[quote]ZEB wrote:
Blacks wanted all the rights that whites had. They did not want any additonal rights beyond what whites had.
[/quote]
Exactly. They wanted the right to marry the person they love. Whites already have that right. So do straight couples.
Do gay couples? Nope.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Now why is it that Polygamists cannot marry?
[/quote]
I’m glad that you agree blacks, women, and gays have a commonality which justifies comparing them.
You do realize that there are numerous accounts of polygamy in the bible, right? If not let me know and I’ll give you some references.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
But you forgot about the studies that demonstrate that most homosexuals are incapable of having a long term committed relationship.
[/quote]
And you forgot the fact that these “studies” were conducted under conditions where gays weren’t allowed to marry.
Maybe there’s something to the idea that marriage keeps people together after all, ya think?
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
ZEB wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
for the record, i agree with forlife’s position.
IMO, zeb is making himself out to be a tool. and he is clearly a religious person <not necessarily strict religious, but he’s definitely a ‘believer’>.
Canada huh?
that comment just reinforces what we already know about you.[/quote]
I simply acknowledged the fact that you were from Canada.
And by the way calling people “tools” is supposed to endear you to them?
Of course this is the Internet and name calling is par for the course for some…
[quote]forlife wrote:
It is logical to assume that marriage would encourage people to stay together. After all, there are negative legal, social and financial consequences to leaving a marriage vs. leaving an open relationship.[/quote]
So you think marriage would make promiscuous homosexuals monogamous?
I see.
And what do you base this on?
It seems that we have seen statistics which demonstrate that heterosexual couples who live together seem to be more faithful to each other than homosexual couples. And they are not married.
What do you attribute this to?
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Blacks wanted all the rights that whites had. They did not want any additonal rights beyond what whites had.
Exactly. They wanted the right to marry the person they love. Whites already have that right. So do straight couples.
Do gay couples? Nope.
[/quote]
They wanted the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just like the right that whites have.
They did not want any special rights…and that’s what gays want.
Psst…and they are not going to get it.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Now why is it that Polygamists cannot marry?
I’m glad that you agree blacks, women, and gays have a commonality which justifies comparing them.[/quote]
Let me post this again for you just in case you missed it:
You want to compare blacks to gays because they are both minority groups. But you see that’s where the “commonality” pretty much ends.
Right?
Well I want to compare gays to polygamists. And I think the comparison is even closer than with blacks. As you said there must be a “commonality.”
Well there might be several between gays and polygamists.
1-Both groups have sex in a non traditional way.
2- Both groups currently want the right to marry whom ever they please regardless of societal norms, laws etc.
3- Both groups seem to eschew traditional Christian principals.
4-Neither group has proven that their sexual preference is genetic. And in fact many facts line up to offer evidence that it is more nurture than nature.
There must be more but that will do for now.
Now why is it that Polygamists cannot marry?
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
But you forgot about the studies that demonstrate that most homosexuals are incapable of having a long term committed relationship.
And you forgot the fact that these “studies” were conducted under conditions where gays weren’t allowed to marry.[/quote]
And they never will be.
I don’t think that’s it at all. As I have stated heterosexuals who do not marry but live together are far more committed than homosexuals who also live together without the benefit of marriage.
I think it’s time for people to look at homosexuals differnently. There might be more of a problem than simply a ssa.
Think about that.
It’s time to stop dodging the question.
forlife, you dodged my question earlier and the debate is over unless you can answer this:
Do you want a society that allows polygamists and those who pracitce incest to be able to marry?
Or is it just YOUR SPECIAL RIGHT that you are after?
Think about it, is YOUR special right more important than someone else’s.
When you finish answering that question I have a few more for you.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
That question was answered by me in one word: No.
Why? Because you say so, or do you have logical or empirical evidence for that claim?
There is no amount of evidence which will convince you that placing your penis in another mans rectum is not a healthy thing to do.
However, for the rest of us who are capable of reading studies we can easily see that it’s a dangerous activity. There is no such thing as “safe anal sex.”
Do we want to promote an activity which causes great emotional and physical pain and disease?
Um…nope.
[/quote]
IT’S AN EXIT NOT AN ENTRANCE!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
It’s time to stop dodging the question.
forlife, you dodged my question earlier and the debate is over unless you can answer this:
Do you want a society that allows polygamists and those who pracitce incest to be able to marry?
Or is it just YOUR SPECIAL RIGHT that you are after?
Think about it, is YOUR special right more important than someone else’s.
When you finish answering that question I have a few more for you.
[/quote]
Just because you keep shouting the phrases, “special right,” and “5,000 year old institution” doesn’t make them make any sense.
Getting married is not a special right.
“Lesbians get to vote twice,” is a special right.
Marriage as we know it has only existed for a couple hundred years. Before that, there were arranged marriages, dowrys, chattel laws, etc.
As for the tradition part…so the fuck what? Beating your wife was tradition. Slavery was tradition. Dying from the Plague was tradition.
Just because something’s a tradition, don’t make it sacred.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
It’s time to stop dodging the question.
forlife, you dodged my question earlier and the debate is over unless you can answer this:
Do you want a society that allows polygamists and those who pracitce incest to be able to marry?
Or is it just YOUR SPECIAL RIGHT that you are after?
Think about it, is YOUR special right more important than someone else’s.
When you finish answering that question I have a few more for you.
Just because you keep shouting the phrases, “special right,” and “5,000 year old institution” doesn’t make them make any sense.
Getting married is not a special right.
“Lesbians get to vote twice,” is a special right.
Marriage as we know it has only existed for a couple hundred years. Before that, there were arranged marriages, dowrys, chattel laws, etc.
As for the tradition part…so the fuck what? Beating your wife was tradition. Slavery was tradition. Dying from the Plague was tradition.
Just because something’s a tradition, don’t make it sacred.
[/quote]
There was also homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy and pedophilia but those “alternatives” were not supported even back then. Yet somehow we are more “enlightened” to start opening the door to this kind of crap. I don’t think so!
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
for the record, i agree with forlife’s position.
IMO, zeb is making himself out to be a tool. and he is clearly a religious person <not necessarily strict religious, but he’s definitely a ‘believer’>. [/quote]
YES!!! It those darn religious tools that are destroying the country! They have been dragging us down for the last two hundred years. It is time we take a stand. All this stuff about family values and love - blahhhhhhhh. Burn them all!!!
[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
It’s time to stop dodging the question.
forlife, you dodged my question earlier and the debate is over unless you can answer this:
Do you want a society that allows polygamists and those who pracitce incest to be able to marry?
Or is it just YOUR SPECIAL RIGHT that you are after?
Think about it, is YOUR special right more important than someone else’s.
When you finish answering that question I have a few more for you.
Just because you keep shouting the phrases, “special right,” and “5,000 year old institution” doesn’t make them make any sense.
Getting married is not a special right.
“Lesbians get to vote twice,” is a special right.
Marriage as we know it has only existed for a couple hundred years. Before that, there were arranged marriages, dowrys, chattel laws, etc.
As for the tradition part…so the fuck what? Beating your wife was tradition. Slavery was tradition. Dying from the Plague was tradition.
Just because something’s a tradition, don’t make it sacred.
[/quote]
Finally someone with some sense. Marriage is not a special right - anyone should marry who or what ever they darn well please.
Harris - you have my blessing to marry that toaster you have been dying to marry. No need to live in sin with it any longer.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Getting married is not a special right.[/quote]
Hey that’s a good one.
I get to use one of the “13 bad arguments for same sex marriage.” By Robert Benne and Gerald McDermott.
Let me see I think you are using bad argument number one:
"Bad argument No. 1
“Gay marriage is a basic human right.”
There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access.
We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy?anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage?children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married."
Good stuff huh harris? Oh I know it’s nothing you’re going to agree with. But any rational, objective individual will most likely agree.
Hey harris did you know that “up until the late 19th century, the state had nothing to do with marriage. People got married in the church.”
And…
“Marriage is one of the few institutions in the U.S. that still uses Christian language, even when it?s performed in the courthouse. That?s because the sacrament of marriage between one man and one wife was ordained by the explicit teachings of Jesus.”
Boy you really hated that one huh?
Here you go knock yourself out:
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/media-wise/MW0304W2.htm
And this comes from a guy who hates to see the squat rack used for barbell curls!
I guess it has to do with what each person holds sacred huh?
Thankfully about 70% of Americans are holding the line on traditional marriage.
Giving homosexuals the right to marry to those 70%, is sort of like seeing some skinny wimp doing barbell curls in the squat rack to you.
Um…it’s just not accepted behavior.
I guess it’s all a matter of whose Ox gets gored.
Empathy harris …Empathy
[quote]Just because something’s a tradition, don’t make it sacred.
[/quote]
True enough. But other things DO make it sacred. Read above.
BREAKING NEWS
Not only are many states in the United States rejecting gay marriage 20 something so far have laws on the books clearly stating that marriage is between one man and one woman.
But it looks like gay “marriage” is failing as well in other countries:
Australia Strikes Down Law Recognizing Same-Sex Unions
By Gudrun Schultz
"CANBERRA, Australia, June 13, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Australian government has followed through on its pledge to quash a law recognizing same-sex unions in the Australian Capital Territory.
Attorney-General Philip Ruddock drew on rarely used Commonwealth authority Tuesday, asking Governor-General Michael Jeffrey, Australia’s representative of Queen Elizabeth II, who is Australia’s official head of state under the terms of the nation’s consitutional monarchy, to declare the law invalid.
“The ACT civil relationships ordinance has been disallowed,” Mr Ruddock told reporters in Canberra. “Legislative amendments introduced to establish a civil arrangement for same-sex parties and others in the ACT will no longer be law.”
The ACT voted last month to grant civil union status to same-sex couples, effectively giving them access to all of the rights and benefits granted to married couples, but stopping just short of bestowing the term “marriage.”
The Prime Minister said last week that the ACT’s law was an attempt to undermine the 2004 Federal Marriage Act that formally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
“Our view is very simple. We are not prepared to accept something which is a plain attempt to equate civil unions with marriage,” he told reporters.
The ACT government hastened the date on which the law would become effective, bringing it forward to June 25, in an attempt to allow the first civil union to take place before the Commonwealth could act. Attorney-General Ruddock said the ACT government had acted provocatively by crafting the same-sex marriage law to closely resemble marriage.
“The marriage power is clearly vested in the commonwealth and to do so by not only reference to it having all the like characteristics of a marriage in terms of the ACT law, providing as it did for civil celebrants for a ceremony and adopting other characteristics of marriage, was quite provocative,” Mr. Ruddock said.
“We have no quarrel with the territory’s legislating in those areas in which it has responsibility, and we accept the decisions they make supported by their electorate–except when they provocatively and deliberately seek to intrude into areas for which they have no responsibility,” he said.
The Governor General can strike down laws passed by Australia’s two territories, the ACT and the Northern territory, within six months of the law’s passage."
More recent news regarding the many set backs that gay marriage advocates have endured
Now you would think that a liberal state like New York,(home of Senator Hillary Clinton) with all of those liberal judges would surely welcome gay marriage.
NOPE!
"Friday February 17, 2006 NEWS
State court says no to gay marriage
Couples claimed New York law violated their constitutional rights
Related news from the Web
Latest headlines by topic:
? Gay/Lesbian
Powered by Topix.net
Staff and wire reports
ALBANY - A mid-level state court Thursday threw out a lawsuit seeking to allow same-sex couples to be married in New York.
The state Appellate Division, combining three separate cases brought by gay couples, rejected the argument that New York’s marriage law is unconstitutional. The law does not allow same-sex couples to get married.
Binghamton City Councilman Bob Weslar said that while he supported state recognition of same-sex marriages, he felt the court had made the correct decision.
“It’s my understanding that according to the laws of New York, same-sex marriages are truly illegal,” said Weslar, who is gay. “I have to concur with the Appellate Division that it is up to the (state) Legislature (to change those laws).”
The cases could be appealed to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, which is widely expected to make the final call on the legality of gay marriage.
The gay couples had claimed that the state’s marriage law violated their constitutional rights to equal protection, privacy and due process. The court disagreed in a 5-0 ruling and sided with state lawyers, who earlier had argued the state law did not allow for gay marriage.
(That means that they have NO constitutional right to marry.)
“We find merit in the (state’s) assertion that this case is not simply about the right to marry the person of one’s choice, but represents a significant expansion into new territory which is, in reality, a redefinition of marriage,” Justice John Lahtinen wrote for the Albany court.
The justices said any rewrite of the definition of marriage should come from the Legislature.
Supporters of gay marriage said they were disappointed by the decision, contending that gay couples were denied equal access.
The Rev. Miller Jen Hoffman of the Metropolitan Community Church in Binghamton said that as long as certain civil rights were attached to marriage - such as visiting a spouse in the hospital, guardianship of children and inheritance issues - same sex-couples must have the same marriage rights.
“Marriage is an important decision to all couples and all families,” said Hoffman, “who wish to protect their relationship.”
The New York State Catholic Conference applauded the decision and said it was in keeping with most other states.
Staff writer Brian Liberatore and Albany Bureau writer Yancey Roy contributed to this report."
http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060217/NEWS01/602170335/1006
More bad news for gay marriage advocates. They are about to lose a state (by 2008) which they once had in their hip pocket.
This is what happens when the people become disgusted with liberal judges:
Petition vs. gay marriage advances
Number of signers breaks state record
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | December 22, 2005
Backers of a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts have shattered a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question.
Breaking News Alerts Secretary of State William F. Galvin this week certified the signatures of 123,356 registered voters, nearly twice as many as the number required to get on the ballot.
Supporters of the ban said their effort shows that gay marriage is still a burning issue among thousands of voters, and legislators should pay heed.
''The people have not just spoken, they have shouted to let the people vote on the definition of marriage," said Kristian Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which spearheaded the signature drive.
The petition drew the signatures of Governor Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann; former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, now the president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council; and former Boston mayor Raymond L. Flynn. If the petition receives the support of at least 25 percent of the Legislature in two successive sessions, it would appear on the ballot in November 2008.
Opponents of the ballot question say the eye-popping number of signatories does not reflect a tidal wave of support for overturning the Supreme Judicial Court’s landmark 2003 ruling that declared same-sex matrimony legal. Rather, they said, it shows that paid signature-gatherers were particularly effective at tricking unsuspecting voters into signing a petition they didn’t support.
''This is a groundswell of fraud and deceit, not of voter insistence," said Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus.
Hundreds of Bay State residents complained to gay organizations and state officials this fall that they were duped into signing the antigay marriage measure when they thought they were backing a proposal to allow supermarkets to sell wine. The state Senate this year passed a bill outlawing paid signature-gathering, but the measure sits in the House with little prospect of success.
Marc Solomon, political director of MassEquality, a coalition of local and national gay rights groups, said he has no question that the amendment will survive challenges, given the sheer number of names gathered.
''But we want people to know if their name was posted illegitimately," he said.
In order to qualify for the ballot, questions needed to attract at least 65,825 signatures, or 3 percent of the number of those who voted for governor in 2002. Prior to the gay marriage question, the most signatures ever gathered were in support of a 1985 question calling for the end of a surtax on the state personal income tax. That question got 110,645 certified signatures, Galvin’s office said.
Late yesterday, the pro-gay marriage website, Knowthyneighbor.org, posted all 123,356 names of those who signed the petition, as well as their home addresses. The database is searchable by first name, last name, home town, and ZIP code, and offers visitors a ''fraud affidavit" to use ''if your name is listed and you believe you were a victim of petition fraud."
''Judging by the history-making number of signatures collected, it’s obvious the people are demanding to be heard," said Romney’s communications director, Eric Fehrnstrom.
Tom Lang, a spokesman for Knowthyneighbor.org, said his organization also plans to post the signers’ political party affiliation by weeks’ end, and later, other data such as home sale prices.
Mineau, of the Massachusetts Family Institute, said the Internet tool will mostly be used to harass those who backed the ballot question. His name and address has been posted on the website for months as an original sponsor of the question.
Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey’s name does not appear in the database, though Healey has denounced gay marriage.
Tim O’Brien, a campaign spokesman for Healey – who is running to succeed Romney when he leaves office next year – said voters should not confuse the absence of her signature on the petition with any lack of zeal about the issue.
The name of Boston Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley, who called on all pastors and communicants in the church to back the ballot question, was not on the list. Nor was that of Worcester Bishop Robert J. McManus, who temporarily pulled a Westborough pastor from the altar after the priest wrote in the parish bulletin that the amendment was an attack on homosexuals.
Fall River Bishop George V. Coleman and Springfield Bishop Timothy A. McDonnell did sign, however.
Terry Donilon, O’Malley’s spokesman, said that O’Malley’s endorsement of the ballot question has not wavered."
Wow…the people are really ticked off about this huh?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
ZEB wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
for the record, i agree with forlife’s position.
IMO, zeb is making himself out to be a tool. and he is clearly a religious person <not necessarily strict religious, but he’s definitely a ‘believer’>.
Canada huh?
that comment just reinforces what we already know about you.
I simply acknowledged the fact that you were from Canada.
And by the way calling people “tools” is supposed to endear you to them?
Of course this is the Internet and name calling is par for the course for some…
[/quote]
don’t pretend that you weren’t trying to imply that my opinion is defined by the country of residence.
regardless, don’t bother replying to this post, anyways. i definitely do not have the patience to engage in this dicussion with you. i think ‘forlife’ is doing just fine without help.
[quote]hueyOT wrote:
ZEB wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
ZEB wrote:
hueyOT wrote:
for the record, i agree with forlife’s position.
IMO, zeb is making himself out to be a tool. and he is clearly a religious person <not necessarily strict religious, but he’s definitely a ‘believer’>.
Canada huh?
that comment just reinforces what we already know about you.
I simply acknowledged the fact that you were from Canada.
And by the way calling people “tools” is supposed to endear you to them?
Of course this is the Internet and name calling is par for the course for some…
don’t pretend that you weren’t trying to imply that my opinion is defined by the country of residence.
regardless, don’t bother replying to this post, anyways. i definitely do not have the patience to engage in this dicussion with you. i think ‘forlife’ is doing just fine without help.
[/quote]
I never pretended that I was not mentioning Canada for a reason. Why don’t you read that line again.
Secondly, if you want to engage in the debate jumping in and calling me a “tool” sort of demeans your point before you even have the opportunity to articulate one.
Thridly, as you move along in life (more mature…older) you will find the patience that you currently claim you lack.
Have a good one, no hard feelings I hope.