Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Karlis

California Marriage Amendment to be decided

766 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ninjadude

If Homosexuality isn't the issue, then what is it?

Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

No one has a right to force acceptance of their sexual behavior on society as a whole. We ALL have EQUAL rights to representation on these issues.

Yet you think you have the right to determine that and force what YOU think is acceptable behavior behind closed doors. What if I like to dress as Tarzan and my Chicky as Jane is that immoral to you as well. Might even make monkey noises LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

No one has a right to force acceptance of their sexual behavior on society as a whole. We ALL have EQUAL rights to representation on these issues.

Wait a minute. You said no one has the right to force acceptance of their sexual behavior on society as a whole.

Yet it is you and Christians that believe that yours and the Christian's values ideology are the ones that are right. And by voting against gay marriage you and Christians are forcing their acceptance of their sexual behavior on the gay and lesbian minority thus contradicting yourself and making your argument of rights to representation null.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Startraveler
We ALL have EQUAL rights to representation on these issues.

You say this is a lot in these sorts of discussions but I'm not clear on whether you accept the implications. So I'm going to ask a question, not to suggest an equivalence between two sets of circumstances but to understand how high you hold this principle: assuming minorities had equal rights (at least on paper) to representation on public issues, would you accept that the Jim Crow laws that existed for almost a century were an acceptable outcome of a democratic process? Or put in more general terms, is it acceptable for voters to do anything to or take anything from a group of people as long as it's done in a majoritarian way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Wait a minute. You said no one has the right to force acceptance of their sexual behavior on society as a whole.

Yet it is you and Christians that believe that yours and the Christian's values ideology are the ones that are right. And by voting against gay marriage you and Christians are forcing their acceptance of their sexual behavior on the gay and lesbian minority thus contradicting yourself and making your argument of rights to representation null.

Bites tongue and trys to say nothing but errrrr can't help it damn it I'm not strong enough he doesn't like when people speak such things ahhhhhhhhhhhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pseudo Intellectual

I never realized marriage was a right. And why do people in love care whether others think their relationship is "legitimate" or not?

I have nothing against gay marriage per se (although I've always believed marriage is technically between a man and a woman), but the gay activists aren't exactly bringing in any new supporters with their tactics. I can't help but think this is more of a political movement than a civil rights movement.

Edited by Pseudo Intellectual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadetak

I never realized marriage was a right. And why do people in love care whether others think their relationship is "legitimate" or not?

Good question, the truth is they shouldn't just as we shouldn't care about the 'legitimacy' of other people's love lives.

There is the matter of principle, though. Also the legal recognition of marriage allows for certain things when dealing with taxes, insurance, and inheritances among other things.

I have nothing against gay marriage per se (although I've always believed marriage is technically between a man and a woman), but the gay activists aren't exactly bringing in any new supporters with their tactics. I can't help but think this is more of a political movement than a civil rights movement.

I think that may part of the problem...people believe that there are alternative motives behind the Gay Marriage issue. Some believe its a scheme to force or destroy the church, apart of some secret liberal agenda, or that its a step towards homosexual domination where they will turn your kids gay...or other reasons that don't really have to do with Gay Marriage. It causes the subject to get messy and muddled and the true focus becomes lost.

Although some form of 'political movement' may be happening it remains to be seen with this issue. I'm not sure what there is to gain politically from supporting Gay Marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

All this talk about how gay marriage is immoral got me to thinking.

First, since according to those that are against gay marriage, it is immoral for two people of the same sex to be together or even get married, what I like to know why is it that certain heterosexuals people are so infatuated with girl-on-girl action between to women? I mean it's two women right therefore making it immoral. Yet you don't really see much fuss about it. Hell it's even portrayed on TV and movies.

Second, regarding the issue about the widespread of STDs by homosexuals. If you look at the number of heterosexual men and women these days, many of them have multiple sex partners and engage in sexual acts that often rival porno movies. Here's the kicker too. Many of which do not use proper protection and some don't even use any protection at all thus increasing the risk of STDs. Yet it is homosexuals who are being the scapegoats regarding the issue of STDs.

What I see is nothing but a boatload of hypocrisy that goes on regarding the issue of gay marriage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cluey

No one has a right to force acceptance of their sexual behavior on society as a whole. We ALL have EQUAL rights to representation on these issues.

i don't believe either sex is trying to force acceptance of sexual behavior as a whole......we just want the right to do as we please and not be chastised for it......we can do what we like..be it it public or behind closed doors.........i would love to know your thoughts on the bi woman!!!.....we have the right to love both and enjoy both.........it's a right........and acceptance....not ignorance is all that is asked :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE MATRIX

i would love to know your thoughts on the bi woman!!!

Wait a minute there are women who are bi? You mean to tell me that there are women that likes "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars"? :o

Edited by wolfram&hart12345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cluey

Wait a minute there are women who are bi? You mean to tell me that there are women that likes "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars"? :o

LMAO........jmo....no they don't :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cluey

they just like men as much as women :wub: which i am proud of......no jealousy.........i could not be more opened minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

your right we live in a society where the wants of the one are far more important the wants of the many.

Yes, its called a Republic. There should be no other way about it. If you dont understand that, then you dont understand freedom.

the constitution was written to protect everyones rights not so one group can exploit the other.

Under the same standards, no one should be able to exploit the other. You cant violate thier property, nor can they violate yours.

as i have said before if it is only about getting a legal marriage all you have to do is pass more common marriage laws not a constitutional amendment.

Constitutionaly there shouldnt be any marrage laws. Its a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I never realized marriage was a right.

It was recognised as a right till just after the civil war. And was long after, unless you wanted to marry someone of a different race. Somewhere along the lines, the states, or the Fed, no longer saw us as natural people, but instead individual corperations. This is what we call corperate take over of the country. Its why any state or government letter you get, your name is in full capital letters. Its why your name is in full capital letters on your birth certificate. Once that happened, you me and everyone lost all rights. Today you have no rights, you only have privilages, granted to you by the state, and or government. At least in as long as you recognise the fictional charactor they have created for you. MR BOB SMITH has no rights, Bob Smith is "we the people" with God given inherited rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

My first notion upon listening is that he clearly not an impartial person, when it comes to the matter. His argument, in part, is based upon whether or not homosexuality is a choice. That's debateable. Secondly, He states that the definition of marriage does not discriminate based upon sex...(4:42 mark)then he states that marriage is between a man and a woman (6:05-06ish) contradicting himself within minutes. I already stated the difference between the other sexual activities he describes and homosexuality in my previous reply. Based upon his own logic, before he contradicts himself, the constitution makes no issue of sex in regards to marriage. Therefore the argument can be made that there is no grounds with which to deny it to them. Which brings us back to a minority party being discriminated against imho. That party now has representation in court. They'll decide I guess.

Thanks for the link!

the constitution makes no reference to marriage period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

the constitution makes no reference to marriage period.

Yes it does. It says that any right in which it didnt expressly cover, is granted to "we the people" Not we the people as a whole, but we the people as individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cluey

It was recognised as a right till just after the civil war. And was long after, unless you wanted to marry someone of a different race. Somewhere along the lines, the states, or the Fed, no longer saw us as natural people, but instead individual corperations. This is what we call corperate take over of the country. Its why any state or government letter you get, your name is in full capital letters. Its why your name is in full capital letters on your birth certificate. Once that happened, you me and everyone lost all rights. Today you have no rights, you only have privilages, granted to you by the state, and or government. At least in as long as you recognise the fictional charactor they have created for you. MR BOB SMITH has no rights, Bob Smith is "we the people" with God given inherited rights.

blahhh,blahhh,blahhh.....if your a fiction character just because your name is in capital letters on your birth certificate..........that's a blatant hypocritical right for you to be a person with right's and any ability to vote for the government that you can if you chose to vote for.......lol...far out....talk about a dog chasing it's own tail :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eqgumby

I'm still waiting for a response. So is it about sex, a physical act, the rights of religion, or what? What are the arguments AGINST gay mariage? Other than it is "immoral" from a religious standpoint. Are there some?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Yes it does. It says that any right in which it didnt expressly cover, is granted to "we the people" Not we the people as a whole, but we the people as individuals.

then they already have a constitutional right to marry.......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

I'm still waiting for a response. So is it about sex, a physical act, the rights of religion, or what? What are the arguments AGINST gay mariage? Other than it is "immoral" from a religious standpoint. Are there some?

when ever you give one group rights that they supposedly didn't have then you remove or reduce other groups rights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siara

The day Americans can mind their own business sexually will be the day hell freezes over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eqgumby

when ever you give one group rights that they supposedly didn't have then you remove or reduce other groups rights

I guess that's sort of a given. What rights did any one group lose when African Americans were given the right to vote?

In the case of giving gay people the right to form a domestic partnership exactly like a straight couple, what rights are being taken away from whom?

I'm not even arguing here, I'm just trying to find the logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eqgumby

The day Americans can mind their own business sexually will be the day hell freezes over.

Well, hell, you can say that about most of the world! How many places are there where ones sexual escapades are not speculated on by someone at some point, are not taken into consideration by some one somewhere in some manner?

Remember, when a "couple" unite in matrimony, it is assumed, even expected, that they sexually gratify each other on some level (at least the each other part applies in the west), whether the couple is gay or straight.

That's why I keep asking the same question, because I am getting confused at some of the anti-gay marriage talk. Is it the sexuality that you find wrong? What are the reasons, other than personal morality?

No one wants to answer, and I don't get why.

Seriously, if ANYONE can tell me why they are against it, in say 200 words or less, without bringing religion or "sexual morality" into it, I'd appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Siara

Well, hell, you can say that about most of the world! How many places are there where ones sexual escapades are not speculated on by someone at some point, are not taken into consideration by some one somewhere in some manner?

Yes but there are many places in which moral condemnation for ones sexual escapades do not result in a financial penalty or a loss of legal rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eqgumby

Yes but there are many places in which moral condemnation for ones sexual escapades do not result in a financial penalty or a loss of legal rights.

I don't think that's completely true, but rather a degree of truth.

And STILL, no one has been able to address my questions!

More and more, I find myself leaning pro-gay marriage. I still maintain, as I always have, there may be a need to "tweak" the legal definition of marriage to avoid potential abuse, and some people freak out when I say that, but it's not to keep anyone from marrying or quantify marriage, rather to keep abuse of the system from occurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.