Brokeback mountain...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So you don't think that Gays are asking for a redefinition of marriage? Have you always thought that marriage was not defined as a union between male and female?

In the 1967 Loving case, when the Supreme Court outlawed any bans on interracial marriage, Warren's decision closed with these words:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

It says person, not person of the opposite sex.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't have any figures, but what I think would be really revealing is to hear the attitudes of small-to-medium sized businesses on this issue. This issue might well be the kind of thing that would motivate some businesses to avoid hiring anyone they think might be gay.

Huh? As opposed to straight people who are at least as likely to get married, and cost the company money in these benefits?

The money argument is the lamest point of discussion because it's a tacit acknowledgement that the gays are subsidizing the straights. Hard to defend as proper.

A company that is worried about these costs has the option to give no spousal benefits. Being single, I'd prefer that, at least for the time being.

[billvon 2,991]

>This issue might well be the kind of thing that would motivate
>some businesses to avoid hiring anyone they think might be gay.

Hmm. Gays don't get pregnant (usually.) 25 year old women do - and the state then requires them to give them maternity leave. Given the choice between a married 25 year old heterosexual woman and a married 25 year old gay man, the better choice is pretty obvious.

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

I don't understand why people think that interracial couples are not asking for anything special, they are. Marriage has always been known to mean a union between members of the same race (now this was never written down because it was never questioned). Interracial couples now want that redefined to include a mixed race marriage union. That is a special request on their part. IF they wanted equality then there would be no need to change the law. Blacks have just as much right to marry a black woman as any white man has to marry a white woman.

What a bullshit argument.

You and BillVon are just sooo clever, change the words everyone will see how enlightened and smart you are and how ignorant the obvious bigot is...it's just like how races weren't allowed to intermarry...

Well then, my extension of this argument to include polygamists and others is just as clever and valid.

I think gay rights activists don't like these comparisons because, fallacy or not, they know the general public does see them as valid and does not support polygamy or other such marriages.

Addressing the current topic is more effective than lousy comparison, but apparently not nearly as much fun than ridicule and labeling anyone not willing to agree to same sex marriage a racist.

I understand that you wish it were not a question of law, and therefore not subject to the wishes of voters and their elected representatives, but it is.

The people in MANY states have voted and rejected the claimed right for same sex marriage.

That can leave some with the conclusion that such voters are just as bigoted as racists of old, but I contend that is bullshit, and also quite intolerant.

Also, I would like to thank mdrejhon for rejecting Billvon's assertion that activists are not "flaunting their gayness" and effectively supporting my statement that gay advocates are so far out of the closet that they are waving their arms in the streets":

Quote

...more of a festival thing, not as much parading in the streets showing off...(post #378).

Actually, his post begs the question that I posed about whether the cause for gay rights is better served by less flaunting, or whether the flaunting helped to achieve the advancement of the cause in Canada.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

I don't have any figures, but what I think would be really revealing is to hear the attitudes of small-to-medium sized businesses on this issue. This issue might well be the kind of thing that would motivate some businesses to avoid hiring anyone they think might be gay.

Huh? As opposed to straight people who are at least as likely to get married, and cost the company money in these benefits?

The money argument is the lamest point of discussion because it's a tacit acknowledgement that the gays are subsidizing the straights. Hard to defend as proper.

A company that is worried about these costs has the option to give no spousal benefits. Being single, I'd prefer that, at least for the time being.

Trust me. Having never been married, I have found the whole deal about married people getting more benefits annoying for quite a while. Not much I can say about it, though, because at least I have the opportunity to get married. (Yes, I know, no woman in her right mind would marry me, but that's a whole 'nother discussion.)

I don't know that I agree with your point about gays subsidizing benefits for married straights, but certainly at present gays do not have the opportunity to get married benefits, whereas I do. I do consider that to be unfair.

It's been part of the game for so long that I don't know whether businesses have spousal insurance coverage because it's "tradition" or whether they do it to be competitive with other businesses in attracting new employees, or a combination of the two. (Maybe there's some sort of legal requirement, but I have never heard of one.)

Whichever the case is I don't see where it is a case of gays subsidizing anything. It's more a case of the business doing the subsidizing.

Walt

[waltappel 1]

Quote

>This issue might well be the kind of thing that would motivate
>some businesses to avoid hiring anyone they think might be gay.

Hmm. Gays don't get pregnant (usually.) 25 year old women do - and the state then requires them to give them maternity leave. Given the choice between a married 25 year old heterosexual woman and a married 25 year old gay man, the better choice is pretty obvious.

Now this is one discussion that even I would not touch with a ten-foot stick. (Those married pregnant women get really nasty mood swings, you know! heh heh)

Walt

[waltappel 1]

Quote

I don't understand why people think that interracial couples are not asking for anything special, they are. Marriage has always been known to mean a union between members of the same race (now this was never written down because it was never questioned). Interracial couples now want that redefined to include a mixed race marriage union. That is a special request on their part. IF they wanted equality then there would be no need to change the law. Blacks have just as much right to marry a black woman as any white man has to marry a white woman.

You are now officially a Speakers Corner GOD!!!! (At least in my opinion)

I live for posts like this.

[Let the thermonuclear warfare begin!!!]

Sorry sundevil777, you're ok as far as I'm concerned, but not deserving of the SC GOD title.

SC GOD title given to the rightful recipient--likearock.

Walt

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

I live for posts like this.

You missed the attribution, Walt, and appointed the wrong person God.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[waltappel 1]

Quote

I don't understand why people think that interracial couples are not asking for anything special, they are. Marriage has always been known to mean a union between members of the same race (now this was never written down because it was never questioned). Interracial couples now want that redefined to include a mixed race marriage union. That is a special request on their part. IF they wanted equality then there would be no need to change the law. Blacks have just as much right to marry a black woman as any white man has to marry a white woman.

You are now officially a Speakers Corner GOD!!!! (At least in my opinion)

I live for posts like this.

[Let the thermonuclear warfare begin!!!]

Walt

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

I live for posts like this.

You missed the attribution, Walt, and appointed the wrong person God.

Thanks rl. Error corrected.

You are a GODESS not only in SC, but everywhere else in my world.

Walt

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

I don't understand why people think that interracial couples are not asking for anything special, they are. Marriage has always been known to mean a union between members of the same race (now this was never written down because it was never questioned). Interracial couples now want that redefined to include a mixed race marriage union. That is a special request on their part. IF they wanted equality then there would be no need to change the law. Blacks have just as much right to marry a black woman as any white man has to marry a white woman.

What a bullshit argument.

Really? So argue it instead of issuing ad hominem attacks.

Quote

You and BillVon are just sooo clever, change the words everyone will see how enlightened and smart you are

Like that. By the way, clever tactic to rope Bill into it since we all know he's less like to issue a PA warning when he's the target.

Quote

and how ignorant the obvious bigot is...it's just like how races weren't allowed to intermarry...

It was meant to make you think. My bad.

Quote

Well then, my extension of this argument to include polygamists and others is just as clever and valid.

Why not bring in bestiality and pedophilia? It's pretty obvious how much hatred you have for gay people. No matter what, you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the fact that two men can have the same kind of monogomous, "two people meant to be together" love that exists between a man and a woman.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Why not bring in bestiality and pedophilia

Wasnt that already broiught in several times.... eeesh I cant remember but so many gay threads its hard to tell.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Whichever the case is I don't see where it is a case of gays subsidizing anything. It's more a case of the business doing the subsidizing.

The money doesn't come out of thin air. Money spent on benefits is money not spent on direct salaries or lower prices. Any special bennies that married workers get is at the expense (subsidation) of single and gays, the latter of which can't change their circumstance.

And obviously if someone says they're against gay marriage because they believe it will cost them money, then they're saying the married people are getting something extra.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well then, my extension of this argument to include polygamists and others is just as clever and valid.

Polygamy is irrelevent to the question at hand. Those interested in it can raise the issue. And frankly, I can't think of valid reasons to prohibit it, other than our laws aren't built around the notion of 3+ people in marriage. What happens if one divorces the others?
Does that person get 1/X of the community property?

Quote

The people in MANY states have voted and rejected the claimed right for same sex marriage.

The voters (the majority) does not decide rights in our country. The Constitution does, though the Supreme Court.

[AlexCrowley 0]

this is the bit with the spooky voice.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[waltappel 1]

Quote

And obviously if someone says they're against gay marriage because they believe it will cost them money, then they're saying the married people are getting something extra.

Maybe, but they may be saying that they are already being squeezed hard enough on benefits packages and don't want to spend any more than they already are.

I have no idea how large the gay population is, but if it is significantly large and sufficiently populated with the kind of talent that employers are looking for, then I think employers would start offering same-sex marriage benefits on their own.

Just a thought. As I've said previously, I think gay guys make the world a better place for me, but gay marriage is still a "don't care" for me. So is straight marriage for that matter.

Walt

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

I don't understand why people think that interracial couples are not asking for anything special, they are. Marriage has always been known to mean a union between members of the same race (now this was never written down because it was never questioned). Interracial couples now want that redefined to include a mixed race marriage union. That is a special request on their part. IF they wanted equality then there would be no need to change the law. Blacks have just as much right to marry a black woman as any white man has to marry a white woman.

You are now officially a Speakers Corner GOD!!!! (At least in my opinion)

I live for posts like this.

[Let the thermonuclear warfare begin!!!]

Walt

I'm honored.

[AlexCrowley 0]

20%

Given my employment I would consider that about right. In the health industry it's not called gay or homosexual, its now 'men who have sex with men' dont believe me? look at craigslist for the amount of straight guys wanting blowjobs and massages from other men.

My least favorite and 'most likely to get a snort of derision' are those idiots trying to sell the term 'heteroflexible'.

'Gay' is a very specific cultural tag - [figured i shouldnt say which website] - a straight black dating site with several million members - estimates that about approximately 15% of their hookup traffic is straight men to straight men on 'the downlow', men who do not consider themselves gay but have sex with other men. (source: me talking to the CEO at a recent conference)

So yeah, the experts estimate 20% of all the population is gay. How outrageous. 1 in 5.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Jayruss 0]

Quote

do you kiss your mother with that mouth? lol
the same mouth you lick the feces off your lover's cock? lol

why yes, and I'm sure you kiss your mother with the same mouth you use to eat out your girlfriend's pussy

__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

[NelKel 0]

Post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So you don't think that Gays are asking for a redefinition of marriage? Have you always thought that marriage was not defined as a union between male and female?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the 1967 Loving case, when the Supreme Court outlawed any bans on interracial marriage, Warren's decision closed with these words:

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

It says person, not person of the opposite sex.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


Allong the same lines of which came first the chicken or the egg? Which came first in marrage. Political or religious? KELP... When you wrote this you were talking about getting hitched by a judge, not a priest right? It is utterly rediculas for most people to accept that gays can Marry. They just don't fell it worth the argument, or don't care enough tho stand up aginst it. In either case I don't care to wast anymore thought about gay marrage. Just the statment Gay Marriage is an oxymoron. Life partner is just an example of how desperate you people are to be accepted. Call it what you like it is just another example how far these queers will go. Run down the street naked waiving a big rainbo banner screaming "LOOK at ME" Look at ME" I here and I'm Queer so you better just love me.

_________________________________________

Someone dies, someone says how stupid, someone says it was avoidable, someone says how to avoid it, someone calls them an idiot, someone proposes rule chan

[narcimund 0]

NelKel, with all DUE respect, it's hard enough to figure out what you're saying when you keep it short. This mess is very hard though. I just can't parse it all. I really tried and I'm a smart person.

There's a strong connection between clarity of writing and clarity of thought. I thought you'd like to know, just for future reference. A little more care in your writing might also help with your future job prospects.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

The voters (the majority) does not decide rights in our country. The Constitution does, though the Supreme Court.

Not so.

Don't remember the many referendums last November? Those were laws that were being voted on, the people and the legislative branch make laws, the executive enforces, the judicial interprets. If the Supreme Court says no good, then the legislature gets an opportunity to revise the law to pass the courts test.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

The voters (the majority) does not decide rights in our country. The Constitution does, though the Supreme Court.

Not so.

Don't remember the many referendums last November? Those were laws that were being voted on, the people and the legislative branch make laws, the executive enforces, the judicial interprets. If the Supreme Court says no good, then the legislature gets an opportunity to revise the law to pass the courts test.

Laws != rights. You need to appreciate that difference.

[chuteless 1]

at one time, sins were atoned by the offering of animals.

Christ became the final and greatest sacrifice, and they no longer sacrifice animals.

Just one change for you

Bill

[chuteless 1]

You are wrong Christel> It has everything to do with standing for what is right in the eyes of God.

You, like so many others try to change things to suit yourself.

Bill