'authority' that tellls them they are out of line?

It's simply a matter of that way of interpreting the Christian religion breaking off from the rest.

It's happened plenty of times before, what with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Restorationism, Ecumenism, and all the other "isms" and all of their offshoots underneath them.

People can just choose not to recognize the spinoffs as religions like they've always done.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Oh, but chicks makin' out in public- that's okay, eh?

I'm down with it, but unlike my misunderstanding of the State trying to tell me I can't smoke anywhere when it's a legal substance you can buy anywhere (at a rediculously high tax rate), I understand if this offends the delicate sensibilites of others. I've got youtube and Cinemax... and that Tatu concert from Romania I downloaded off of Bittorrent. I'm good....

I kissed a girl and I liked it too.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals, weekly church attendees and Alliance moles are groups that are least likely to support the idea. "

I almost missed that....

LOLisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
But I fail to see how following their tenents makes them any more "bigoted" than the ulta-libs who push THEIR beliefs and views on folks.

Being a smoker, I completely agree with that statement... although with our current crop of Rethugs, I can't say with any confidence that the alternative is any better.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:09 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

*sigh

Wash,

Would you support N.A.M.B.L.A. if they wanted to recognize themselves as being "married'? Im sure they could come up with a church that would marry them... Calling it the "Church of man-boy love, Dogs and Family Union".

Or would that offend your morals?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:13 AM

I'll answer that - churches aren't allowed to molest children either, according to the law.

But we are dealing with consenting adults, doing somehting that doesn't actively harm anybody, their rights are extending to the tip of their neighbors...whatever,

so again, your equation is ridiculous. No, nobody would support marriage with animals or with children, because those are not consenting relationships....fucking DUH already

do you really think two guys getting married is anywhere close to a man and a child getting married? How does that register?

...............................
Well as to smoking,

cigarette smoke does infringe beyond a person's nose,

though I'm not sure that's a good enough reason in itself to ban where a person can smoke. Music does as well, and talking, and body odor.

The going differentiation is that second hand smoke is harmful to others, and that you don't have a right to put them in harms way...

similar to the way you can't just go out in the middle of the street and set up a shooting range. It's your gun, guns are legal, but you can't just go blasting away anywhere.

........

The question with smoking is where is the line drawn, and I'm not exactly sure where it should be....making it illegal to smoke outside of buildings as an example, seems extreme to me, given the risks. Making it illegal to smoke inside restaurants and places of business makes some sense to me -

though even that gets hazy to me when I compare it to say, auditoriums that pump out deafening sounds where employees are subjected to potentially ear-damaging quantities..etc.

maybe htere was a better way to curb the reality that there was no getting away from cigarette smoke in the public arena when smoking was legal, but I don't know what htat would have been.

.........

Sure Six, people can, but should the law choose one religious interpretation over another? isn't that directly against first amendment?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:20 AM

There should be a special place...*cue wavy transition*

"Boss - de plane, de PLANE!!"

"My dear guests, I am Mr. Roarke, your host. Welcome to Smoker's Island."

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:23 AM

The smoking issue is a tough question.

Even the gay issue is a tough question in the same way. You must realize that there are people who think just as strongly that a society that allows legal gay marriage is just as wrong as anti-smokers believe that people shouldn't be able to smoke in pubs....

None of this is easy, but there must be compromise. I'm not asking to be able to light up in the office and make others choke, but at the same time, I don't see how it's right that I be forced to smoke outside in the winter snow or a hard summer's rain without even shelter over my head. Where's the justice in that?

As for smoking in resturants and establishments, that is up to the owner to decide. If there really is a true market for places that don't allow smoking (which I really believe there is), then people need to open up bars and restaurants that don't allow smoking. Then even employees who want to be in a smoke free place have choices.

What the newspapers always fail to report (or put at the very bottom of the article on page 32 so our ADD riddled society doesn't read it) is that there are a lot of bartenders, waiters, waitresses, managers and owners who smoke who hate the statewide bans going into effect. Especially the ones going out of business because they live close to the border of a state without those laws....

Do it my way, and everybody's happy.....

Hell, now that I've got some money, I've thought about opening up a non-smoking bar/restaurant myself. Imagine the publicity I'd get being the bar owner that doesn't allow smoking in his place and goes out and smokes a pack a night in the outdoor smoking shelter in the middle of a Wisconsin winter.

I know it'd get headlines.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Would you support N.A.M.B.L.A. if they wanted to recognize themselves as being "married'?

I'm at a loss as to why it even exists- it promotes extra-legal activity, does it not?

Confused Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

None of this is easy, but there must be compromise.

Just stop smoking & save your $.
Or limit yourself to five cigs a day...

Easy answerisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:29 AM

That would be like me telling you to stop eating so much soy and start being only a quarter as gay as you are chris.

Just kidding with ya, I hope you were too.....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:30 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Forcing various religions to perform gay "marriage" usurps religious freedom. The government does NOT have the right to meddle that way. Remember your Constituion?

Who's forcing religions to perform same-sex marriage? Folks, straight or gay, can get married by a county clerk in a completely non-religious ceremony, or by any religious institution that is willing to freely perform the ceremony.

Quote:
Again, (I feel like I say this anytime one of these discussions comes up), marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution.

Tell that to married atheists.

But once again, how does same-sex marriage devalue or demean heterosexual marriage? How does gays marrying impinge on your rights?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:32 AM

Marriage IS a religious institution. What one must realize is that there are many different religions and they always split off from one another. I sure anyone who practices Christianity here doesn't agree with the Muslim religion. As long as we don't go flying planes into buildings or vice versa, I don't see what the problem is.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:35 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Marriage is not a civil matter.

Well,actually, since government provides various benefits to people based on whether they're married or not, it is a civil matter. For instance, although Ellen and Portia are legally married under California law, they can't, due to the Defense of Marriage act, file a joint Federal tax return or claim any other Federal benefits due to a married couple.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Just kidding with ya, I hope you were too.....

As Mr. Spock is fond of saying; there are always...possibilities...

I shall try to be less gay.

But I need my soyisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:37 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

There are no such thing as "married" atheists. They were joined in a civil union...which, AHEM, is what Ive been saying.

Maybe I have more of a problem with the term "marriage" being used. Which is again, what Ive been saying. Marriag = religious, Civil Union = any frak pretending to be married...

Also, a gay "marriage" devalues my marriage by putting it on par with dog-lovers, child rapists, and incestous folks. (See explanation in posts above)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:40 AM