More on the British sniper...er, homosexuality

#127
#127
OrangeEmpire said:
Preach lumberjack!
Click to expand...

From what gospel is that, the humanist manifest??

634157894781735595-GayTest.jpg
 
#129
#129
lumberjack4 said:
Not sure how you are surprised that I have no problem with gay marriage, after I stated that I don't care what people do with their private lives as long as no one else is affected.

I'm a free market capitalist, not sure why you are trying to paint me as a socialist since I am against all forms of wealth redistribution, more so than most Republicans.

You ask about civil rights, women's rights, and homosexual rights. I believe all groups have equal rights from the government standpoint, that does not mean, however, I'm for affirmative action, Title 9, etc since those institutions treat groups not as equals, but as 'special' people.

As for animal rights, I love my pets and hate to see any animals abused, but they are not on an equal level with the rights of humans.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with all of the above positions.
 
#130
#130
chiggervol said:
Oh come on Snookie. I was just messing with you.
Click to expand...

Don't worry snookems, I'm not mad you sweetie. :air_kiss:

lumberjack4 said:
Not sure how you are surprised that I have no problem with gay marriage, after I stated that I don't care what people do with their private lives as long as no one else is affected.

I'm a free market capitalist, not sure why you are trying to paint me as a socialist since I am against all forms of wealth redistribution, more so than most Republicans.

You ask about civil rights, women's rights, and homosexual rights. I believe all groups have equal rights from the government standpoint, that does not mean, however, I'm for affirmative action, Title 9, etc since those institutions treat groups not as equals, but as 'special' people.

As for animal rights, I love my pets and hate to see any animals abused, but they are not on an equal level with the rights of humans.
Click to expand...

Recently we have seen fit to raise the penalties for so-called animal abuse, which can be highly subjective, from misdemeanor to felony level, overturning four hundred years of common law.

Homosexuals and a heinz variety of sexual perverts which have muslims written in have been given special rights in the recent pedophile protection act, and that isn't just for physical harm but for just saying something that they might find offensive.

For over five thousand years marriage has always been considered to be between a man and a woman, to change that now opens a door to many things.

The aceptance of the Kindsey report which is nothing more than pedophiles claiming to legitimise their perversions via so-called science and the the American Psychiatric Association removal of homosexuality from its diagnostic list of mental disorders in 1973, despite substantial protest.

So now in our public schools children are taught that homosexuality is normal.

John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.


Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence said. "[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be aid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments. Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind."

Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary said, "The Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence."

Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution. "For avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God."

Fisher Ames author of the final wording for the First Amendment wrote, "Why should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind."

John Jay, Original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court , "The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts."

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary stated, "The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U. S. House, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."

George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778

Note that the above quotes are but a small sample of hundreds of quotes the Founding Fathers made in regards to the importance of a religious and moral people in a successful Republican Democracy.

Today:

Ken Malloy's Blog : Supporters of Prop 8 - Official Reaction

The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians runs contrary to legal precedent and the notion of states' rights. But this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.

“But the reality is that Prop 8 was simply about restoring and strengthening the traditional definition of marriage as the unique relationship of a man and a woman, for the benefit of children, families and society.
-----------------------------

“Reversing today's decision will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.

And federal precedent is clear that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To prevail in the end, our opponents have a very difficult task of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon precedent and declare a new constitutional right.”
Click to expand...


Marriage: Not So Gay. | Stumped Again.

What do they think Marriage is, a sex license?
--------------------------------------

Let’s step back. What the heck is marriage, and why do we have it? What is the historical meaning of the term? Over time and in every civilization “Marriage” has been consistently defined as a special legal contract between a man and a woman. But why? Why do we have such a concept? What is the ordinary and common understanding upon which “Marriage” has been constructed?
--------------------------------

The purposes of marriage are:

– The protection of women,

–Which fosters the protection of children,

-(Which fosters the stability and cohesiveness of family,) my add

–Which, in turn, fosters the stability of civilization.
--------------------------


So how do Bob and Harry, standing bereft at the door of the church or city hall, pining for “their love to be recognized,” fit into all this?

The answer is, they don’t. Marriage is only tangentially about a particular couple. It certainly isn’t about ”being recognized.” It’s about bigger things than me or you or him or her. It’s about the way men and women relate to each other in a society that deserves the title “civilization.” And for it to be about how men and women relate, there have to be men and women, or, to be perfectly direct, a man and a woman.
Click to expand...
 
#131
#131
"Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to join this couple before God and this company..."

Nope, nothing to do with a particular couple being recognized.
 
#132
#132
IPorange said:
I think you mean they "passed" the gay test. They failed the straight test.
Click to expand...

Semantics shemantics.

Reminds me of a very funny song written by a friend of mine along with Shel Silverstein.

Not suitable for human consumption useless performed in a tavern or night club, it is a lament from a guy whose wife had just walked out on him. (You know classic country stuff.)

She returned unexpectely from vacation complaing about the messy house in which she found a red pubic hair on the stairs.

Could he help it if there was still a girl under it??
 
#134
#134
volinbham said:
:hi: You've got it. Entering into "marriage" has deep meaning for many. I don't see why they should have to give up that meaning just because another group demands it.

OE first introduced me to the idea of the govt being completely out of the "marriage" business. Upon reflection I have to say I agree.
Click to expand...

I don't often post, but felt the need to comment on this topic from the perspective of a gay man. I completely understand and respect the tradition and meaning of the term 'marriage' for heterosexuals, and I have no problem with another arrangement or term for gay unions. To be completely honest, marriage is not a big deal for me; my concern is around equal state and federal benefits. The problem with civil unions as they exist today is that they do not provide the same tax and legal standing as marriage does under the federal government. We can see equal standing under many state governments, but that also varies state to state. My partner and I, along with many friends, have had to make sure we have necessary legal documents such as multiple power of attorneys (medical & otherwise) and wills in place to try to cover benefits which are inherent with marriage.
 
#135
#135
gcbvol said:
I don't often post, but felt the need to comment on this topic from the perspective of a gay man. I completely understand and respect the tradition and meaning of the term 'marriage' for heterosexuals, and I have no problem with another arrangement or term for gay unions. To be completely honest, marriage is not a big deal for me; my concern is around equal state and federal benefits. The problem with civil unions as they exist today is that they do not provide the same tax and legal standing as marriage does under the federal government. We can see equal standing under many state governments, but that also varies state to state. My partner and I, along with many friends, have had to make sure we have necessary legal documents such as multiple power of attorneys (medical & otherwise) and wills in place to try to cover benefits which are inherent with marriage.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that input. I believe the term I used in an earlier post referred to it needing to be "functionally" the same. If it's not then it really is an issue. As an aside, it sure seems like there'd be a lot less hassle in raising the CU for you than this big semantic fight over "marriage". Maybe I'm wrong.
 
#136
#136
gcbvol said:
I don't often post, but felt the need to comment on this topic from the perspective of a gay man. I completely understand and respect the tradition and meaning of the term 'marriage' for heterosexuals, and I have no problem with another arrangement or term for gay unions. To be completely honest, marriage is not a big deal for me; my concern is around equal state and federal benefits. The problem with civil unions as they exist today is that they do not provide the same tax and legal standing as marriage does under the federal government. We can see equal standing under many state governments, but that also varies state to state. My partner and I, along with many friends, have had to make sure we have necessary legal documents such as multiple power of attorneys (medical & otherwise) and wills in place to try to cover benefits which are inherent with marriage.
Click to expand...

I believe this to be the crux of the issue for the gay community. Since DOMA was passed, even if most states pass laws that give equal legal status to hetero and gay couples (which I believe they should), there will still be enclaves around the country that won't recognize them as legally equal and gay couples that live there will still be in legal limbo. So, if it can be nationally mandated by the courts that gay relationships
have to be called marriage, it usurps DOMA. It is a thorny issue. I don't want the gov't involved with defining relationships either. But if states have the right to not recognize gay "marriages" performed in other states, a federal solution seems to be enevitable.
 
#137
#137
gcbvol said:
I don't often post, but felt the need to comment on this topic from the perspective of a gay man. I completely understand and respect the tradition and meaning of the term 'marriage' for heterosexuals, and I have no problem with another arrangement or term for gay unions. To be completely honest, marriage is not a big deal for me; my concern is around equal state and federal benefits. The problem with civil unions as they exist today is that they do not provide the same tax and legal standing as marriage does under the federal government. We can see equal standing under many state governments, but that also varies state to state. My partner and I, along with many friends, have had to make sure we have necessary legal documents such as multiple power of attorneys (medical & otherwise) and wills in place to try to cover benefits which are inherent with marriage.
Click to expand...

Just because a marriage license obtained doesn't mean all your legal problems are solved nor does it mean you will pay less taxes, fwiw.
 
#138
#138
distrovol said:
I believe this to be the crux of the issue for the gay community. Since DOMA was passed, even if most states pass laws that give equal legal status to hetero and gay couples (which I believe they should), there will still be enclaves around the country that won't recognize them as legally equal and gay couples that live there will still be in legal limbo. So, if it can be nationally mandated by the courts that gay relationships
have to be called marriage, it usurps DOMA. It is a thorny issue. I don't want the gov't involved with defining relationships either. But if states have the right to not recognize gay "marriages" performed in other states, a federal solution seems to be enevitable.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. This is very thorny because I tend to feel that the federal government should be out of the marriage/CU issue, but not sure how it will be resolved otherwise.
 
#139
#139
gcbvol said:
Completely agree. This is very thorny because I tend to feel that the federal government should be out of the marriage/CU issue, but not sure how it will be resolved otherwise.
Click to expand...

The only way for that to happen would be for the government to end all family/marriage tax deductions, which will never happen under the current tax structure.
 
#140
#140
gsvol said:
Just because a marriage license obtained doesn't mean all your legal problems are solved nor does it mean you will pay less taxes, fwiw.
Click to expand...

Do not disagree with this at all. Marriage does not resolve all these legal issues and I feel it is a good idea for everyone to have legal documentation in place.

Just speaking for myself, I am only looking for a solution that will create the same starting point (in terms of federal standing/benefits) as marriage. What that solution is titled makes no difference to me.
 
#141
#141
gcbvol said:
Do not disagree with this at all. Marriage does not resolve all these legal issues and I feel it is a good idea for everyone to have legal documentation in place.

Just speaking for myself, I am only looking for a solution that will create the same starting point (in terms of federal standing/benefits) as marriage. What that solution is titled makes no difference to me.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that the extremists on both sides (christian/religious groups and gay activist groups) will do all they can to never let that compromise happen.

FWIW I am consider myself a christian and couldn't care less what you or anyone else does in their private life as long as it doesn't effect me. I do respect the sanctity of marriage from a christian prospective but at the same time agree that same sex partners have the right to equal treatment under the law. There is plenty of ground for reasonable people to meet on and work out something that respects both the religious need to protect the term of marriage as well as grant equality under the law to same sex partners.
 
#142
#142
KB5252 said:
The problem here is that the extremists on both sides (christian/religious groups and gay activist groups) will do all they can to never let that compromise happen.

FWIW I am consider myself a christian and couldn't care less what you or anyone else does in their private life as long as it doesn't effect me. I do respect the sanctity of marriage from a christian prospective but at the same time agree that same sex partners have the right to equal treatment under the law. There is plenty of ground for reasonable people to meet on and work out something that respects both the religious need to protect the term of marriage as well as grant equality under the law to same sex partners.
Click to expand...

I think this is spot on. Reasonable folks on both sides could create a fair and workable solution, but the extremists on both sides are simply counterproductive.

I respect your position on the issues and feel that is very fair. I was brought up in a very Christian family and completely understand the respect for sanctity of marriage. Of course, many do not share my perspective.
 
#143
#143
The irony here is that there are people acting as if "gay love" is not allowed. I read the comments coming from 'celebrities' after the rendering and statements like 'love between two people should never be denied' and 'true love should never be illegal' just kill me. Last I checked, there was no law telling two same sex couples they could not love each other. "Love" was not being denied.

Marriage itself is a regulated and restricted item. You have to have a license, you have to present proper ID, you cannot be married to anyone else, you have to be a certain age. The argument in this case was not about the definition of marriage but due process and equal protection. I personally think the due process argument was crap since getting a proposition on the ballot in CA first of all is an ordeal in itself. The fact it was a campaign and a vote by the people establishes due process as well. As for deeming this 'equal protection' this opens up a whole new set of issues. You have issues such as the restrictions that can now pose problems. Age, blood tests, etc. can be scrutinized. In addition, the polygamist cults can now argue in favor of equal protection as well.

It will be very interesting how the appellate court and Supreme Court find for this issue. This really has the potential to open pandora's box on endless issues.
 
#144
#144
gcbvol said:
I think this is spot on. Reasonable folks on both sides could create a fair and workable solution, but the extremists on both sides are simply counterproductive.

I respect your position on the issues and feel that is very fair. I was brought up in a very Christian family and completely understand the respect for sanctity of marriage. Of course, many do not share my perspective.
Click to expand...

This is where the problem occurs. Religion (and thereby the sanctity of marriage) is becoming less and less important to the general population - which calls the religious argument into question. In addition, I don't think Christianity should have any business affecting equality under the law.

Though there are more and more people willing to accept gay marriage everyday - I think this issue will be around for a very long time - maybe not abortions long, but comparable.
 
#145
#145
KiffinKiller said:
This is where the problem occurs. Religion (and thereby the sanctity of marriage) is becoming less and less important to the general population - which calls the religious argument into question. In addition, I don't think Christianity should have any business affecting equality under the law.

Though there are more and more people willing to accept gay marriage everyday - I think this issue will be around for a very long time - maybe not abortions long, but comparable.
Click to expand...

This makes for a very interesting topic for discussion. I think people on both sides make very passionate and reasonable arguments. I would really love to see a breakdown of where the gay community stands on the issue. Specifically, what percentage share my perspective in terms of equal protection/benefits under law and how many will only be happy with marriage.
 
#146
#146
I just think it ironic that marriage has now come down to a right to get extra tax benefits among other perks. If you love them, love them. Live with them. Spend time with them. No one stops you. Using the argument about getting your 'fair share' of the benefits is not exactly a civil rights argument here. If it is about love and being with someone, no one is stopping you. Many couples care less about a ceremony with a certificate to express their love for another. Frankly if this comes down to simply wanting to do so to get some non-civil rights perk such as a tax credit, I seriously question a motive. Maybe instead of looking at the act of marriage and definition of said act, we should be looking at benefits, perks, credits, etc. and working on that.
 
#147
#147
CSpindizzy said:
I just think it ironic that marriage has now come down to a right to get extra tax benefits among other perks. If you love them, love them. Live with them. Spend time with them. No one stops you. Using the argument about getting your 'fair share' of the benefits is not exactly a civil rights argument here. If it is about love and being with someone, no one is stopping you. Many couples care less about a ceremony with a certificate to express their love for another. Frankly if this comes down to simply wanting to do so to get some non-civil rights perk such as a tax credit, I seriously question a motive. Maybe instead of looking at the act of marriage and definition of said act, we should be looking at benefits, perks, credits, etc. and working on that.
Click to expand...

It's seems like its more or less an offshoot of becoming an insanely politically correct society. Calling Janitors sanitation engineers is ridiculous.
 
#148
#148
CSpindizzy said:
I just think it ironic that marriage has now come down to a right to get extra tax benefits among other perks. If you love them, love them. Live with them. Spend time with them. No one stops you. Using the argument about getting your 'fair share' of the benefits is not exactly a civil rights argument here. If it is about love and being with someone, no one is stopping you. Many couples care less about a ceremony with a certificate to express their love for another. Frankly if this comes down to simply wanting to do so to get some non-civil rights perk such as a tax credit, I seriously question a motive. Maybe instead of looking at the act of marriage and definition of said act, we should be looking at benefits, perks, credits, etc. and working on that.
Click to expand...

I think I need to clarify where I stand on this. I have no interest in marriage whatsoever, and absolutely agree that no is stopping me from loving who I do. My concern is not with getting a tax credit. A much bigger concern for me is around medical power of attorney. If my partner becomes seriously ill I must have a medical power of attorney to obtain the same rights that default to a married spouse. And some hospitals will not even accept the medical power of attorney. This is not only a 'gay' issue, as unmarried heterosexual couples have the same concern. There are also similar issues that arise when a partner dies - the inherent legal standing of a spouse is not shared. I simply want equal standing in this regard.
 
#149
#149
CSpindizzy said:
I just think it ironic that marriage has now come down to a right to get extra tax benefits among other perks. If you love them, love them. Live with them. Spend time with them. No one stops you. Using the argument about getting your 'fair share' of the benefits is not exactly a civil rights argument here. If it is about love and being with someone, no one is stopping you. Many couples care less about a ceremony with a certificate to express their love for another. Frankly if this comes down to simply wanting to do so to get some non-civil rights perk such as a tax credit, I seriously question a motive. Maybe instead of looking at the act of marriage and definition of said act, we should be looking at benefits, perks, credits, etc. and working on that.
Click to expand...

How is that not a civil rights issue, if they are unable to get a "perk" because of their orientation? What is a civil rights issue? I guess separate water fountains are fine. I mean, everyone gets water right?
 
#150
#150
IPorange said:
How is that not a civil rights issue, if they are unable to get a "perk" because of their orientation? What is a civil rights issue? I guess separate water fountains are fine. I mean, everyone gets water right?
Click to expand...

Tax credits are rights? Well by all means hand them all out to everyone. Why stop with consenting adults engaging in sexual acts. I mean we wouldn't want college roommates to be discriminated against would we? Two heterosexual partners living together? Because it is beyond orientation as well. Where do you stop? What if others want that perk as well? You're thinking a little short sighted on this whole issue.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top