Garfield1966
Veteran
How so? IMO gays are being deprived of equal treatment under the law with the same tired excuses used to deprive blacks and women of their rights. Why you people are hell bent on deriving gays the right to get married is beyond me. The way the votes are going, you folks better get behind the same sex marriage parade because if the CA idea takes hold and government gets out of the 'marriage' industry marriage will become irrelevant. Any religious institution will be allowed to interpret marriage as they see fit and it will have no legal bearing what so ever. Any one and anything will be able to get married. Animals, appliances you name it. Think about it for a minute. Right now the government is the only thing restricting marriage. The way the way the votes are going you have a choice. You can either allow any two people to get married, or you can loose total control over marriage. Take your pick.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
There nothing to support your 'belief'...
Due to lack of 'proven' evidence, I stand by my position that deviant sexual behavior is a choice and not an act of Darwinism or 'natural selection'.
At least I am comforted that your 'belief' that a marriage is between two people and you are comfortable with the denial of polygamists rights.
Does it make you feel more 'manly'? ...
How so? You do know that most of the Merican population do not get ‘married’ in a religious institution? And, pray tell, how are these ‘unions’ recognized by the state and feds? (Short Quiz at 5:00)
How could you possibly know that? Pulling it out of your waste orifice (again) ?
No doubt that you will continue to spread your ‘beliefs’ and many will succumb to it just to stop the tiresome repetitiveness of your ‘belief’. Just keep repeating the same mantra (with occasional twists) over and over (see the last 18 pages) and you will certainly win over the majority of the populace by shear boredom.
View attachment 8244
However, You can rest assured that your diatribe and disinformation is wasted on me.
B) xUT
Bump
dapoes
Veteran
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 3,543
- Reaction score
- 2,716
You should have that bump looked at :huh:
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
I looked at it and it was good!
SharoninSAT
Veteran
Garfield1966
Veteran
Looks liker Vermont is going to step to the plate and join the 21 century.
Vermont one step closer to approving gay marriage
Vermont one step closer to approving gay marriage
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
I do enjoy your ranting and disinformation. You do know that Christians do not believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? You do know that…Right?
But your childish inference is not totally lost as I recall in your ignorance proclaiming that ‘somehow’ two asexual penguins are gay and proves to humanity that ‘because animals do it, there you go’…
What a childish and ignorant assumption. :down:
I’ve refuted these issues on every venue but still you come back with this BS:
CA proposal to strike marriage from CA law.
Being the ‘bull$h1tter’ that you are, even you should realize that this is not what I have stated. Go back and read these threads. You can lay this crap on everyone else, but certainly not I.
‘IF’ and I do mean ‘IF’ you are such the stalwart in your ‘beliefs’ to ignore ‘everything’ and keep your head in a sand box, then your cause is lost, at least to people with reasonable cognitive abilities.
People are certainly not immune to the outrage of the LBGTQ… as their postings are quite hateful and anachronistic. As with most nut cases, the innocent will be harmed and the people they ‘hate’ (me) will still be here.
Your endeavor in the ‘Atheist’ ‘belief’ is also quite humorous as your ‘cult’ is forever trying to prove the nonexistence of a belief, based on your ‘belief’… :wacko:
Do these people deserve to be married?
Quest to legalise polygamy in Utah
What about these:
(Note… This was deleted from the BBC..)
Romania weighs decriminalizing consensual incest
And for flavor:
Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Yea, I’m nuts and you folks are ‘sane and reasonable’……….
View attachment 8285
B) xUT
But your childish inference is not totally lost as I recall in your ignorance proclaiming that ‘somehow’ two asexual penguins are gay and proves to humanity that ‘because animals do it, there you go’…
What a childish and ignorant assumption. :down:
I’ve refuted these issues on every venue but still you come back with this BS:
CA proposal to strike marriage from CA law.
Being the ‘bull$h1tter’ that you are, even you should realize that this is not what I have stated. Go back and read these threads. You can lay this crap on everyone else, but certainly not I.
‘IF’ and I do mean ‘IF’ you are such the stalwart in your ‘beliefs’ to ignore ‘everything’ and keep your head in a sand box, then your cause is lost, at least to people with reasonable cognitive abilities.
People are certainly not immune to the outrage of the LBGTQ… as their postings are quite hateful and anachronistic. As with most nut cases, the innocent will be harmed and the people they ‘hate’ (me) will still be here.
Your endeavor in the ‘Atheist’ ‘belief’ is also quite humorous as your ‘cult’ is forever trying to prove the nonexistence of a belief, based on your ‘belief’… :wacko:
Do these people deserve to be married?
Quest to legalise polygamy in Utah
What about these:
(Note… This was deleted from the BBC..)
Romania weighs decriminalizing consensual incest
And for flavor:
Alaska and Florida consider bans on bestiality
Yea, I’m nuts and you folks are ‘sane and reasonable’……….
View attachment 8285
B) xUT
Garfield1966
Veteran
You left out "Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Klingons, Vulcans". My comment had nothign to do with religion (that's why I added the the others in) but rather with things that most belive not to exist but cannot be proven. But you knew that.
Not sure where the animal reference came from or what it has to do with anything.
You said:
This is exactly what CA proposal would do. Eliminate the term "marriage" from CA law and substitute "Union". This would allow religion to recalim the term marriage and do with at they see fit.
Like I said, Atheism is religion like bald is a hair color. Fell free to classify as you see fit, I could not care less.
This is really simple. Any two people who want to have a legal union should be allowed to do so. The laws governing unions should apply equally to all people. If government wants to change the law to allow more than 2 people to havea union that is up to government. I have seen financial reasons (current tax law) as an argument against polygamous unions but aside from that if a guy want to have 10 partners or a woman wants to have 10 partners I could care less as it is none of my business. How they raise their children is a concern but given that single and dual parents do such a lousy job of raising children, the "welfare of the children" argument is pretty shaky already.
As far as I am concerned, if someone hurts an animal they ought to be lock up for a long long time. You guys always seem to fall back on the bestiality thing when a logical argument fails to support your bigotry. Same goes with incest and pedophilia. No law as far as I am aware is advocating that animals,children or relatives be allowed to have a union with a human. Now what happens to 'marriage' when it looses government protection is up to what ever religious institution you go to. That is not the states business.
As I stated before. Given the statistics of the votes and the fact that more states are considering dumping the antiquated and bigoted standards of 'marriage, you religious folks better hop on the band wagon while you still can. Once 'marriage' looses government protection, all bets are off for 'marriage' not getting abused like hooker in San Quintin.
Not sure where the animal reference came from or what it has to do with anything.
You said:
This is exactly what CA proposal would do. Eliminate the term "marriage" from CA law and substitute "Union". This would allow religion to recalim the term marriage and do with at they see fit.
Like I said, Atheism is religion like bald is a hair color. Fell free to classify as you see fit, I could not care less.
This is really simple. Any two people who want to have a legal union should be allowed to do so. The laws governing unions should apply equally to all people. If government wants to change the law to allow more than 2 people to havea union that is up to government. I have seen financial reasons (current tax law) as an argument against polygamous unions but aside from that if a guy want to have 10 partners or a woman wants to have 10 partners I could care less as it is none of my business. How they raise their children is a concern but given that single and dual parents do such a lousy job of raising children, the "welfare of the children" argument is pretty shaky already.
As far as I am concerned, if someone hurts an animal they ought to be lock up for a long long time. You guys always seem to fall back on the bestiality thing when a logical argument fails to support your bigotry. Same goes with incest and pedophilia. No law as far as I am aware is advocating that animals,children or relatives be allowed to have a union with a human. Now what happens to 'marriage' when it looses government protection is up to what ever religious institution you go to. That is not the states business.
As I stated before. Given the statistics of the votes and the fact that more states are considering dumping the antiquated and bigoted standards of 'marriage, you religious folks better hop on the band wagon while you still can. Once 'marriage' looses government protection, all bets are off for 'marriage' not getting abused like hooker in San Quintin.
Garfield1966
Veteran
Looks like Iowa just did the right thing. It's like Dominoes, one falls and it triggers another one... pretty soon, every state will allow it.
Iowa allows gay marriage
Iowa allows gay marriage
d.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
Doing the 'right' thing is questionable. Thank goodness they did not have to contend with a pesky vote by the people,that would be outrageous...
B) xUT
eolesen
Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,959
- Reaction score
- 9,375
"Iowa" didn't do the right thing -- their Supreme Court simply said the legislation in place wasn't in line with their state constitution.
It's the same as happened in CA and led to Prop 108. As has happened time and time again, a ballot initiative or constitutional amendment can change things the other way. It's easy to sue against a law which is unconstitutional, but it's a lot harder to sue and say the constitution is unconstitutional
29 states have constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
Vermont's governor has said today he will veto their gay marriage bill when it arrives on his desk, so don't start calling up the caterer just yet.
It's the same as happened in CA and led to Prop 108. As has happened time and time again, a ballot initiative or constitutional amendment can change things the other way. It's easy to sue against a law which is unconstitutional, but it's a lot harder to sue and say the constitution is unconstitutional
29 states have constitutional amendments restricting marriage to one man and one woman.
Vermont's governor has said today he will veto their gay marriage bill when it arrives on his desk, so don't start calling up the caterer just yet.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
Still with piggybacking on ethnics and woman's rights... :down:
Can't the GLBTQ...etc stand on their own merit?
Good, all or nothing works for me. If some one wants to marry their electronic stimulator and the gooberment allows it then have at it. Progress U know, separation of common sense and gooberment.
B) xUT
Garfield1966
Veteran
Still with piggybacking on ethnics and woman's rights... :down:
Can't the GLBTQ...etc stand on their own merit?
Good, all or nothing works for me. If some one wants to marry their electronic stimulator and the gooberment allows it then have at it. Progress U know, separation of common sense and gooberment.
B) xUT
No, that is not how it will work. State Civil union will be between two humans of any gender. Marriage to electronic devices will be the domain of what ever 'religion' decides to condone it.
Does the USSC supersede state constitutions? I'm not sure how that works.
As for state elections on whether to deprive a segment of society equal rights, not sure if we want to go down that road. Who knows who's rights could be on the chopping block next. It could be yours.
U
UAL_TECH
Guest
IMHO, you do not know how it will work or even have a ‘CLUE’ as to the future ramifications. SO get your butt off of your high horse and join the rest of us human beings.
Once we open ‘Pandora’s Box’ all bets are off and the lid can’t be sealed again.
Proponents of GBLTMNOPQZYX ‘marriage’ keep foretelling of how the definition of ‘marriage’ will be of two humans of any gender.
How is that possible? Think ‘law’…
Atheistic Morality? Sheee…… That is a moving target.
Common Sense? (Well that didn’t work either)…
Don’t you watch ‘the view’ or ‘the millennium man’? Are you not moved by the need for artificial sexual devices? What an insensitive cad you are to deny the Love of Human and Their Sexual Inventions…
No One does as it is a political moving target as well.
Are you here on Earth with me or did you catch the shuttle?
Similar threads
