Cali Gay Marriage Opinion to be Released Today

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

Well, Bill, I was refering to the fact that they outnumber Jakee. So it only takes two.

People who think it's ok to rape children outnumber you. Does that mean you can't tell them they're wrong?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I am not against same-sex marriages. If two people of the same sex want to get married, have at it. No skin off my back.

So you think that same-sex marriage should be legal, and you would vote that way?

[wmw999 2,452]

I think the answer to all this is "I really like to argue"

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lewmonst 0]

Quote

Quote

What is it about giving all humans equal rights that abhors you so much?

I wasn't going to post in this thread anymore, but i will answer your question.

I have already addressed this, but will so again. There is nothing about all people having equal rights that abhors me. I would love a world where that actually happened. But you people here have interpreted my position that gays are not being discriminated against as my somehow being against their right to marry who they want. I am not.
People are disciminated against for all kinds of things. Gender, age, intelligence, height, weight, etc. I will worry about who people can marry (something that is relatively trivial) when discrimination for much more important things is eliminated.

"trivial"???? hmmm. You really think this is trivial?

Let me get this straight, are you saying you think this whole issue is not discrimination?


I actually have been discriminated against blatantly for my gender, and less blatantly for my height and other traits. None of that really bothered me. But this issue of not allowing gay marriage, this really bothers me. And I'm not gay. It's a civil rights issue. Anyone who cares about their own civil rights should care about this issue.

http://www.exitshot.com

[Belgian_Draft 0]

And I have been a victim of racial discrimination. So, yes, the issue of marriage is trivial to me in comparison. VERY trivial.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Thank you for not feeding the trolls.

I love the irony of this.

Hmm, yeah, I guess I'll give up on trying to have a conversation there. It doesn't seem to be working.

[lewmonst 0]

Again, are you saying you think this whole issue is not discrimination?

http://www.exitshot.com

[lewmonst 0]

B_D, thank you for outright stating your opinion, even though you resorted to a PM to send me this:

Quote

Yes, I am saying it is not discrimination. If you had actually read the posts you would have no need to ask as i have stated that position more than once in the thread.

It is discrimination.

The Federal government already recognizes and prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment. (See http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-orientation_parent_marital_political.html)

The manifestation of this type of discrimination by state governments regarding marriage is just the next issue that needs to be addressed, and will be.

This, I would bet on.

http://www.exitshot.com

[labrys 0]

Sheesh, my head is spinning. This thread has so many wonderful, supportive elements and so many scary and mean ones.

In summary (the points that come up many times)

Does allowing 2 men to marry mean that society is teetering on the brink of allowing incest? Jesus FC, no.

Allowing a man to marry a man doesn't make it okay for a man to marry his son any more than allowing a man to marry a woman makes it okay for a man to marry his daughter. WTF are you thinking? Not directed at lewmonst, just a general thought.

Does allowing a woman to marry a woman make it okay for a woman to marry a dog? J Fucking C no. Dogs are not consenting adults. They don't have opposable thumbs and therefore can't sign waivers, pre-nuptials, or any other contracts.

Is allowing more than one consenting adult to enter into marriage with more than one other consenting adult really going to hurt anyone? JF Christ no. Not as long as everyone is consenting and everyone is adult.

Someone (maybe Billvon) made a great point earlier in the thread. Most people posting here seem okay with the idea that the federal government should disengage from "marriage" and allow "civil union" to be the standard for recognition and benefits.

That poster also pointed out that the underlying problem with that idea is that this puts "marriage" entirely in the hands of the church, and there are churches out there that would gladly allow same sex marriages.

So... my head spins more.

Edit because I forgot this train of thought:

This isn't about comparing apples to carrots or apples to oranges or apples to fucking apples. This is about comparing living, feeling, caring human beings to other living, feeling, caring human beings. Real, live (consenting and adult) FUCKING people.

Owned by Remi #?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

The idea of a PM is exactly what the label states...PRIVATE! Not for general publication, not to be copied and pasted.
The upside is that it shows you cannot be trusted.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[mdrejhon 8]

An observation.

Reading up some history on the black civil rights movements with all the fiery rhetoric and debate back in those days. Now even today's opposition to gay marriage is pretty tame/muted in comparision. Even speaker's corner is totally tame. It really put things into perspective!

[lewmonst 0]

Had you said something private or asked me to keep it private I would have. I posted nothing new as you yourself said you'd "stated that position more than once in the thread".

I will speak out against discrimination.

http://www.exitshot.com

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Had you said something private or asked me to keep it private I would have. I posted nothing new as you yourself said you'd "stated that position more than once in the thread".

I will speak out against discrimination.

What part of the word "private" don't you understand? It is not necessarily the content that the sender wishes to be kept confidential, but often the fact that a message was sent, such as it is in this case.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[MikeForsythe 0]

There seems to be some confusion as to the word “Marriage” in this issue. The majority of those that are against same sex marriage are so because of the religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman. There are also religious beliefs that say it can be between any two adults. My reason for removing marriage from government is that it denies religious freedom and equality as protected by our constitution. If the government says that same sex marriage is not okay then they are taking a stand as a government determining that a religions view is wrong and thereby denying their freedom of religious beliefs. If they say it is okay, you have the same denial of religious beliefs on the other side. If we as a nation come up with a universal definition of civil unions that allows people to share their lives with who they want then we create a win win solution. Everyone has equality and the government is not judging or denying any religious beliefs.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[okalb 104]

Quote

There seems to be some confusion as to the word “Marriage” in this issue. The majority of those that are against same sex marriage are so because of the religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman. There are also religious beliefs that say it can be between any two adults. My reason for removing marriage from government is that it denies religious freedom and equality as protected by our constitution. If the government says that same sex marriage is not okay then they are taking a stand as a government determining that a religions view is wrong and thereby denying their freedom of religious beliefs. If they say it is okay, you have the same denial of religious beliefs on the other side. If we as a nation come up with a universal definition of civil unions that allows people to share their lives with who they want then we create a win win solution. Everyone has equality and the government is not judging or denying any religious beliefs.

That's great, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. The question then becomes until the world is a perfect place and we have what you and many other have suggested, do you think that homosexuals should be allowed to marry or should they be discriminated against?

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[jakee 1,498]

Quote

If the government says that same sex marriage is not okay then they are taking a stand as a government determining that a religions view is wrong and thereby denying their freedom of religious beliefs. If they say it is okay, you have the same denial of religious beliefs on the other side.

No it isn't. It's not even close. What the government says it will recognise as marriage does not even remotely affect who different religions can allow to get married in their ceremonies. Try this one, the government says divorce is OK, does that mean they are denying the religious freedoms of Catholics? If a Hindu tells you he's married is that person infringing upon your religion because he wasn't married in front of your god in one of your ceremonies?

Your objection makes absolutely no sense.

Quote

If we as a nation come up with a universal definition of civil unions that allows people to share their lives with who they want then we create a win win solution.

And that would be great. Work towards that. But why in the meantime act in a way as to deny rights to a group of people and maintain discrimination?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I understood his statement perfectly. When a government refuses to recognize a same-sex marriage they arte, in effect, siding with religion. There is no reason other than religious beliefs for denying people that right.
Do you not agree with that?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

The idea of a PM is exactly what the label states...PRIVATE! Not for general publication, not to be copied and pasted.
The upside is that it shows you cannot be trusted.

REALITY INTRUSION!!!!

You should have NO expecation that anything that you write or send is going to remain private. If you write something that patently offensive, or stupid via PM, it may be publicly published by the recipient. Email, PMs, whatever. This is reality.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

I learned that the hard way.
It is too bad that it has to be that way.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I learned that the hard way.
It is too bad that it has to be that way.

Rude private messages don't have an expectation to stay private. Otherwise, you're right to have some expectation, but to hide that a PM was sent at all seems a bit unrealistic, and silly.

since her citation was nothing you hadn't already written, I see it as a technical violation only.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

I learned that the hard way.
It is too bad that it has to be that way.

Rude private messages don't have an expectation to stay private. Otherwise, you're right to have some expectation, but to hide that a PM was sent at all seems a bit unrealistic, and silly.

since her citation was nothing you hadn't already written, I see it as a technical violation only.

Nothing rude about it, merely stated fact.
FACT: If she had read my posts she would have found the answer to her question.
FACT: I was under no obligation at all to respond publicly or privately. I feel I did her a favor by responding with my position and saving her the time of going through all the old posts.
FACT: She did not thank me or show any sort of appreciation for the favor, only betrayed the small trust I put in her to keep the PM private. THAT, my dear friend, is rude.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

The idea of a PM is exactly what the label states...PRIVATE! Not for general publication, not to be copied and pasted.
The upside is that it shows you cannot be trusted.

REALITY INTRUSION!!!!

You should have NO expecation that anything that you write or send is going to remain private. If you write something that patently offensive, or stupid via PM, it may be publicly published by the recipient. Email, PMs, whatever. This is reality.

bad form, low class - to share any PM about any topic

discussed many times on these forums

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

bad form, low class - to share any PM about any topic

discussed many times on these forums

Not a universal truth. Not applicable in this case, but abusive PMs or email enjoy no privacy under netiquette (though 15 years later, the word is unknown to most).

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

bad form, low class - to share any PM about any topic

discussed many times on these forums

Not a universal truth. Not applicable in this case, but abusive PMs or email enjoy no privacy under netiquette (though 15 years later, the word is unknown to most).

I disagree - abusive PMs have 2 courses of action. Refer privately to a moderator. and block the sender.

The only thing I'd 'break' the privacy rule is if someone PM'd to me about how they are going to attacked someone else. I'd refer to a moderator and block that sender, but I'd also warn the intended victim.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

You can do what you like, but that's not convention, which has long held that group participants who try to use the privacy of email to attack without consequence will be outed to the group. They can decide if he's a scumbag or not.