-
Steam recently changed the default privacy settings for all users. This may impact tracking. Ensure your profile has the correct settings by following the guide on our forums.
Gay rights, your view?
- Thread starter Trigun
- Start date
ChurchedAtheist
Your resident psycho hobo
Darth Budd
Inna-Gadda-Davida
whats the point of voting on the proposition if they're just going to try to overturn it? i voted against it but the american people have spoken and they dont want gay marriage. on a related note, it passed by a narrower margin than the previous one, i can see it being legalized in the next few years.
amrcidiot
MFM Survivor
EndUnknown said:
They might as well add "Baby Rights" on their because it seems like they have more rights than homosexuals.
People are fighting hard to ban abortion on babies who aren't technically even breathing air yet (I'm actually against abortion [in some situations], but that's another subject), and they don't see gays as equals.
This world sickens me.
ChurchedAtheist
Your resident psycho hobo
There is something tragically illogical about debates that ignore the obvious & defend the indefensible.
Marriage is a word that describes a binding union that is the accepted process of human proliferation. Unique to heterosexuals
If we didn't have that, we'd all have 200 plus last names.
Society took the word one step further & introduced Marital rights.
Then the lawyers got hold of it & took the fundamental word & turned it into a corporate battle, that once a union is proven, it deemed an equal input union, irrespective if it's been equal or not. (Just a simple illogical assumption)
This is basically how their logic will work for Gay rights.
"Marriage is a Sterfumpian word for bridle. Horses wear bridals. A horse is a Nag. Nag spelt backwards is gan. Gan is only one letter away from meaning Gay. We live in a democracy & the majority rules. Two letters out of three is a majority, so gays can wear bridle attire & thus, be brides & that equals a marriage"
& of course, gay rights is their current bread & butter, (Or should I say, The food off your table).
Thus, the 21st century definition of marriage is to "Legally usurp a mates possessions & foist the hapless taxpayer with a greater load."
The lawyers will love these Lemmings.
Be careful what you wish for sugarplums.
Marriage is a word that describes a binding union that is the accepted process of human proliferation. Unique to heterosexuals
If we didn't have that, we'd all have 200 plus last names.
Society took the word one step further & introduced Marital rights.
Then the lawyers got hold of it & took the fundamental word & turned it into a corporate battle, that once a union is proven, it deemed an equal input union, irrespective if it's been equal or not. (Just a simple illogical assumption)
This is basically how their logic will work for Gay rights.
"Marriage is a Sterfumpian word for bridle. Horses wear bridals. A horse is a Nag. Nag spelt backwards is gan. Gan is only one letter away from meaning Gay. We live in a democracy & the majority rules. Two letters out of three is a majority, so gays can wear bridle attire & thus, be brides & that equals a marriage"
& of course, gay rights is their current bread & butter, (Or should I say, The food off your table).
Thus, the 21st century definition of marriage is to "Legally usurp a mates possessions & foist the hapless taxpayer with a greater load."
The lawyers will love these Lemmings.
Be careful what you wish for sugarplums.
Joey
New Member
While I agree that marriage is retarded and useless, that still doesn't mean you should be able to tell somebody else they can't do it.Terra said:There is something tragically illogical about debates that ignore the obvious & defend the indefensible.
Marriage is a word that describes a binding union that is the accepted process of human proliferation. Unique to heterosexuals
If we didn't have that, we'd all have 200 plus last names.
Society took the word one step further & introduced Marital rights.
Then the lawyers got hold of it & took the fundamental word & turned it into a corporate battle, that once a union is proven, it deemed an equal input union, irrespective if it's been equal or not. (Just a simple illogical assumption)
This is basically how their logic will work for Gay rights.
"Marriage is a Sterfumpian word for bridle. Horses wear bridals. A horse is a Nag. Nag spelt backwards is gan. Gan is only one letter away from meaning Gay. We live in a democracy & the majority rules. Two letters out of three is a majority, so gays can wear bridle attire & thus, be brides & that equals a marriage"
& of course, gay rights is their current bread & butter, (Or should I say, The food off your table).
Thus, the 21st century definition of marriage is to "Legally usurp a mates possessions & foist the hapless taxpayer with a greater load."
The lawyers will love these Lemmings.
Be careful what you wish for sugarplums.
This is about imposing one's beliefs upon others, not weather or not marriage actually makes sense.
I mean, look a me... I'm heterosexual male who has no intentions of ever getting married, and yet the passing of prop. 8 has absolutely pissed me off.
I mean, it's not like the people who voted yes were even getting anything out of prop. 8. They voted yes simply out of spite.
Joey
Mate, you can't do it because the term "marriage" is meant to define a union between two heterosexuals.
Turning it into a discriminatory issue is illogical. It's like saying a "Pair" can contain more than two items.
It is not my concern what people do to get their rocks off, or who they chose to live with, or leave their estate to, but all this "normalising" of these relationships by corrupting terminology will not make a damn bit of difference to the fundamental importance of your happiness.
If Gay people think that they will be "Normal" by having a picket fence & a couple of adopted or surrogate children, then they are going to be sadly disappointed.
When an overwhelming majority are forced to accept something that they feel is fundamentally wrong, Which is the corruption of a term that is designed for a natural, & in the vast majority or cases, union of procreation, they will be pushed further away.
You may get it passed, & be proud of your achievement, but the lash will be constantly on your back.
There have been so many of these "Legally corrupted" invasions by Lawyers & minorities that it is driving this majority to say "enough is enough"
It's like when evidence was evidence, but now it's only admissible if the cop was wearing his uniform, or a blue tie or something.
I don't know anything about the vote or those clauses or passages you speak of, but I'll bet that a huge amount of "No" voters were simply rebelling against yet another invasion into their concept of terminology.
The Gay movement needs to adopt an individuality stance. Ask the residence of the Greek Island of Lesbos, who by geographical reference, are Lesbians, how they feel about this hi-jacking of the term because of a local suffragette named Sappho enjoyed the company of women.
Now consider that if the same connotation was used on Oscar Wilde, what do you think the reaction would be from Ireland if Gay men were called Irish?
It is just too invasive mate, they are not winning support, they are eking out tolerance.
JMO
Mate, you can't do it because the term "marriage" is meant to define a union between two heterosexuals.
Turning it into a discriminatory issue is illogical. It's like saying a "Pair" can contain more than two items.
It is not my concern what people do to get their rocks off, or who they chose to live with, or leave their estate to, but all this "normalising" of these relationships by corrupting terminology will not make a damn bit of difference to the fundamental importance of your happiness.
If Gay people think that they will be "Normal" by having a picket fence & a couple of adopted or surrogate children, then they are going to be sadly disappointed.
When an overwhelming majority are forced to accept something that they feel is fundamentally wrong, Which is the corruption of a term that is designed for a natural, & in the vast majority or cases, union of procreation, they will be pushed further away.
You may get it passed, & be proud of your achievement, but the lash will be constantly on your back.
There have been so many of these "Legally corrupted" invasions by Lawyers & minorities that it is driving this majority to say "enough is enough"
It's like when evidence was evidence, but now it's only admissible if the cop was wearing his uniform, or a blue tie or something.
I don't know anything about the vote or those clauses or passages you speak of, but I'll bet that a huge amount of "No" voters were simply rebelling against yet another invasion into their concept of terminology.
The Gay movement needs to adopt an individuality stance. Ask the residence of the Greek Island of Lesbos, who by geographical reference, are Lesbians, how they feel about this hi-jacking of the term because of a local suffragette named Sappho enjoyed the company of women.
Now consider that if the same connotation was used on Oscar Wilde, what do you think the reaction would be from Ireland if Gay men were called Irish?
It is just too invasive mate, they are not winning support, they are eking out tolerance.
JMO
ChurchedAtheist
Your resident psycho hobo
@terra: They will be "normal" as soon as the bigots stop treating them as sub class beings. just like black people are accepted as people with full rights. and it is not legal corruption, it is GETTING RID of legal bigotry.
Darth Budd
Inna-Gadda-Davida
the term "marriage" is a religious term, and since the gov't is not allowed to control religion then there can be no law forcing them to allow gay marriage, HOWEVER all "married" heterosexual couples are forced to file for a civil union to be recognized by the gov't as a single entity. in fact, some heterosexual couples aren't married at all and only have civil unions. i have no problem with gays having civil unions and being recognized as a legitimate couple by sharing finances, legal rights over each other in medical emergencies and adopting, but forcing the religions to change is unconstitutional.
Darth Budd
Inna-Gadda-Davida
Joey said:
did you read my post? it's not, they have to file for legal recognition in addition to their religious ceremony ceremony. if a heterosexual couple was married but didn't file the legal paperwork then they wouldn't get the tax cuts, etc.
EndUnknown said:
Once again, you can't legislate stupidity out of a system.
If a "Straight" person allows his mind to imagine what goes on behind closed doors between two gays & finds it repulsive, no law is going to change that.
I think that another section of the community feel that they are trying to steal "Acceptability" & they are reacting to that also.
As far as I'm concerned, whether it's M or F, they are just two mates living together.
If they want to commit themselves to each other in either an official ceremony or a religious one, I think it's commendable & have absolutely no issue at all with it, but if they want "Acceptability", they have to earn it, not force it through courts.
When I first got married, in the early 60's, I lived in a small block of units. (6)
There was my wife & I. My mate & his wife (We were Merchant Seaman). There were two Doctors, their wives & their infant children. A middle aged couple, & two Gay men, both in their late 30's, that worked for the same company. Those two men had as much respect & acceptance as any of us, & we never passed each other without speaking.
Flaunting their sexuality, I think, is a disaster for their cause.
As far as the Race issue is concerned, it's totally unrelated.
Their rejection was based on an indefensible & flimsy platform of nothing but a visible complexion, & a culture that was created by the bigots, which was the result of fear & ignorance.
The were treated as a sub-culture in the true definition of the word.
African Americans, & here in Australia, Aboriginals, had to use an open platform of integration so expose the lie. They were as "Normal" as their oppressors.
I use the term "Normal" because the majority of the population, in terms of sexuality, regard heterosexuals by nature as such. (It's certainly not a term I embrace)
JMO
ChurchedAtheist
Your resident psycho hobo
so you are saying that because people are bigots, the gays shouldn't try to get equal rights?
I probably misunderstood your comment.
I probably misunderstood your comment.
Joey
New Member
Ok, so gay people can get married? I'm confused.
Also, what does this proposition say about churches that do support gay marriage?
I was under the impression that this proposition meant gays weren't entailed to the same benefits of those who were marriage... If that's not the case, then I'm confused.
With that said, is nobody else tired of religious people getting special treatment? Their clergymen can rape children, and congregate on tax-free land, and they actually have the balls to pull this shit?
Seriously, I'm just tired of these motherfuckers getting so many free passes. Believe in your sky wizard all you want, just stop being such a fucking drain on society.
Also, what does this proposition say about churches that do support gay marriage?
I was under the impression that this proposition meant gays weren't entailed to the same benefits of those who were marriage... If that's not the case, then I'm confused.
With that said, is nobody else tired of religious people getting special treatment? Their clergymen can rape children, and congregate on tax-free land, and they actually have the balls to pull this shit?
Seriously, I'm just tired of these motherfuckers getting so many free passes. Believe in your sky wizard all you want, just stop being such a fucking drain on society.