Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

It's their strongly held religious belief isn't it? You guys are big on YOUR religious beliefs. Not so much anyone else's.

---

That's odd because I was the one defending a Muslim photgrapher's right to refuse to shoot a gay wedding.

Quote:

---

A harem of gay people would blow your mind wouldn't it? That's why I mentioned it. :)

---

Don't worry, that will be next, along with NAMBLA's push to allow an old pervert to marry a 13 year old boy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

So if a state votes to go back to banning inter racial marriage that's cool to I assume?

---

No ,that was real discrimination. The definition of marriage is defined as between a man and women . As far as rights goes ,I have no issue with gay unions getting equal rights under the law as marriage rights. That satisfies the 14th amendment any way you slice and dice it . Marriage means much more than legal contracts .

Hello again, dad and tom:

Quote:

---

There was still the path of civil union and they as a group made a choice not to elevate it to the same status as what traditional married couples enjoyed. Instead they chose to redefine the law to fit their world.

---

Quote:

---

As far as rights goes ,I have no issue with gay unions getting equal rights under the law as marriage rights.

---

"THEY" (as in gay people) didn't choose the path NOT to elevate civil unions to the same status as marriage.. It was the LEGISLATURES.. IF any of them had ACTUALLY passed laws that gave civil unions the SAME rights that marriage would have, civil unions MIGHT have worked. Certainly, there would be NO 14th Amendment challenge available... But, NONE of them, and that includes the FEDERAL legislature, DID that.

You wanted ALL the marbles, and now you got NONE. Bummer for you guys.

excon

"They" had their chance. So far as I remember it is still "we the people" that can make laws and vote for changes to the system. Are you saying that in skipping over that path and going through the courts it was the only choice they had or was it just another knife in societies back ? The gays have a specific agenda and they have been pressing it for some time.

Face it, the only way any minority EVER gets anything is to push their agenda and fight for their rights. Why are gays any different? The court is a good battle ground and acceptable venue for a fair fight. State legislatures sure ain't.

Gays are people too, but not covered under "WE the people"?

So changing a legal definition isnt a problem for you ? In doing so it opens a pandoras box. What you are left with is law without definition. If your comfortable with that then please dont try to define the laws to your eyes. Remember someone somewhere will always be hurt by some law. Why not just throw them all out?

Hello again, dad:

Quote:

---

Are you saying that in skipping over that path and going through the courts it was the only choice they had or was it just another knife in societies back ? The gays have a specific agenda and they have been pressing it for some time.

---

When they TOOK that path, the people voted it down. Therefore, the ONLY way was through the courts. You DO understand, don't you, that the people CANNOT vote out other peoples RIGHTS?? Hence, the title of my thread.

Actually, I DON'T think you do. I dunno WHY. The 14th Amendment is crystal clear on the issue. That's why you're LOSING in the courts.

If their "agenda" was to achieve EQUALITY, then I SUPPORT it.

To your last point, whether society feels that the spread of freedom is a "knife" in their back, remains to be seen.

excon

Hello again, dad:

Quote:

---

So changing a legal definition isnt a problem for you ?

---

Nahhh... If the legal definition is WRONG, it MUST be changed... You know, like marijuana is legally defined as a schedule one drug, and EVERYBODY knows that's wrong.

excon

So what it really boisl down to is that sexual orientation is above the law correct? The rights of others wasnt being denied it was being defined. The fact that the law was defined as marriage being between a man and a woman was a problem for them. Mow the way it is a marriage can be between any persons and anythings. Hope that works for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, dad:
Nahhh... If the legal definition is WRONG, it MUST be changed... You know, like marijuana is legally defined as a schedule one drug, and EVERYBODY knows that's wrong.

excon

---

The changing of classifications of drugs has a long recorded history in this country and it is clearly defined. Many drugs have had it changed well before pot. The problem with pot was that it had a economic affect and that is why they went after it. It was legal up until the 1920's.

Quote:

---

The fact that the law was defined as marriage being between a man and a woman

---

Can you cite that law please?

Changing the definition of marriage may make you mad, but doesn't hurt you. Also by definition, marriage doesn't work so good half the time. Even with the monetary benefit.

Admit it. You don't want gays or any other minority to have what you have, without YOUR permission. Then you can holler how bad they are and define them to stroke your own ego, and keep 'em out of YOUR society. How can you be mad when anybody fights for their rights? That's the American way... sue the suckers.

Fighting change may slow it down, but won't stop it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Can you cite that law please?

---

Look up DOMA ( Defense of Marriage Act )

Plus many states followed suit and added simaler laws to their books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Changing the definition of marriage may make you mad, but doesn't hurt you. Also by definition, marriage doesn't work so good half the time. Even with the monetary benefit.

Admit it. You don't want gays or any other minority to have what you have, without YOUR permission. Then you can holler how bad they are and define them to stroke your own ego, and keep 'em out of YOUR society. How can you be mad when anybody fights for their rights? That's the American way... sue the suckers.

Fighting change may slow it down, but won't stop it.

---

So if my Church were to disappear or my favorite bakery would go out of business then thats not a direct harm to me now is it? Lets face it. Im for eaqual rights when those rights belong to a acceptable way of running a society. I may object to it and am free to speak my mind about it. But I grow tired of expanding rights where they do not belong. It is killing off society.

Hello again, dad:

Let's take 'em one at a time.

1. Well, of course, you went off the deep end. Gay marriage being legal does NOT mean you can marry your desk. (Psssst, it takes BOTH people to agree to a contract.) Your HORSE can't agree. Your DESK can't agree. CHILDREN can't agree.. Only another PERSON can agree.

2. Sexual orientation is NOT the issue... EQUAL rights is the issue. Like I said earlier, if you'd GIVEN gay's the exact same rights you give to married people and called it CIVIL UNIONS, nobody would have changed the definition of marriage.. You HAD your chance to DO that. You blew it.

3. The fact that the law defines marijuana as a schedule one drug, DOES cause a problem for ME, and it should for YOU too.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, dad:

Let's take 'em one at a time.

1. Well, of course, you went off the deep end. Gay marriage being legal does NOT mean you can marry your desk. (Psssst, it takes BOTH people to agree to a contract.) Your HORSE can't agree. Your DESK can't agree. CHILDREN can't agree.. Only another PERSON can agree.

2. Sexual orientation is NOT the issue... EQUAL rights is the issue. Like I said earlier, if you'd GIVEN gay's the exact same rights you give to married people and called it CIVIL UNIONS, nobody would have changed the definition of marriage.. You HAD your chance to DO that. You blew it.

3. The fact that the law defines marijuana as a schedule one drug, DOES cause a problem for ME, and it should for YOU too.

excon

---

1) Without definition then yes an adult can marry a child. Also an adult can marry an animal if they choose. Is your only basis for marriage that being a legal contract like buying a car?


2) Nothing was blown on my part. Can you show where anywhere in the U.S. they had a vote on granting civil unions the same rights? They didnt bother trying to redefine the definition and responsibilities of civil unions. Somehow they skipped right over it.

3) I didnt define nor vote on the laws surrounding marijuana. I actually beleive all drugs should be legal. Right now as it stands the police profit more then the drug dealers on the "War on Drugs" and are very smug about it. It is in the systems hands and they arent likely to let it go anytime soon without a revolution of voter turn out in mass.

Hello again, dad:

First off, I dunno who THEY are. I fought for gay rights, and I'm NOT gay. But, I guess I'm included in "they". But, you're NOT talking about me.. You're talking about what you THINK gay people think. I'll bet you learned how gay people think in CHURCH... That's NOT a good place to learn your politics.

You're just FLAT OUT WRONG on your assertion that we can now marry our refrigerator.. Here's the law, but I'm embarrassed that I have to explain it to an adult person. No MATTER how marriage is defined, a CONTRACT is CLEARLY defined, and your refrigerator CAN'T sign a contract, and they can't buy a car either...

excon

I only speak from the experience point of observation. I saw it early on in the aids crisis. From there it has branched into a movement. From redeining marriage then you could also eliminate the need for a mutual contract. That is simaler thing as an arranged marriage. If the government holds no interest in marriage then all laws surrounding its definition can and should be changed. Isnt that how the system is suppose to work?

I dont get my news from drudge. I have many sources including personal ones. I know how media works. There is a tendency to twist what is news and spit it out as truth.

Hello again, dad:

Yeah... I removed the reference to Drudge.. You didn't deserve it.

I dunno WHAT you're saying that we can do NOW that we couldn't before... In legal terms, a marriage hasn't changed a bit.. Not one iota. What's CHANGED is the people who can AVAIL themselves of it.

You know, like letting black people go to integrated schools, did NOT change a school into something else. What changed, was the people who could AVAIL themselves of it.

excon

What Im saying is that it opened the door for change. That change goes well beyond its original intention. Right now there are some legal restrictions on an adult marrying a child. But those restrictions are only minor ones (no pun intended). In changing of the law the marriage contract is very limited in its scope of protection. It will go where it will as it has been let out to any definition that a person feels it should be. Isnt that part of the 14th amendments pursuit of happiness? I find it rather ironic that in todays day and time where government has been sneeking into all aspects of our lives (supposedly for our own good) that they have backed down on one of the most basic interpritations of the law. When you leave the doors open sooner or later someone is bound to walk through it.