Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Nice. This has degraded to name calling. I am sure the administrator is going to put a clamp on this board. As well he should. Goodbye Bruiser. Have a nice two weeks on parole.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Bruiser will have to do a lot worse than this to go on "parole". Thing is, when ballot measures get put on the ballot to "ban" things like gay marriage, or in Maine to repeal a law that prohibited discrimination against gays and lesbians, I don't how how civil some people expect the "debate" to be. (And I know Disneyman55 doesn't like to legislate bedroom activities, but as was pointed out earlier, it wasn't gays who put this on the ballot.) These measures are a direct attack on a person's very being, and it would have to take a tremendous amount of restraint not to lash out. Witness last night. woody gloated about the outcome in Texas and also had the audacity to equate these types of things with democracy. A poster who never gets out of line purposely got herself admined because she just had to say what she truly felt. It seems to me people who come on here sometimes are spoiling for a fight. I can't see why people get surprised when they get one.
Originally Posted By scottie I'm still trying to figure out what gay marriage has to do with sex and what people do in the bedroom? I thought marriage is when people stopped having sex.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Labuda Well, a small measure of comfort - Prop 2 failed here in Travis County. Only sane county of the 256 we have here in Texas. YAY AUSTINITES!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally Posted By idleHands "What is it now.. like 15 out of 15 that gay marriage has lost big time when ever the people get to voice their opinion on this subject." I've asked this question repeatedly on the LP boards, but NO ONE on the anti-gay marriage side of the street will answer the bloody question: Over 70% of the nation in 1967 believed that SCOTUS was wrong in declaring interracial marriage bans unconstitutional, because most of the country believed that it was up to the citizenry to make that decision for themselves. In other words, over 70% of the country believed that states had the legal right to ban interracial marriage. So my question is still waiting for an answer, from the supporters of gay marriage bans: do you believe that SCOTUS was wrong in overturning the interracial marriage bans which 13 states still had on their law books, in 1967?
Originally Posted By idleHands Gee... I wonder how long I'm going to continue to wait, to get an answer to my question? How many times will I continue to ask this, before someone from the anti-gay marriage camp has the courage to answer?
Originally Posted By basas RoadTrip- your state is a battleground state and hardly all Democrat...if i remember correctly, the vote-difference wasn't that large in the last federal election. Then again, you also voted for Bush (if i remember correctly) and now won't stop complaining about those who did the same.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Then again, you also voted for Bush (if i remember correctly) and now won't stop complaining about those who did the same.>> I voted for Bush on a single issue, not because I consider myself in any way, shape or form a Republican. Likewise, my vote for Bush was not an endorsement of Republican positions or values. It was choosing between a rock and a hard place, and not particularly liking either one.
Originally Posted By basas <<I voted for Bush on a single issue, not because I consider myself in any way, shape or form a Republican. Likewise, my vote for Bush was not an endorsement of Republican positions or values. It was choosing between a rock and a hard place, and not particularly liking either one>> Fair enough. But you knew that by voting for Bush, you were not just going to get the 'one issue', you were going to get the 'whole package'. Then again, if that one issue was of great importance to you, the vote was well casted.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Then again, if that one issue was of great importance to you, the vote was well casted.>> Yes, I voted based on how Bush handled the War on Terrorism. I figured that if terrorism wasn't taken care of, no other issue really mattered. I've been very disappointed by many of the things that have occurred over the past year, probably most when Bush became involved in the Schaivo controversy. But I guess I'm still not to the point of regretting my vote. But that isn't going to keep me from supporting the Democratic position on most things.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Gee... I wonder how long I'm going to continue to wait, to get an answer to my question? How many times will I continue to ask this, before someone from the anti-gay marriage camp has the courage to answer?" You won't get an answer, except for maybe some rambling stream of consciousness thing that makes no sense. After reading many of your posts here the last couple of days, the thought occurs to me that the last thing you have are "idleHands".
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I wonder how long I'm going to continue to wait, to get an answer to my question?> I've taken part in several of the gay marriage debates on these boards in the past, and I've never noticed you ask that question before. But I'll give you the same answer I gave the last time this aspect was brought up - the poll you are citing only asked people if they approved of interracial marriage. It didn't ask them if they thought it should be legal, or if they thought it should be banned. Nor did it ask them whether they thought the Supreme Court was correct or wrong in their decision. Second, only a minority of states still had bans against interracial marriages on the books when the Supreme Court made the decision. Most states either never had a ban against such unions, or only had them for a short while before getting rid of them. Lastly, the Supreme Court decision in question was not about the legal definition of marriage, but rather whether interracial cohabitation was allowed. The Virginia law forbid a interracial couple from living together, and right not be denied to gay couples in any state that I'm aware of. In conclusion, the Loving verus Virginia decision, and people's attitudes about it, have nothing in common with the current debate over gay marriage.
Originally Posted By barboy Hey idle, the US Sup. Court under "loose constructionist" theory interpreted(and I assume that you're talking about Loving v Virginia) the the 14th amend.'s equal protection and due process clauses to mean that state statutes which ban interracial marriage are not consistent with the Constitution-- I am pleased with their interpretation. If you are trying to draw an absolute parallel between racial equality and sexual orietation equality I think it doesn't work.
Originally Posted By patrickegan In reference to your question, inter â€racial†marriage were banned on the basis of race not sexuality. You are entitled to go and marry someone of the opposite sex just like me but I ‘am not entitled to benefits under the domestic partner programs because my girlfriend well is a girl! I’m being discriminated against there but I don’t here the din of the neo-com’s self righteous indignation. I personally would rather shack up and get all the bennies with less complication. “Can gays legally marry in California? Since the Governator vetoed the State Legislature's bill, they cannot. So don't tell me that gays have "more equal protection" than the "moral reservationists" who don't want gays to have any.†That’s because the people of California voted against gay marriage and it was shopped around until they found a judge who said it was unconstitutional. Talk about weakening democracy!!! And your basis is incorrect. This issue is all about GENDER. Gender is at the very core of this argument. Homo â€sexuality†is a the core of this argument and the marriage thing a vain grasp at validation. It’ the same with Homosexuals joining churches, God made all of the people who commit all of the 10 deadly sins. Why did God come up with the sins, nothing better to do? Sorry but it will never be the norm even if it becomes legal to marry. The lifestyle goes against nature homosexuality does not beget a child. I didn’t make it up just recognize the reality of the situation. “I'm a woman who's both attracted to men and women. I'm bisexual. Ditto for my partner. We are not exclusively heterosexual in our behavior.†“We don't marry out of respect for our same-sex couple friends who cannot. That's how strongly we feel about this issue.)†Goody for you what do you want special treatment? Oh wait that’s right you do! Look if it’s any port in a storm I would suggest that you may want to refrain from dropping anchor (marriage) as it might throw a wrench in the old social program. Like I said it’s only a suggestion I don’t want to come off like I’m telling you what to do. Greed has nothing to do with it creed does but not in your case. Neo-com’s like George Soros, he walks the planet does he not? Pets are animals. Their cognitive abilities are not formed well enough to enter into legal contracts. Maybe so but isn’t bestiality still illegal? What if they enjoy the company of other species so who are you to say who they can have sex with and who they can’t? Remember the story in the news a few years ago about the Presa Canario that enjoyed the company of his female master. Man did things go awry in this case but in any event who is to deny the intimate feelings these two had for each other enjoying the beauty of God’s creation. “Multiple spouses is something that Utah allowed, but I'm uncertain as to the legal status of polygamy in that state now. It's difficult enough in dealing with community property and custody during divorce with two people; it would be a nightmare of epic proportions with more than two. No court would ever want to make legal rulings in situations such as these, especially given the current divorce rate in our country. Which according to Anderson Cooper yesterday, is now around 50%.†Who’s a bigot ? “Divorce at about 50%?? Yeah, marriage is certainly "sacred" in our nation. Tell it to the judges!†Well why would people fight to have the right to be part of something so dysfunctional? NAMBLA open lobbies for the age of consent to be lowered as children are more sophisticated these days. Very foolish. “No way this would ever change. “(Just like the idea here that was run up the flagpole about lowering the voting age with the same sophistication logic.) They don’t want to have sex with children but instead wish to have intergeneration (homosexual) love. Who are you to deny the feelings that they were born with, did not God create them? Others seem to agree that the kids are more sophisticated today and why not let them make their own choices about their sexuality? "If you are trying to draw an absolute parallel between racial equality and sexual orietation equality I think it doesn't work." I concur.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<You won't get an answer, except for maybe some rambling stream of consciousness thing that makes no sense.>> Whoops. Nice job Douglas, very well said. Barboy!! Hope all is going well.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Lastly, the Supreme Court decision in question was not about the legal definition of marriage, but rather whether interracial cohabitation was allowed. << Perhaps someone should have told them that that was what they were deciding. In the very first sentence of the decision, written by Chief Justice Warren, is: "This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. " >>The Virginia law forbid a interracial couple from living together<< That may have been so, but the Lovings were charged with the section relating to the marriage of people of different races. The specific part of Virginia law that they were charged with was section 20-59: "If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years." And, then, finally their conclusion once again pointed out that the decision was about marriage, and not about cohabitation. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. "
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>If you are trying to draw an absolute parallel between racial equality and sexual orietation equality I think it doesn't work.<< Why? Why would it be legal to grant something to one class of citizens but not another?
