Page 42 of 69 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 690

Thread: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

  1. #411
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    That may be what it says now....but I lived in Utah for 28 years....and this is not to Diss Utah or Mormon in generally......(you are correct that my statement about hypocrites and mormons going hand in hand was unfair......I take that back).....however, when I lived there probably around 86-88.....there was a lot of controversey over the proposed marriage ban, Republicans resisted efforts to change the wording from "one man and one woman".......why would they resist that and want to keep it "a man and a woman"?.....if it was inadvertent and innocent as you suggest, why the fight to keep "one" out of it?
    I wasn't here then, so I accept your version of the history of the political climate here in Utah. IMO, tho, even if the SCOTUS makes it legal, it will be a cold day in Phoenix before the modern LDS woman accepts it...
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  2. #412
    Student
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    08-26-17 @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    192

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by UtahBill View Post
    I don't understand why so many people think that gay marriage is a threat to hetero marriage. We already have the gays, and they share property and assets, and can even inherit each other's property if a will is written.
    How can allowing them to call their union a marriage change anything?

    That should be the question for everyone who opposes gay marriage...
    You don't understand because when you read the answers people like this person provides it doesn't register. So in these threads you continually parrot the same questions like we are just now debating it for the first times again.

    Most Christians consider homosexuality an abomination as is stated many places in the Bible even though minor numbers do not or don't care. They don't want their children to see or become so, in fact they don't want the people they personally socialize with from being so. They don't want it taught as an acceptable even alternative of choice in schools. They do not want to see it acted out in public places the way heterosexuality has in recent decades been allowed. And indeed that is inequality but in this case one that actions by the minority would offend the majority. Most heterosexuals do not want to see two people of the same sex groping, grinding, kissing etc each other. It is revolting to them. Many would readily eliminate much of the heterosexuality content of such in the media and public display if that were put to vote so it is not really an issue of accepted inequality but more the result of a balance between freedoms in a liberal society where power is often in the hands of corporations and politicians that is somewhat tolerant of other lifestyles and behaviors even if they don't agree with theirs. But that tolerance has limits and tends to mean out of sight and out of mind. Do as you wish in private, in your own bedrooms, in your own private social venues, but please don't start to push it into the eyes of the general public. Yes we allow many minority sexual behaviors today in modern society like sadomasochism so, but those are not culturally acceptable when pushed in front of us.

    Some of you advocates will twist what the Bible says in ways you feel invalidates what I stated, but such is not a position ever to be embraced by the majority of Christians because the logic doesn't hold up with most conservative scholars that dribbles down into the rest of those denomination's argumentation. Some of you regularly try to draw some of us here into that line of debate and most of the time we refuse to wade in to that morass simply because the argument has long since been sized anyone can easily research. The only usual objective seems to be for you to drag your opponent through the argumentive minefield of your choosing and try and make some inconsequential point as though it is a game. Not points that will change any minds with those reading these web board posts and will likely only result in name calling and frustration. So lets not debate that issue here as I am simply stating the standoff situation.

    So back to your statement, why should simply allowing gays to call their unions marriage be a big deal? Well you people can call your unions marriage or whatever else you want even if such is not legally sanctioned as such. So I'm putting the shoe back on the foot of your own statement. It works both ways. Well the answer to that dilemna is that behind all the public blabbering are the lawyers, judges, professors, politicians, and gay radicals and for them that legal issue is the hidden agenda that this is all about. Otherwise you might simply be satisfied to call yourself married and all that have civil unions start doing so. The legal rights are nearly all there.

    But that isn't going to satisfy the above hidden agenda side of your group and that is all too apparent to we on the other side trying to block your continual backdoor legal assault. For many years we on this side have been aware of some of your ultimate objectives. They have been gleefully proclaimed at times within your own communities and taken note of by the rest of us. The creeping continual advance towards your objective that removes all the issues and many more I outlined above has been all too obvious despite the fact the general public tends to keep their head in the sand and take the ever so slowing cultural change in stride without notice.

    Within the pragmatism of some level of tolerance in our society we offer a foot and a week later you want a leg. You don't say anything about the waist connected to the leg but after we concede the leg a month later you clammor for the waist. And on and on it goes. In the mean time back at the time we offered the leg, we heard some talking about getting all the way up to the head. We asked what is this talk about the head and you all clam up and giggle.
    Last edited by 70s_guy; 11-08-08 at 02:53 PM.

  3. #413
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by 70s_guy View Post
    You don't understand because when you read the answers people like this person provides it doesn't register. So in these thread syou continually parrot the same questions like we are just now debating it for the first times again.

    Most Christians consider homosexuality an abomination as is stated many places in the Bible even though minor numbers do not or don't care. They don't want their children to see or become so, in fact they don't want the people they personally socialize with from being so. They don't want it taught as an acceptable even alternative of choice in schools. They do not want to see it acted out in public places the way heterosexuality has in recent decades been allowed. And indeed that is inequality but in this case one that actions by the minority would offend the majority. Most heterosexuals do not want to see two people of the same sex groping, grinding, kissing etc each other. It is revolting to them. Many would readily eliminate much of the heterosexuality content of such in the media and public display if that were put to vote so it is not really an issue of accepted inequality but more the result of a balance between freedoms in a liberal society where power is often in the hands of corporations and politicians that is somewhat tolerant of other lifestyles and behaviors even if they don't agree with theirs. But that tolerance has limits and tends to mean out of site and out of mind. Do as you wish in private, in your own bedrooms, in your own private social venues, but please don't start to push it into the eyes of the general public. Yes we allow many minority sexual behaviors today in modern society like sadomasochism so, but those are not culturally acceptable when pushed in front of us.

    Some of you advocates will twist what the Bible says in ways you feel invalidates what I stated, but such is not a position ever to be embraced by the majority of Christians because the logic doesn't hold up with most conservative scholars that dribbles down into the rest of those denomination's argumentation. Some of you regularly try to draw some of us here into that line of debate and most of the time we refuse to wade in to that morass simply because the argument has long since been sized anyone can easily research. The only usual objective seems to be for you to drag your opponent through the argumentive minefield of your choosing and try and make some inconsequential point as though it is a game. Not points that will change any minds with those reading these web board posts and will likely only result in name calling and frustration. So lets not debate that issue here as I am simply stating the standoff situation.
    And you think that'll be different somehow if they're all getting "civil unions" as opposed to married? Explain to me how it will be even the slightest bit different. Explain to me how the last few months in California caused anything to be different for anyone. Explain to me how the laws in Massachusettes have made the state degrade into some nightmare.

    And,
    Most heterosexuals do not want to see two people of the same sex groping, grinding, kissing etc each other. It is revolting to them
    Most PEOPLE don't want to see two people of ANY gender gropinga nd grinding and kissing each other.

    Unless they're two hot women.

    But I sure don't want to see a man and a woman doing it. So, does that mean I should advocate discrimination for those dirty heteros?

  4. #414
    Student
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    08-26-17 @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    192

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by rivrrat View Post
    And you think that'll be different somehow if they're all getting "civil unions" as opposed to married? Explain to me how it will be even the slightest bit different. Explain to me ...
    Unlike some you regularly debate here, I tend to avoid back and forth repetitive argumenation with such subjects that have already been monotonously discussed on these boards before as I see your ploy as simply so you can once more try to play some trip up the opposition's terse reply game with. So no thanks.

    As for your two women exception, that is true only for most of the sleazy hetero porno crowd. For we more conservative socially it is indeed utterly revolting.

  5. #415
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by 70s_guy View Post
    Unlike some you regularly debate here, I tend to avoid back and forth repetitive argumenation with such subjects that have already been monotonously discussed on these boards before as I see your ploy as simply so you can once more try to play some trip up the opposition's terse reply game with. So no thanks.
    You aren't able to explain any more than anyone else has been able to. I get it.

    As for your two women exception, that is true only for most of the sleazy hetero porno crowd. For we more conservative socially it is indeed utterly revolting.
    Yeah okay

  6. #416
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by 70s_guy View Post
    Unlike some you regularly debate here, I tend to avoid back and forth repetitive argumenation with such subjects that have already been monotonously discussed on these boards before as I see your ploy as simply so you can once more try to play some trip up the opposition's terse reply game with. So no thanks.

    As for your two women exception, that is true only for most of the sleazy hetero porno crowd. For we more conservative socially it is indeed utterly revolting.
    There is a simple solution for "christians"...stop digging into the OT of the Bible looking for obscure references to suit your prejudices, while blissfully ignoring all the other rules there that everybody except some Jews deem rediculous.
    Next, look in the NT only for what Chrisitanity should be, and even there christians should place the words of CHRIST on the top of the pile. Jesus Christ never addressed the issue, so as far as I am concerned, it is a non-issue for us. If it is a sin, it is up to Christ to judge, not us mere mortals. And also if it is a moral issue, bear in mind that legislating morals has never worked.
    Until judgement day, we should at least be tolerant if we can't find it within our "christian" hearts to demonstrate acceptance of our many differences.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

  7. #417
    Student Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    07-08-09 @ 03:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    224

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by 70s_guy View Post
    Most heterosexuals do not want to see two people of the same sex groping, grinding, kissing etc each other. It is revolting to them.
    Hate to burst your bubble, but banning gay marriage won't prevent that.
    The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. -- Dr. Albert Bartlett

  8. #418
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-22-08 @ 01:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    947

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Not all political disagreements are based in hate and fear.

    For example, obsession with the Second Amendment is merely based in redneck paranoia, not hate and fear. Opposition to free trade is merely based on ignorance to how an economy works, not hate and fear. Opposition to universal health care is merely based on a reluctance to change and (in some cases) a misplaced sense of greed, not hate and fear.

    However, opposition to gay marriage *is* based on hate and fear. I'm willing to accept multiple viewpoints on most issues as long as they're well-defended. But there is NO logical argument to oppose gay marriage. None.

    But I'll give you a chance. Please explain why gays should not be allowed to get married. And please answer this question without:
    A) Making an argument that references any magical books, invisible men in the sky, or 2000-year-old space ghosts.
    B) Making an argument that could also be used to deny sterile people (or people who don't want to have kids) the right to marry.
    C) Making an argument that relies on some moronic logical fallacy such as "That's the way it's always been."
    D) Making an argument in which the word "gays" can be substitute out for "blacks" without changing the basic premise of the argument.
    E) Making an argument that relies on any meaningless words such as "sanctity" which you conveniently refuse to define.


    I guarantee you that you can't.
    I can give a reason. There's nothing in it for me. I'm not gay. I see no reason to allow another lesser minority group to jump in line in front of women.

    As for your logic, make an argument in which the word "women" can be substituted out for "gays" without changing the basic premise of the argument.

    I found Jon Stewart's comment of how "oppressed blacks" at the same moment of winning the presidency became the "oppressors of gays" interesting. I'm against gay rights because gay rights activists aren't for my rights and therefore are one of the enemies. Easy to understand.


    Last edited by Bonnie1988; 11-08-08 at 03:46 PM.

  9. #419
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonnie1988 View Post
    I can give a reason. There's nothing in it for me. I'm not gay. I see not reason to allow another lesser minority group to jump in line in front of women.
    Umm... women are INCLUDED in the gay/lesbian marriage movement, hon. Not sure you realize or not, but women can be homosexual too.

    So... what would they be getting in front of them FOR, exactly?

  10. #420
    Goddess of Bacon

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Last Seen
    05-28-12 @ 09:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,988

    Re: Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonnie1988 View Post
    I'm against gay rights because gay rights activists aren't for my rights and therefore are one of the enemies. Easy to understand.
    WTF are you talking about? The only people in the world that matter are heterosexual women? Everyone else is the enemy?

Page 42 of 69 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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