San Fransisco Gay Marriages
-
Stan Shannon wrote: the feds wasted no time in ignoring states rights to intervene to stop the judge you're full of it. he unveiled the monument August 1, 2001. the ACLU, not "the feds" sued in Jan 02. the federal district court didn't rule against Moore until November 2002 - that's more than a year afterwards. and, then the order was stayed, by the same judge in Jan 03. and the thing stayed there until late 03. that's more than two years, of course. yeah, no time wasted at all. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
I won't quibble over what "wasted no time" means, but I still think the differences in attitudes towards two acts of defying legal authority is telling. Clearly, the only moral agenda in our society which is sanctioned by the state, and defended by the full power of the legal system, is that of secularism. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
Laws? instead of worring abou gay people getting married, i guess ppl should so something about the Guns that is available like toys.
Prakash, India.
This is plain dumb. Just because the US has one pressing social issue, does that mean that nothing else can be discussed ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
F*ck the law, the laws need to be changed. People need to make decisions about what should and shouldn't be by using valid reasoning about what is right and wrong. Any form of prejudice is flat-out wrong. Have you all lost the ability to think for yourselves? There probably still exist racially-prejudice laws that noone has gotten around to officially erasing. Would you question why these law are no longer enforced? Complete legalizing of homosexuality is inevitable. Being somewhat conservative, America is a bit behind some other countries in recognition of homosexuality as a valid type of relationship, equal in every way to hetero relationships and hetero marriages. America will catch up with the times eventually though. This issue will continue to be debated until the laws are corrected. Ooooh... this is sure to spark some debate! ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: this is sure to spark some debate! Ok, here you go. AdventureBoy wrote: People need to make decisions about what should and shouldn't be by using valid reasoning about what is right and wrong. They did. AdventureBoy wrote: Have you all lost the ability to think for yourselves? So unless we agree with you we aren't thinking for ourselves? AdventureBoy wrote: There probably still exist racially-prejudice laws that noone has gotten around to officially erasing. Would you question why these law are no longer enforced? Red Herring. AdventureBoy wrote: legalizing of homosexuality is inevitable. Being somewhat conservative, America is a bit behind some other countries in recognition of homosexuality as a valid type of relationship, equal in every way to hetero relationships and hetero marriages. Does every form of sexual perverson deserve its own set of special rights? And will we all be forced by the law to accept behavior we find morally unacceptable simply because the state tells us we have to. Sure, the U.S. is behind the rest of the world - in tyranny, we would kind of like to keep it that way. AdventureBoy wrote: America will catch up with the times eventually though. This issue will continue to be debated until the laws are corrected. Unfortunantly, you are probably right. We will be forced down the same statest path as Canada. Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
F*ck the law, the laws need to be changed. People need to make decisions about what should and shouldn't be by using valid reasoning about what is right and wrong. Any form of prejudice is flat-out wrong. Have you all lost the ability to think for yourselves? There probably still exist racially-prejudice laws that noone has gotten around to officially erasing. Would you question why these law are no longer enforced? Complete legalizing of homosexuality is inevitable. Being somewhat conservative, America is a bit behind some other countries in recognition of homosexuality as a valid type of relationship, equal in every way to hetero relationships and hetero marriages. America will catch up with the times eventually though. This issue will continue to be debated until the laws are corrected. Ooooh... this is sure to spark some debate! ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: F*ck the law Great idea. :rolleyes: AdventureBoy wrote: the laws need to be changed Apparently they are looking at this in CA over this very issue. It's just not a quick process (thankfully)* Just a thought, to play devil's advocate, but what do you think about the notion that many of the problems with our society is because of our lack role models? I'm not saying that gay people are inherantly bad people, but that possibly the traditional roles of men and women aren't so bad, and in fact may be quite necessary to have a well-balanced society. That perhaps it's OK to have standards that the overwhelming majority are comfortable with, and just sort of let the exeptions slide by on the side. You know, to keep the peace. After all, the basis of democracy is to instill the will of the majority, not to cater to desires of the few. *BTW, thankfully in all cases, not because I have any issue with who marries who. BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
I won't quibble over what "wasted no time" means, but I still think the differences in attitudes towards two acts of defying legal authority is telling. Clearly, the only moral agenda in our society which is sanctioned by the state, and defended by the full power of the legal system, is that of secularism. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Stan Shannon wrote: but I still think the differences in attitudes towards two acts of defying legal authority is telling. ok, what exactly happened in the first weeks after Roy's monument? was Moore immediately arrested? no. did the ACLU get to throw him in jail, before a court date was even scheduled? no. did the FBI immediately send men to haul him off? no. since you're comparing this to Moore, there's nothing "telling" about the fact that nothing has happened in SF in two weeks. nothing happened at all to Moore or his rock for months. no judgement was handed down for over a year. and the rock stayed there for, literally, years. Stan Shannon wrote: Clearly, the only moral agenda in our society which is sanctioned by the state, and defended by the full power of the legal system, is that of secularism. clearly. that's why it's the first ten words of the first amendment. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
AdventureBoy wrote: this is sure to spark some debate! Ok, here you go. AdventureBoy wrote: People need to make decisions about what should and shouldn't be by using valid reasoning about what is right and wrong. They did. AdventureBoy wrote: Have you all lost the ability to think for yourselves? So unless we agree with you we aren't thinking for ourselves? AdventureBoy wrote: There probably still exist racially-prejudice laws that noone has gotten around to officially erasing. Would you question why these law are no longer enforced? Red Herring. AdventureBoy wrote: legalizing of homosexuality is inevitable. Being somewhat conservative, America is a bit behind some other countries in recognition of homosexuality as a valid type of relationship, equal in every way to hetero relationships and hetero marriages. Does every form of sexual perverson deserve its own set of special rights? And will we all be forced by the law to accept behavior we find morally unacceptable simply because the state tells us we have to. Sure, the U.S. is behind the rest of the world - in tyranny, we would kind of like to keep it that way. AdventureBoy wrote: America will catch up with the times eventually though. This issue will continue to be debated until the laws are corrected. Unfortunantly, you are probably right. We will be forced down the same statest path as Canada. Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Stan Shannon wrote: every form of sexual perverson deserve its own set of special rights? And will we all be forced by the law to accept behavior we find morally unacceptable Come on Stan! Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with perversions and morality. And the law should be the same for everybody, that's why gay marriage should be allowed. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
-
Can someone explain this to me. I understand that issuing a marriage license to same sex couples in California is against the law. In fact, it is a criminal offense. So why isn't anyone getting arrested? Furthermore, since the licenses were obtained illegally then they aren't binding right? So those couples who thought they got married really aren't? This is not a post about whether or not same sex marriages should be legal. I'm simply asking for clarification on how laws work in California.
I don't think it's actually against the law in California. The Fed is talking about making a federal law against gay marriage, but that hasn't happened (yet). Most of the states are in a position where they haven't made a law allowing or preventing gay marriage. So, if someone in power decides he's going to start giving marriage licences to gays, well, there's nothing that says he can or can't do it. What will happen now is that someone higher than him will decide whether or not to let it stand. If they overturn it, then all the gay marriages are invalidated. ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: but I still think the differences in attitudes towards two acts of defying legal authority is telling. ok, what exactly happened in the first weeks after Roy's monument? was Moore immediately arrested? no. did the ACLU get to throw him in jail, before a court date was even scheduled? no. did the FBI immediately send men to haul him off? no. since you're comparing this to Moore, there's nothing "telling" about the fact that nothing has happened in SF in two weeks. nothing happened at all to Moore or his rock for months. no judgement was handed down for over a year. and the rock stayed there for, literally, years. Stan Shannon wrote: Clearly, the only moral agenda in our society which is sanctioned by the state, and defended by the full power of the legal system, is that of secularism. clearly. that's why it's the first ten words of the first amendment. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: was Moore immediately arrested? no. did the ACLU get to throw him in jail before a court date was even scheduled? no. did the FBI send troops to haul him off? no. did the governor call it an immediate threat to civililiation? no. did the president say he was "troubled" by it? no. nothing happened at all for months. no judgement was handed down for over a year. and the rock stayed there for, literally, years. OK, I'll conceed the point that the feds are still required to go through the charade of legal process before acting to forcible remove any threat to their secularist values. To bad, eh? Chris Losinger wrote: clearly. that's why it's the first ten words of the first amendment. So what the authors of that amendment were really trying to say was that its ok to establish a defacto religion as long as it is completely controlled by the federal judiciary. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
I don't think it's actually against the law in California. The Fed is talking about making a federal law against gay marriage, but that hasn't happened (yet). Most of the states are in a position where they haven't made a law allowing or preventing gay marriage. So, if someone in power decides he's going to start giving marriage licences to gays, well, there's nothing that says he can or can't do it. What will happen now is that someone higher than him will decide whether or not to let it stand. If they overturn it, then all the gay marriages are invalidated. ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
Brit wrote: I don't think it's actually against the law in California. I heard on the radio this morning that issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples is punishable up to $1000 and/or 1 year in county jail. Of course, it's certainly possible that I misunderstood what I was hearing. That was the whole point of my original post.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: was Moore immediately arrested? no. did the ACLU get to throw him in jail before a court date was even scheduled? no. did the FBI send troops to haul him off? no. did the governor call it an immediate threat to civililiation? no. did the president say he was "troubled" by it? no. nothing happened at all for months. no judgement was handed down for over a year. and the rock stayed there for, literally, years. OK, I'll conceed the point that the feds are still required to go through the charade of legal process before acting to forcible remove any threat to their secularist values. To bad, eh? Chris Losinger wrote: clearly. that's why it's the first ten words of the first amendment. So what the authors of that amendment were really trying to say was that its ok to establish a defacto religion as long as it is completely controlled by the federal judiciary. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Stan Shannon wrote: So what the authors of that amendment were really trying to say was that its ok to establish a defacto religion as long as it is completely controlled by the federal judiciary. secularism isn't a religion. it's not even a special kind of quasi-religion that only liberals like. it is the absense of a religion. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
-
AdventureBoy wrote: this is sure to spark some debate! Ok, here you go. AdventureBoy wrote: People need to make decisions about what should and shouldn't be by using valid reasoning about what is right and wrong. They did. AdventureBoy wrote: Have you all lost the ability to think for yourselves? So unless we agree with you we aren't thinking for ourselves? AdventureBoy wrote: There probably still exist racially-prejudice laws that noone has gotten around to officially erasing. Would you question why these law are no longer enforced? Red Herring. AdventureBoy wrote: legalizing of homosexuality is inevitable. Being somewhat conservative, America is a bit behind some other countries in recognition of homosexuality as a valid type of relationship, equal in every way to hetero relationships and hetero marriages. Does every form of sexual perverson deserve its own set of special rights? And will we all be forced by the law to accept behavior we find morally unacceptable simply because the state tells us we have to. Sure, the U.S. is behind the rest of the world - in tyranny, we would kind of like to keep it that way. AdventureBoy wrote: America will catch up with the times eventually though. This issue will continue to be debated until the laws are corrected. Unfortunantly, you are probably right. We will be forced down the same statest path as Canada. Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Stan Shannon wrote: Red Herring. How so? I see racial discrimination and sexual discrimination as being nearly identicle issues. Both unfairly restrict the rights and freedoms of specific groups of people based on irreleavant attributes of those groups. Stan Shannon wrote: Does every form of sexual perverson deserve its own set of special rights? And will we all be forced by the law to accept behavior we find morally unacceptable simply because the state tells us we have to. Homosexuals do not deserve special rights, but they do deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. Laws cannot force you to accept or believe anything. You can live the rest of your life as a biggot, noone will stop you. You have freedom of thought and speech. But laws can protect people's rights, and currently certain laws give unfair advantages to heteros. Stan Shannon wrote: And will we all be forced by the law to accept behavior we find morally unacceptable simply because the state tells us we have to. But that's exactly what your asking for. Discrimination is morally unacceptaable to me, and you'er suggesting I should accpet it because it's part of American law. Stan Shannon wrote: Sure, the U.S. is behind the rest of the world - in tyranny, we would kind of like to keep it that way. Er, what are you suggesting? That because non-discrimition and tyranny are both not part of American law, they are therefore somehow comparable? Stan Shannon wrote: Unfortunantly, you are probably right. We will be forced down the same statest path as Canada. Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion You seem to be confused. Canadian law does permit free excercise of religion, and any other practice under the sun that does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. That's the point. YOU'RE the one whose suggesting that the beliefs of individuals should be subverted by the government's religion (A specific branch of Christianity, no doubt). YOU'RE the one who actually believes that "Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion" Canadian law makes it possible for you to have any beliefs, religions or views that you want, as long as you are not somehow harming anyone else. For instance, Canadian law gives the same tax advantages to people in same-sex marriages as it does t
-
Stan Shannon wrote: every form of sexual perverson deserve its own set of special rights? And will we all be forced by the law to accept behavior we find morally unacceptable Come on Stan! Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with perversions and morality. And the law should be the same for everybody, that's why gay marriage should be allowed. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
jhaga wrote: Come on Stan! Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with perversions I absolutely disagree with that. Of course its about sexual perversion I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse (even if an entirely benign form. ) Its none of my business until they tell me I have to accept it, than I certainly have my right to a political opinion on the subject at the very least. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
F*ck the law, the laws need to be changed. People need to make decisions about what should and shouldn't be by using valid reasoning about what is right and wrong. Any form of prejudice is flat-out wrong. Have you all lost the ability to think for yourselves? There probably still exist racially-prejudice laws that noone has gotten around to officially erasing. Would you question why these law are no longer enforced? Complete legalizing of homosexuality is inevitable. Being somewhat conservative, America is a bit behind some other countries in recognition of homosexuality as a valid type of relationship, equal in every way to hetero relationships and hetero marriages. America will catch up with the times eventually though. This issue will continue to be debated until the laws are corrected. Ooooh... this is sure to spark some debate! ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
I was hoping that we could avoid the morality and legalization opinions. Sure, I have my own too, but I was more interested in the current law and how it is or is not being enforced in this particular situation. I think the law should be enforced consistently. If it is deemed inappropriate in some situations or completely absurd then change it.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: So what the authors of that amendment were really trying to say was that its ok to establish a defacto religion as long as it is completely controlled by the federal judiciary. secularism isn't a religion. it's not even a special kind of quasi-religion that only liberals like. it is the absense of a religion. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
Chris Losinger wrote: secularism isn't a religion. it's not even a special kind of quasi-religion that only liberals like. it is the absense of a religion. Not when it becomes a jutification for a state sanctioned moral agenda. Than its a religion in competition with other moral agendas promoted by other religions. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
jhaga wrote: Come on Stan! Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with perversions I absolutely disagree with that. Of course its about sexual perversion I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse (even if an entirely benign form. ) Its none of my business until they tell me I have to accept it, than I certainly have my right to a political opinion on the subject at the very least. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
It is not a question about where you stick your penis, it is more about who will inherit you when you die. Your partner or somebody else. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Red Herring. How so? I see racial discrimination and sexual discrimination as being nearly identicle issues. Both unfairly restrict the rights and freedoms of specific groups of people based on irreleavant attributes of those groups. Stan Shannon wrote: Does every form of sexual perverson deserve its own set of special rights? And will we all be forced by the law to accept behavior we find morally unacceptable simply because the state tells us we have to. Homosexuals do not deserve special rights, but they do deserve the same rights as heterosexuals. Laws cannot force you to accept or believe anything. You can live the rest of your life as a biggot, noone will stop you. You have freedom of thought and speech. But laws can protect people's rights, and currently certain laws give unfair advantages to heteros. Stan Shannon wrote: And will we all be forced by the law to accept behavior we find morally unacceptable simply because the state tells us we have to. But that's exactly what your asking for. Discrimination is morally unacceptaable to me, and you'er suggesting I should accpet it because it's part of American law. Stan Shannon wrote: Sure, the U.S. is behind the rest of the world - in tyranny, we would kind of like to keep it that way. Er, what are you suggesting? That because non-discrimition and tyranny are both not part of American law, they are therefore somehow comparable? Stan Shannon wrote: Unfortunantly, you are probably right. We will be forced down the same statest path as Canada. Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion You seem to be confused. Canadian law does permit free excercise of religion, and any other practice under the sun that does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. That's the point. YOU'RE the one whose suggesting that the beliefs of individuals should be subverted by the government's religion (A specific branch of Christianity, no doubt). YOU'RE the one who actually believes that "Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion" Canadian law makes it possible for you to have any beliefs, religions or views that you want, as long as you are not somehow harming anyone else. For instance, Canadian law gives the same tax advantages to people in same-sex marriages as it does t
AdventureBoy wrote: How so? I see racial discrimination and sexual discrimination as being nearly identicle issues. Both unfairly restrict the rights and freedoms of specific groups of people based on irreleavant attributes of those groups. Because we are not talking about race, or genetics or anything at all to do with biology. We are talking about a set of behaviors. To say that we do not have the right to discriminate against another's behavior based upon our own personal set of moral principles is absolute tyranny. Nothing could be more tyranical. I might not have the right to discriminate against someone because of their skin color, but if they behave in some way I find inappropriate I should certainly be freely allowed discriminate. The state should not be defining for me what does and does not represent appropriate behavior. H AdventureBoy wrote: You seem to be confused. Canadian law does permit free excercise of religion, and any other practice under the sun that does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. That's the point. YOU'RE the one whose suggesting that the beliefs of individuals should be subverted by the government's religion (A specific branch of Christianity, no doubt). YOU'RE the one who actually believes that "Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion" Canadian law makes it possible for you to have any beliefs, religions or views that you want, as long as you are not somehow harming anyone else. For instance, Canadian law gives the same tax advantages to people in same-sex marriages as it does to hetero marriages and common-law relationships. So you can freely exercise your religious convictions so long as you do it precisely according to the dictates of the state. Wow, that is what I call freedom. Gee, you Canadians are so advanced. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
AdventureBoy wrote: F*ck the law Great idea. :rolleyes: AdventureBoy wrote: the laws need to be changed Apparently they are looking at this in CA over this very issue. It's just not a quick process (thankfully)* Just a thought, to play devil's advocate, but what do you think about the notion that many of the problems with our society is because of our lack role models? I'm not saying that gay people are inherantly bad people, but that possibly the traditional roles of men and women aren't so bad, and in fact may be quite necessary to have a well-balanced society. That perhaps it's OK to have standards that the overwhelming majority are comfortable with, and just sort of let the exeptions slide by on the side. You know, to keep the peace. After all, the basis of democracy is to instill the will of the majority, not to cater to desires of the few. *BTW, thankfully in all cases, not because I have any issue with who marries who. BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
Sure, having mothers and fathers as one type of role model is important for society. We need breeders if we're going to propagate the species. The existance and recognition of homosexuals is not going to dissuade good little hetero children from growing up spawning. Bear in mind that not all heterosexuals, and even more to the point, not all heterosexual marriages are involved in pro-creation. There's no need to create a 'standard' and apply it like a broad-sword, to try and convince a homosexual to go against his/her nature, and start procreating. It's a shame that our society persuades homosexuals to group together in certain cities. There is a significant population of Homosexuals in my hometown (Toronto) and so even though I'm a happy heterosexual (and at one time a major homophobic), I've met lots of happy homos, and I was forced to question my own beliefs. I came to the inevitable conclusion that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality at all. Homos can't help being homos; sexuality seems to be totally innate. Therefore, we shouldn't discriminate against them. If everyone went through this same fair, rational thought process, our society would evolve for the better. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
jhaga wrote: Come on Stan! Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with perversions I absolutely disagree with that. Of course its about sexual perversion I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse (even if an entirely benign form. ) Its none of my business until they tell me I have to accept it, than I certainly have my right to a political opinion on the subject at the very least. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
:-D You mean you've never recieved a b***j** ?!? Even from a chick?!? That's where all of this anger is coming from. You need some release, dude! Sucks to be you! Soooo, getting head is a sexual perversion, eh? What then is not a sexual perversion? (please answer this question, I'm positive I'll have a good comeback) yeah, yeah, keep you're political opinion, but as long as you excersize your freedom of speech, the rest of us will excercise ours. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
It is not a question about where you stick your penis, it is more about who will inherit you when you die. Your partner or somebody else. jhaga --------------------------------- Every generation laughs at the old fashions, but follows religiously the new. Henry David Thoreau, "Walden", 1854
jhaga wrote: It is not a question about where you stick your penis, it is more about who will inherit you when you die. Your partner or somebody else. What if I wanted to leave my inheritence to a bullfrog? Should the state sanction that marriage? How far are we to go to fully inact this wonderful new morality we have discovered? The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
-
AdventureBoy wrote: How so? I see racial discrimination and sexual discrimination as being nearly identicle issues. Both unfairly restrict the rights and freedoms of specific groups of people based on irreleavant attributes of those groups. Because we are not talking about race, or genetics or anything at all to do with biology. We are talking about a set of behaviors. To say that we do not have the right to discriminate against another's behavior based upon our own personal set of moral principles is absolute tyranny. Nothing could be more tyranical. I might not have the right to discriminate against someone because of their skin color, but if they behave in some way I find inappropriate I should certainly be freely allowed discriminate. The state should not be defining for me what does and does not represent appropriate behavior. H AdventureBoy wrote: You seem to be confused. Canadian law does permit free excercise of religion, and any other practice under the sun that does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. That's the point. YOU'RE the one whose suggesting that the beliefs of individuals should be subverted by the government's religion (A specific branch of Christianity, no doubt). YOU'RE the one who actually believes that "Whatever the state says is normal, is normal, and to hell with free exercise of religion" Canadian law makes it possible for you to have any beliefs, religions or views that you want, as long as you are not somehow harming anyone else. For instance, Canadian law gives the same tax advantages to people in same-sex marriages as it does to hetero marriages and common-law relationships. So you can freely exercise your religious convictions so long as you do it precisely according to the dictates of the state. Wow, that is what I call freedom. Gee, you Canadians are so advanced. The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under then name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party Presidential candidate
Stan Shannon wrote: Because we are not talking about race, or genetics or anything at all to do with biology. Many would argue that we are talking about biology. Alot of gays realize their sexual orientation as young as puberty. As a hetero male, if I see a sexually attrative naked woman, I'm going to sprout a woody. That's not by decision, I'm not saying 'C'mon little buddy, time to wake up' My litle buddy wakes when he wants to. That's the nature of a hetero. A gay guy can try as hard as he wants, but a naked female figure standing 6 inches from his face is just not going to do anything for him. Show him biceps and beards though, and he'll pitch a tent. How many times have you seen a guy walking down the street, and you just know that he's a homosexual. Why is that gay men are nearly always effinate in some way, no matter what culture he's from? My answer is that there is a 'gay gene' and it carries along with it a set of characteristics. Seconldy, once again, you're confused. If either o us is, it's you who are suggesting that the government should dictate our beliefs and enforce laws to that end. PS look up the definition of tyranny. "So you can freely exercise your religious convictions so long as you do it precisely according to the dictates of the state. Wow, that is what I call freedom. Gee, you Canadians are so advanced." Straw man. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P