Government Laws on Marriage

[Rob Henderson]

From an anonymous quote; "I may not always be right but, I am never WRONG."

Went back and looked at Post 128. You quoted a statement with out a source. It doesn't even look like a definition, more like a possible example.
Please post your source.

If one chooses to be homosexual and I choose to ignore their behavior until they demand that their actions be recognised by the government, then I have the right to say no. I was tolerant to the point at wish thay came out of the privacy of their bedroom and demanded their life style be Publicly Recognized and Accepted. Are you going to deny me the right to make choices in what type of community I wish to live in?

You will probably consider this as being selfish. Me to. It just happens to coincide with the selfishness of the majority.

I believe my freedom to bear arms has been infringed by government, I used my ability as a voter to keep the government from further infringing and legitimising something I find objectionable. I used my vote to stop what I believe to be moral decay. In this I and the majority of Californians were successful.
In the future if given the opportunity to overturn the infringements government has placed on my 2nd Amendments I will vote on that also.

You're honestly that lazy... Go to www.dictionary.com and type in discrimination. It's not terribly difficult. Its not like I went to the 500,000th page of a google search and got the definition to fit my case.


By the way, congratulations, in that entire paragraph of bramble, you managed to NOT answer my question. Is it or is it not discrimination based on the definition provided by dictionary.com?

 

[Chukpike]

You're honestly that lazy... Go to www.dictionary.com and type in discrimination. It's not terribly difficult. Its not like I went to the 500,000th page of a google search and got the definition to fit my case.

Why would I do your work for you? Although judging by the sources you supply I would do it better. As an example use the following link and it would not be necessary to type in anything:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

By the way, congratulations, in that entire paragraph of bramble, you managed to NOT answer my question. Is it or is it not discrimination based on the definition provided by dictionary.com?

All ready answered.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Nope. Not already answered. All you did was go off on your own tangents to avoid the question you CANNOT answer. You cannot give me a legitimate defense of the accusation that your treating homosexuals differently based on the fact that they are homosexuals is discrimination.

 

[Rob Henderson]

I love this....

10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because, as you know, a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.



Bump... Hehe. Got this in an e-mail.

 

[senojekips]

Nope. Not already answered. All you did was go off on your own tangents to avoid the question you CANNOT answer. You cannot give me a legitimate defense of the accusation that your treating homosexuals differently based on the fact that they are homosexuals is discrimination.

In the case in question it has already been decided by the Supreme court in California that this does NOT constitute discrimination. What other judgement do you need?

It is not laziness to avoid answering questions that have previously been answered in detail by a much higher authority than yourself. Your accusation is no more than baiting as I have no doubt you are already aware of the facts. Homosexuals are being treated in this manner not because of discrimination, but because it is against the law as it is interpreted by that authority.

 

[The Other Guy]

In the case in question it has already been decided by the Supreme court in California that this does NOT constitute discrimination. What other judgement do you need?

It is not laziness to avoid answering questions that have previously been answered in detail by a much higher authority than yourself. Your accusation is no more than baiting as I have no doubt you are already aware of the facts. Homosexuals are being treated in this manner not because of discrimination, but because it is against the law as it is interpreted by that authority.

And, seno, the ruling was reversed. That's why Proposition 8 came up at all last year in the election; thre reversal of this ruling!

 

[senojekips]

My mistake. But never the less, I understand the voters of California voted to ban same sex marriages?

 

[Rob Henderson]

In the case in question it has already been decided by the Supreme court in California that this does NOT constitute discrimination. What other judgement do you need?

It is not laziness to avoid answering questions that have previously been answered in detail by a much higher authority than yourself. Your accusation is no more than baiting as I have no doubt you are already aware of the facts. Homosexuals are being treated in this manner not because of discrimination, but because it is against the law as it is interpreted by that authority.

I am simply curious as to how you all think it is NOT discrimination. And as TOG already said... The Supreme Court, your supposed higher authority, reversed the ruling. It was the people (who you seem to think are incapable of making decisions) who reversed the ruling.

 

[Chukpike]

In the case in question it has already been decided by the Supreme court in California that this does NOT constitute discrimination. What other judgement do you need?

And, seno, the ruling was reversed. That's why Proposition 8 came up at all last year in the election; thre reversal of this ruling!

WRONG!

The California Supreme Court in ruling to allow homosexual marriage and overturn Proposition 22. stated that:

"we conclude that the challenged statutes cannot properly be viewed as discriminating on the basis of sex or gender."

They were not using sexual discrimination as the bases for their decision. Their decision was not reversed.

Proposition 8 defined "marriage as only between one man and one women" and is an amendment to the California Constitution. The decision the court made, made it necessary to have this vote, by the people, to make the court ruling irrelevant.

 

[senojekips]

WRONG!

The California Supreme Court in ruling to allow homosexual marriage and overturn Proposition 22. stated that:

"we conclude that the challenged statutes cannot properly be viewed as discriminating on the basis of sex or gender."

They were not using sexual discrimination as the bases for their decision. Their decision was not reversed.

Proposition 8 defined "marriage as only between one man and one women" and is an amendment to the California Constitution. The decision the court made, made it necessary to have this vote, by the people, to make the court ruling irrelevant.

Thank you,... that was my previous understanding of the matter also.

Unfortunately due to other commitments I have not had time to go hunting these things up.

 

[Rob Henderson]

And conveniently enough, NEITHER of you have actually told me how YOU justify this as NOT discrimination. As I've said before, I don't want the courts definition (btw, it's only ONE state court, hardly definitive) I want YOURS. Tell me how your attitude isn't discrimination based on the definition of the word in the dictionary.

 

[The Other Guy]

Just wanted to point out; February 1st marks the 4 year anniversary of the introduction of the Canadian Civil Marriage Act.

We have proven time and time again that we are extremely resistant to change. Every head of state in this country's history until 12 days ago was a white male. We furiously railed against Women's suffrage, fought against civil rights, refused to abolish slavery years and years after other countries had. Maybe, just once, we could do something without having to b*tch and moan for 130 years first?

 

[Rob Henderson]

Funny how half the argument AGAINST gay marriage is someone from a country that allows civil unions and isn't discriminatory to gays on the whole...

 

[senojekips]

Funny how half the argument AGAINST gay marriage is someone from a country that allows civil unions and isn't discriminatory to gays on the whole...

Just like policing the streets against criminals is not discriminatory. It is expected and required by a civilised society.

 

[The Other Guy]

Just like policing the streets against criminals is not discriminatory. It is expected and required by a civilised society.

Natrually. I mean, if we're civilized then everything is sorted out a million ways and kept seperate. With different rights. :-?

 

[Chukpike]

Funny how half the argument AGAINST gay marriage is someone from a country that allows civil unions and isn't discriminatory to gays on the whole...

I guess you are talking about me.
As California allows civil unions and isn't discriminatory towards gays on the whole. By the way California is a state not a country.

Although, a lot of people think California is a whole different planet.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Just like policing the streets against criminals is not discriminatory. It is expected and required by a civilised society.

Makes sense... Seno, since you are a believer in evolution (I'm assuming from your STRONG atheist views) and evolution says we evolved from monkeys... Do you believe monkeys' social habits to be acceptable?



Now, to DIRECTLY address that bigoted statement, most criminals do physical HARM to society. When someone is raped, murdered, or assaulted, that victim endures physical damage to his/herself. When two people of the same sex marry each other, the most harm done (be it physical or psychological) is someone having to talk about the birds and the bees of the 21st century. By and large, gays being married wouldn't affect everyday life AT ALL.



You say policing the streets against criminals is expected by society... Well, if 75% of the criminal population is black, and police stations set up random checkpoints around predominately black neighborhoods and randomly pat down only black people... Isn't that discriminatory? EVEN THOUGH it is technically "policing the streets against criminals."


No Chukpike... You're from California... I wouldn't consider that to be another country. It was directed at Senojekips; whose native land is rather accepting of the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[Chukpike]

Just wanted to point out; February 1st marks the 4 year anniversary of the introduction of the Canadian Civil Marriage Act.

We have proven time and time again that we are extremely resistant to change. Every head of state in this country's history until 12 days ago was a white male. We furiously railed against Women's suffrage, fought against civil rights, refused to abolish slavery years and years after other countries had. Maybe, just once, we could do something without having to b*tch and moan for 130 years first?

Is change always good?

You used to be able to go to the airport and meet your friends at the arrival gate. No search or metal detectors.

You used to be able to have luggage and not get charged for it. (I have to tolerate it to travel, I don't have to accept it).

Not always good food but, you used to have an in flight snack or meal without paying for it. And as bad as some of them were, they were better than what you have to pay for now.

In today's society change seems to be the catch word of the day. President Obama won on a platform of change. But what changes did he outline specifically that he would make? In the case of change, allowing homosexual marriage, he really took a fence sitting position.

Canada is great example of how to do things
"Just wanted to point out; February 1st marks the 4 year anniversary of the introduction of the Canadian Civil Marriage Act." TOG
They can't decide whether to speak English or French.

Actually, the b*tching and moaning in regards to homosexual marriage is coming from the supporters side. I have nothing to complain about, homosexual marriage is not accepted in California. Its a sunny 75 degrees in Southern California today.

 

[senojekips]

Makes sense... Seno, since you are a believer in evolution (I'm assuming from your STRONG atheist views) and evolution says we evolved from monkeys... Do you believe monkeys' social habits to be acceptable?

Stupidity wins you no points, unless of course, you are comparing the behavioural standards of Homos with those of monkeys. In which case, maybe you have a point.

As humans, most of us have standards of acceptable behaviour. Some people want to move outside the boundaries of that acceptable behaviour, but can't see why there is opposition, Hmmm, monkeys eh,... you may have a point, maybe there are parallel thought patterns here.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Stupidity wins you no points, unless of course, you are comparing the behavioural standards of Homos with those of monkeys. In which case, maybe you have a point.

As humans, most of us have standards of acceptable behaviour. Some people want to move outside the boundaries of that acceptable behaviour, but can't see why there is opposition, Hmmm, monkeys eh,... you may have a point, maybe there are parallel thought patterns here.

It takes monkeys years to learn and accept new things. Yes, I think there ARE similar thought patterns here. I'm comparing the behavioral standards of all humans to those of monkeys (you included). But you see, there's a thing called evolution... 100 years ago, it was a "standard of acceptable behavior" to beat another human, as long as his/her skin was dark. Times have changed, because people saw that even though they seemed different, they were the same when it came down to being people. They had similar thoughts, dreams, fears, etc. The same thing WILL happen with homosexuals. Eventually, people will realize that they are still the same.