Lol with the passing of prop 8 we have to change the way our state constitution is written. That should be proof enough that it is unconstitutional. So those of you who voted yes are against the constitution and should be deported.
[quote]46and2AheadofMe wrote:
Lol with the passing of prop 8 we have to change the way our state constitution is written. That should be proof enough that it is unconstitutional. So those of you who voted yes are against the constitution and should be deported.[/quote]
A properly enacted amendment cannot be unconstitutional - now the constitution merely means something it didn’t before.
Good Lord - what is it with gay marriage advocates and a complete loss of common sense?
First we hear that a law against gay marriage violates a gay person’s “free speech” rights. Then we hear that “correlations are absolutely meaningless to show causation”. Now, we get this gem that a constitutional amendment is “unconstitutional”.
And gay marriage is advertised as the position of the “enlightened”. Beyond irony.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
clip11 wrote:
On the contrary, I would have to recognize it. How? Well, I do have a social security tax taken out of my check, so some of that would be going to benefit a gay couple. Other taxes I pay (and the majority of US population who are anti-gay marriage) would be going to benefit gay couples. So how can you tell me or anyone else I dont have to recognize gay marriage but I do have to contribute my dollars to support it?
You probably do stuff that costs other taxpayers money. Should they pay for that? Gay people pay their taxes too.
Here’s one for you. I don’t recognize organized religion. Why are my taxes being spent in prisons to teach criminals the “way of God” instead of properly rehabilitating them? Why do public hospitals have chapels? Why do prisons have priests?[/quote]
When did prisons start “teaching the way of God”? PPl in prison if they do learn about it learn about it on their own or from another prisoner. And since you bring that up, the MAJORITY of ppl do recognize organized religion just like the MAJORITY doesnt recognize gay marriage. Its impossible to track each taxpayer down and discuss with them personally on how they want their dollars to be spent.
So the best way to do it is to take a vote, and in this case the vote was decided against gay marriage. Here in Michigan back in 2004, a clause was added to the constitution to ban gay marriage. I voted for the clause and obviously I wasnt alone, millions of other did too. So I can only assume that those millions of other dont want their tax dollars spent on benefits for gay couples.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
clip11 wrote:
I think I know what hes trying to say…if you look at it percentagewise, 1500 is .001% of 300 million thats far less than 1%
Black people are pretty much a minority. We shouldn’t help them, I don’t consider it to be a very high percentage of the population.[/quote]
Black ppl make up about more than 30,000,000 of the population too, not 1500. Its a big difference. A person cant choose to be born black, thats obvious to evryone, no more than the next person can choose to be white or chinese. CAn a person choose to be gay? Theres no hardcore evidence that says its not a choice. And like someone brought out earlier in this post, even if it is natural to them, its not normal. Theres nothing abnormal about being black.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
46and2AheadofMe wrote:
Lol with the passing of prop 8 we have to change the way our state constitution is written. That should be proof enough that it is unconstitutional. So those of you who voted yes are against the constitution and should be deported.
A properly enacted amendment cannot be unconstitutional - now the constitution merely means something it didn’t before.
Good Lord - what is it with gay marriage advocates and a complete loss of common sense?
First we hear that a law against gay marriage violates a gay person’s “free speech” rights. Then we hear that “correlations are absolutely meaningless to show causation”. Now, we get this gem that a constitutional amendment is “unconstitutional”.
And gay marriage is advertised as the position of the “enlightened”. Beyond irony.
[/quote]
The people trying to say it would be a ‘special right’ also make no sense, though. It’s not a special right. It’s extending legal benefits to EVERYONE in a committed, formalized relationship. Right now straight people can ‘marry’ who they want. Gay people can’t. All federal recognition of civil unions would do is let EVERYONE who considers themselves to be in a committed realtionship and goes through a (non-religious) ceremony to formalize this realtionship have legal benefits.
Saying, ‘I don’t want to marry a man’ is a non-sequitor. They don’t want to ‘civil-unionize’ with the opposite sex. One group has a right to receive formal benefits based on being in a committed relationship. The other doesn’t. That’s what the fact of the matter is. You might say there are grounds for the distinction as people have argued in this and other threads. That’s more valid. But it is a distinction indeed. And as things stand, everyone does NOT have the same right. To say ot5herwise is only possible by through a bizarre, skewed interpretation of what that right is.
Is there a movement for single folk to receive these ‘rights?’
[quote]46and2AheadofMe wrote:
Lol with the passing of prop 8 we have to change the way our state constitution is written. That should be proof enough that it is unconstitutional. So those of you who voted yes are against the constitution and should be deported.[/quote]
Changing the constitution is unconstitutional?
LMAO at the utter fucking stupidity from the militant gay-rights crowd.
You lost. The courts can’t change the rules for you this time.
Deal with it and move on.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Is there a movement for single folk to receive these ‘rights?’[/quote]
Hospital visitation and tax benefits tied to a non-existent relationship?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is there a movement for single folk to receive these ‘rights?’
Hospital visitation and tax benefits tied to a non-existent relationship?[/quote]
Why can’t two straight males, and committed life long bachelor’s, have such an arrangement? BFF should get the same benefits, and be allowed to apply for state marriage.
Edit: bachelor’s in the sense of not wanting to settle down in a monogamous SEXUAL relationship.
There are no grounds to challenge the passing of Prop 8 beyond that it violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has proven to be very resistant to making decisions on this issue.
Any amendment to a State Constitution is valid as long as done through the procedures set forth in the State constitution and not against United States Constitution.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is there a movement for single folk to receive these ‘rights?’
Hospital visitation and tax benefits tied to a non-existent relationship?
Why can’t two straight males, and committed life long bachelor’s, have such anarrangement? BFF should get the same benefits, and be allowed to apply for state marriage.[/quote]
Sorry. A lifelong friendship is not the same as a relationship. I don’t care what hole the person sticks their dick in.
And what is your proposal. A civil ceremony where this friendship is sanctified and people committ to it for life?
And what about federal benefits?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is there a movement for single folk to receive these ‘rights?’
Hospital visitation and tax benefits tied to a non-existent relationship?
Why can’t two straight males, and committed life long bachelor’s, have such anarrangement? BFF should get the same benefits, and be allowed to apply for state marriage.
Sorry. A lifelong friendship is not the same as a relationship. I don’t care what hole the person sticks their dick in.
And what is your proposal. A civil ceremony where this friendship is sanctified and people committ to it for life?
And what about federal benefits?[/quote]
A friendship is a relationship.
Why not a ceremony? If that’s what they want.
They’d recieve the same benefits homosexuals want.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is there a movement for single folk to receive these ‘rights?’
Hospital visitation and tax benefits tied to a non-existent relationship?
Why can’t two straight males, and committed life long bachelor’s, have such an arrangement? BFF should get the same benefits, and be allowed to apply for state marriage.
Edit: bachelor’s in the sense of not wanting to settle down in a monogamous SEXUAL relationship.[/quote]
This seems to ‘denigrate marriage’ much more to me than extending legal benefits to gay couples would. It is far more divorced from my understanding of a committed, loving relationship. You really want provide the same treatement under the law for friendships as marriages?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is there a movement for single folk to receive these ‘rights?’
Hospital visitation and tax benefits tied to a non-existent relationship?
Why can’t two straight males, and committed life long bachelor’s, have such an arrangement? BFF should get the same benefits, and be allowed to apply for state marriage.
Edit: bachelor’s in the sense of not wanting to settle down in a monogamous SEXUAL relationship.
This seems to ‘denigrate marriage’ much more to me than extending legal benefits to gay couples would. It is far more divorced from my understanding of a committed, loving relationship. You really want provide the same treatement under the law for friendships as marriages?[/quote]
Aren’t we of an age where the government shouldn’t extend benefits based on what two people do or don’t do in the bedroom? It’s the arguement I constantly hear for homosexual marriage recognition.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Is there a movement for single folk to receive these ‘rights?’
Hospital visitation and tax benefits tied to a non-existent relationship?
Why can’t two straight males, and committed life long bachelor’s, have such an arrangement? BFF should get the same benefits, and be allowed to apply for state marriage.
Edit: bachelor’s in the sense of not wanting to settle down in a monogamous SEXUAL relationship.
This seems to ‘denigrate marriage’ much more to me than extending legal benefits to gay couples would. It is far more divorced from my understanding of a committed, loving relationship. You really want provide the same treatement under the law for friendships as marriages?
Aren’t we of an age where the government shouldn’t extend benefits based on what two people do or don’t do in the bedroom? It’s the arguement I constantly hear for homosexual marriage recognition.[/quote]
No. I have some very close friends. I feel nothing for them like I do for my girlfriend. The argument you hear is that committed, sexual relationships are the same and entitled to equal legal recognition whatever the gender of the participants. Not that any relationship at all is.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
No. I have some very close friends. I feel nothing for them like I do for my girlfriend. The argument you hear is that committed, sexual relationships are the same and entitled to equal legal recognition whatever the gender of the participants. Not that any relationship at all is.[/quote]
That’s not the argument I’ve always heard. I’ve heard the government has no business in the bedroom. And therefore, shouldn’t distinguish between different sexual orientations.
Now, if the government IS suppossed to recognize a marriage because two people have sex together, I have to ask why. Is the government a voyeur? Or, does it have a reasonable expectation that sexual relationships will provide some needed good in return for these benefits? Like the propogation of a nation’s population?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
No. I have some very close friends. I feel nothing for them like I do for my girlfriend. The argument you hear is that committed, sexual relationships are the same and entitled to equal legal recognition whatever the gender of the participants. Not that any relationship at all is.[/quote]
And you probably have a different feeling for mom, than what you feel for your girlfriend and friends. But, who can measure something like that? Maybe someone else values being in a beneficial and state recognized BFF relationship, more so than marrying anyone person for sex.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
No. I have some very close friends. I feel nothing for them like I do for my girlfriend. The argument you hear is that committed, sexual relationships are the same and entitled to equal legal recognition whatever the gender of the participants. Not that any relationship at all is.
And you probably have a different feeling for mom, than what you feel for your girlfriend and friends. But, who can measure something like that? Maybe someone else values being in a beneficial and state recognized BFF relationship, more so than marrying any one person for a life long sex partner. [/quote]
Pretty sure this has all been debated before. And I have to leave for work. But we can talk more about it tonight.
[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Uh, they have the same rights as anybody else, always have. I can’t marry a man either, I just don’t want to. Big deal…There was a ballot initiative, it lost every where it was presented. Tough shit. I have to deal with Obama, that’s my tough shit.
Your logic is flawed. People said the same thing back in the days of miscegenation laws:
“Blacks have the same rights as whites. They can marry someone of the same race just as whites can. What they want is SPECIAL RIGHTS, by being able to marry someone of a different race.”[/quote]
Bullshit. You cannot possibly tell me that the oppression and discrimination that black people were put through and endured is anywhere near the gay experience. Where is it where gay people can’t vote because they are gay? Where is the gay section of the bus? where are the gay water fountains?
You are not a race, you just prefer to fuck men over women…I don’t give a damn that you do, but do tell me you deserve some sort of special consideration because that is your preference. It horseshit.
[quote]pat wrote:
forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
Uh, they have the same rights as anybody else, always have. I can’t marry a man either, I just don’t want to. Big deal…There was a ballot initiative, it lost every where it was presented. Tough shit. I have to deal with Obama, that’s my tough shit.
Your logic is flawed. People said the same thing back in the days of miscegenation laws:
“Blacks have the same rights as whites. They can marry someone of the same race just as whites can. What they want is SPECIAL RIGHTS, by being able to marry someone of a different race.”
Bullshit. You cannot possibly tell me that the oppression and discrimination that black people were put through and endured is anywhere near the gay experience. Where is it where gay people can’t vote because they are gay? Where is the gay section of the bus? where are the gay water fountains?
You are not a race, you just prefer to fuck men over women…I don’t give a damn that you do, but do tell me you deserve some sort of special consideration because that is your preference. It horseshit.[/quote]
What’s horseshit is your concept of special consideration. Giving gays something that no one else in the country is entitled to is special consideration. Giving them something that every other person in the country has the right to is called ending discrimination of individuals merely because of their sexual orientation.
Should I write it out again with fewer words?