San Fransisco Gay Marriages
-
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.
Mr.Prakash wrote: Laws? Are you against laws? Mr.Prakash wrote: ppl should so something about the Guns Do something? You mean through LAWS? First off - the 2 subjects are totally unrelated. Secondly - crime statistics show that in areas where guns are allowed to be carried, the violent crime rate is lower. While guns make crimes of passion more likely to be fatal, the do not raise the incidence of crimes. Criminals will use whatever they have available to commit their crimes and hard-core criminal organizations will simply procur their guns from illegal channels. The crime scene in America vis-a-vis other countries is not an endorsement for gun-control. It is much deeper than that. The majority of America's violent, pre-meditated crimes are committed in relation to illegal drugs or gang activity (and a lot of the gang activity is also drug related). The psyche of our nation is such that the drug culture has flourished and come into direct conflict with "mainstream" society. If guns were not available, other weapons would be used. Anyone naive enough to think that banning guns in America would do anything other than exchange the weapon used in a violent crime to a non-firearm is deluded.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Perhaps you should start a thread discussing gun control, and the pros/cons of realistic looking toys. ;) BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
Good Idea :-0
Prakash, India.
-
But but, people do do something about the "Guns that is available like toys". They either buy them or they don't. They have a choice. Do you have that choice? Do you like having choices? Tell us Mr.Prakash, we're dying to know. ;P Regards, Alvaro BTW, last I checked buying a toy truck does not require a waiting period or background check.
"I do" is both the shortest and the longest sentence in the English language.
Guns are not supposed to be a "choise" of a common man. You really dont need a gun to protect urself.
Prakash, India.
-
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
Stan Shannon wrote: I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse The dictionary defines perversion as A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant How can it be abnormal or deviant when the majority of men have either done it, or wanted to? Shouldn't the definition of perversion be relegated to activities that the vast majority of the population wouldn't consider engaging in? And even then, it is nobody's business if no harm is being done.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
AdventureBoy wrote: I suspect this sub-thread is going nowhere... i suspect it started the same place. What's your point? AdventureBoy wrote: You're trying to point out flaws in my grammar or word-usage, because you can't come up with a valid counter-arguement. My argument was stated quite clearly in my subject line, and it is your flawed logic that backs it up. AdventureBoy wrote: Don't come back and say 'Oh, well then I assume you want to protect the rights of those who believe in child-sacrifice'. Ok, i said nothing about child sacrifice. I don't know why you're bringing that in here, but it doesn't help your cause. If you've got something against sacrificial children, then start another thread. AdventureBoy wrote: When prejudice gives an unfair disadvantage to, or in some other way harms, an individual or group, for no erason other than unfair discrimination, then it is wrong and the situation should be remeied. Who by? AdventureBoy wrote: I suppose public debate will eventually shift the concensus, and eventually the law-makers elected by the people will listen. Shift it in which direction? And what will the law-makers listen to? AdventureBoy wrote: Obviously I care greatly for the law. This is why you began your first post with "Fuck the law"? Inflammatory bullshit. :|
--- the work, which will become a new genre unto itself, will be called...Shog9 wrote: This is why you began your first post with "f*** the law"? Inflammatory bullshit. I think it was understood by all that I meant "f*ck the existing discriminatory laws." Again, you're saying nothing. You're just arguing irrelevant details and word usage, because you can't generate a real counter-point. Is it because you have nothing to say? You bore me. Run along now, little one. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
-
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: 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 This is true. I know I would discriminate against someone if I knew they were cannibals who killed children. So I recognize your right to choose what sort of behaviour you would consider worthy of discrimination. Just as I have the right to disassociate myself from people who would discriminate against homosexuals. Stan Shannon wrote: The state should not be defining for me what does and does not represent appropriate behavior. Well then how can you acknowledge the states right to call homicide or robbery justified? If you are going to be a liberatarian, then at least don't be a hypocritical one.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Shog9 wrote: This is why you began your first post with "f*** the law"? Inflammatory bullshit. I think it was understood by all that I meant "f*ck the existing discriminatory laws." Again, you're saying nothing. You're just arguing irrelevant details and word usage, because you can't generate a real counter-point. Is it because you have nothing to say? You bore me. Run along now, little one. ;P Why is the phrase "It's none of my business" always followed by "BUT..." ;P
AdventureBoy wrote: You bore me. You're here to entertain me every bit as much as i'm here to entertain you. It ain't my job to make sure you get your money's worth though... AdventureBoy wrote: You're just arguing irrelevant details and word usage, because you can't generate a real counter-point. A counter to what point? I'm staring at a 2-inch paragraph of badly-formed ideas on why SF is doing the right thing, civil disobedience-wise. You wander around, asserting the law should be ignored (*and* changed), because people aren't making the right decisions and they should be and prejudice is bad, racism is bad and racism was prejudice and you're not a racist now, are you? Then wrap it all up with a nice little condescending take on how America (you *do* know you're an American, right?) is a bit backwards in the whole "all relationships are equal, no drawing distinctions now!" department, but we're coming 'round doncha worry! And then you anticipate debate based on these wonderfully laid-out thoughts. Well... you gave it, you got it, now enjoy it. ;) How do you move in a world of fog, That's always changing things? Makes me wish that i could be a dog, When i see the price that you pay.
-
Because it is such a politcally sensitive issue, law enforcement has decided to allow the courts to resolve this. My 2 cents on the subject: Government should not make any distinction (when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc) between civil union and marriage. Government should only issue civil-union licenses - anything beyond that should be handled by the church. Government should not discriminate same-sex couples that want civil union licenses. If the church allows same-sex marriages, then the couple can take their govt. issued civil-union license to their clergy and ask for a church wedding instead of a civil ceremony.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Most western countries have moved on from that. In fact, a lot recognise same sex marriges. Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
I was suggesting to stop worring about Gay marriages :-)
Prakash, India.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'll leave the morality of it to others, but sticking your penis in someone's mouth is damned sure sexually perverse The dictionary defines perversion as A sexual practice or act considered abnormal or deviant How can it be abnormal or deviant when the majority of men have either done it, or wanted to? Shouldn't the definition of perversion be relegated to activities that the vast majority of the population wouldn't consider engaging in? And even then, it is nobody's business if no harm is being done.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: And even then, it is nobody's business if no harm is being done. If they choose to make a political issue out of it it certainly is. 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
-
Chris Losinger wrote: Schwollenpecker :laugh: Did you come up with that one? Regards, Alvaro
"I do" is both the shortest and the longest sentence in the English language.
Anybody whose seen commercials for The Underground Comedy Movie would know that he didn't.
Who am I? Currently: A Programming Student trying to survive school with plan to go on to Univeristy of Advancing Technology to study game design. Main career interest include: Multimedia and game programming. Working on an outside project: A game for the GamePark32 (GP32) portable gaming console. My website: www.GP32US.com
-
Thank you for clearing this up. I had no idea that the proliferation of guns played such an important role in marriage laws.
-
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: 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. How so? If gay marraige is allowed, and marriage is based soley on peoples "love", then why can't I marry more than one person? I can surely love more than one person. Now I'd be discriminated against! Why not have whole family marriages, or neighborhood marraiges? Now the idea of 2 people is merely a fixation on numbers. ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start -
Because it is such a politcally sensitive issue, law enforcement has decided to allow the courts to resolve this. My 2 cents on the subject: Government should not make any distinction (when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc) between civil union and marriage. Government should only issue civil-union licenses - anything beyond that should be handled by the church. Government should not discriminate same-sex couples that want civil union licenses. If the church allows same-sex marriages, then the couple can take their govt. issued civil-union license to their clergy and ask for a church wedding instead of a civil ceremony.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Marraige is for a man and woman only. If we allow same-sex marraiges, then why can a marraige be between only two people? Who are you (the gov.) to tell me I am only allowed to love one person? Now see, the marraige issue then becomes a sole fixation on the number 2. Why can't I marry my 12 friends and all apply for marraige benefits? If you bring up love and committment, one can prove they "love" more than one person just as effectively as one can claim that they "love" someone of the same sex. At this point, any marriage law will become useless. ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
start -
Terry O`Nolley wrote: And even then, it is nobody's business if no harm is being done. If they choose to make a political issue out of it it certainly is. 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: If they choose to make a political issue out of it it certainly is. Yes. And that isn't a good thing. So no laws should ever be enacted concerning which gender marries what gender or whether or not this activity or that activity is permissible in the bedroom. We agree.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Because it is such a politcally sensitive issue, law enforcement has decided to allow the courts to resolve this. My 2 cents on the subject: Government should not make any distinction (when it comes to taxes, benefits, etc) between civil union and marriage. Government should only issue civil-union licenses - anything beyond that should be handled by the church. Government should not discriminate same-sex couples that want civil union licenses. If the church allows same-sex marriages, then the couple can take their govt. issued civil-union license to their clergy and ask for a church wedding instead of a civil ceremony.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!I wonder who the homophobic piece of shit was that voted this post down.........
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Stan Shannon wrote: If they choose to make a political issue out of it it certainly is. Yes. And that isn't a good thing. So no laws should ever be enacted concerning which gender marries what gender or whether or not this activity or that activity is permissible in the bedroom. We agree.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: So no laws should ever be enacted concerning which gender marries what gender or whether or not this activity or that activity is permissible in the bedroom. Well, that sounds good, but I also believe that it is perfectly appropriate for a society to establish a set of behaviors that are collective considered to be the 'norm' as long as it is defined locally and respected by the federal government. If that includes gay marriage than fine, if not, than thats fine also. There have to be defined standards which everyone respects, otherwise you get into a lowest common denominator spiral towards the cultural bottom. 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
-
What is doubly interesting is what occured when a judge in Alabama broke the law in defense of traditional values juxtaposed to what happens in California when an official breaks the law to subvert those values. In the former case, the feds wasted no time in ignoring states rights to intervene to stop the judge. In the latter case, even the state authorities are loath to take any legal action what so ever. Very interesting. Very revealing. 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
On the surface, you raise a good point, but there's a difference that is important. Placing the 10 commandments on public property is a public matter, while two people choosing to live together is a private matter. It would be comparable if the judge had decided to put the 10 commandments on his on private lawn at home.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Marraige is for a man and woman only. If we allow same-sex marraiges, then why can a marraige be between only two people? Who are you (the gov.) to tell me I am only allowed to love one person? Now see, the marraige issue then becomes a sole fixation on the number 2. Why can't I marry my 12 friends and all apply for marraige benefits? If you bring up love and committment, one can prove they "love" more than one person just as effectively as one can claim that they "love" someone of the same sex. At this point, any marriage law will become useless. ~Nitron.
ññòòïðïðB A
startYou really should visit Colorado City some day... It's the last stronghold of polygamy in the US, and currently under fire from the government.:-D Heard in Bullhead City - "You haven't lost your girl -
you've just lost your turn..." [sigh] So true...