San Fransisco Gay Marriages
-
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... -
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.
This is what's called a "test case". Some new law is put in place (or an existing law is thought out-of-date), but the legislature shows no sign of repealing it. So, to get a law challenged in court, some party (individual, group, company, etc.) has to claim that they are being harmed unjustly by the law. Then they sue the state to test the validity of the law. All the staged gay marriages are, I reckon, a setup for just such a test case. Eventually the marriages will be ruled invalid and the various couples will sue, claiming that they are being unjustly denied benefits that are viewed as a right for straight people. The case will make its way through the court system, and after 5 years or so we'll finally have a definitive ruling on whether the laws in question are just. This is necessary because the courts (and especially the Supreme Court, where this may end up) don't rule on hypothetical situations. You can't sue saying "Such-and-such law is unjust because it might..."; you have to sue saying "Such-and-such law is unjust because John Q. Smith is being hurt by it, and here's why he is being hurt unjustly...". --Mike-- Personal stuff:: Ericahist | Homepage Shareware stuff:: 1ClickPicGrabber | RightClick-Encrypt CP stuff:: CP SearchBar v2.0.2 | C++ Forum FAQ Actual sign at the laundromat I go to: "No tinting or dying."
-
AdventureBoy wrote: 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! I never said that. But that doesn't mean I would be marching up and down in the street with a big sign saying how proud I was of it, or expecting the government to overturn the legal system for my "right" to do it. AdventureBoy wrote: 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) I think it is virtually impossible to be a human being and not be a sexual pervert. Mix the human imagination with the instinct for sex and you will get all kinds of bizarre activity. But that is not the point. The point is that a) As a society we have the right to define what constitutes "normal", and b) We should not be forced by the state to accept someone elses behavior, sexual or otherwise. If someone finds homosexuality to be morally offensive, they should be free to discriminate against them. AdventureBoy wrote: yeah, yeah, keep you're political opinion, but as long as you excersize your freedom of speech, the rest of us will excercise ours. I would expect nothing less. :rose: 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 someone finds homosexuality to be morally offensive, they should be free to discriminate against them. Ok, I find YOU morally offensive so here it comes..... Anyone want to join me and make it a crusade? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
AdventureBoy wrote: 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. I'm very familiar with that rediculous argument. Recessive or otherwise, any gene that caused someone to actually want to have sex in a way that assured the impossibility of a genetic offspring would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool. You might as well teach creationism as to teach such nonsense. Take a course in genetics sometime. I accept that some men are genetically predisposed to be more effiminate than others, and some women are more masculine than others, but that doesn't equate to homosexuality. I've known men who were extremely effiminant who were happily married and had large families. I absolutely believe that it has far more to do with nurture than with nature. AdventureBoy wrote: 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. No, I'm saying any society has the right to define what is "normal" and that the government should respect that decision, but beyond that, I should be free to follow the dictates of my own conscious and discriminate freely against anyone's behaivor. AdventureBoy wrote: look up the definition of tyranny. hmmm, my dictionary shows a Canadian flag. 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'm very familiar with that rediculous argument. Recessive or otherwise, any gene that caused someone to actually want to have sex in a way that assured the impossibility of a genetic offspring would quickly be eliminated from the gene pool. You might as well teach creationism as to teach such nonsense. Take a course in genetics sometime. Well, there are genetic disorders that are carried by the female line that kill off male offspring. At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
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
startWorks for me. "Marriage" is a religious institution and has been given the wink and nod by governments. Secular governments should get out of the marriage business and have only secular unions if they want to regularize property rights, etc, for couples or even group unions. If you want your religion to "sanctify" your union, that's up to you. If you get "married" in the church and DON'T register a civil union and your partner takes a powder with the "joint" bank account, don't run to the government to get it back... At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: If someone finds homosexuality to be morally offensive, they should be free to discriminate against them. Ok, I find YOU morally offensive so here it comes..... Anyone want to join me and make it a crusade? At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
Tim Craig wrote: Ok, I find YOU morally offensive so here it comes..... Anyone want to join me and make it a crusade? And you should be free to do that. How would you like having the government step in and force you to accept my behavior. Discriminate away... 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 »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: 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 agree that they are only comparable to the extent that you have two public officials who broke the law in order to achieve their own personal political views. 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
-
Works for me. "Marriage" is a religious institution and has been given the wink and nod by governments. Secular governments should get out of the marriage business and have only secular unions if they want to regularize property rights, etc, for couples or even group unions. If you want your religion to "sanctify" your union, that's up to you. If you get "married" in the church and DON'T register a civil union and your partner takes a powder with the "joint" bank account, don't run to the government to get it back... At any given instant there are considerably more assholes than mouths in the universe.
-
Daniel Ferguson wrote: 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 agree that they are only comparable to the extent that you have two public officials who broke the law in order to achieve their own personal political views. 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 agree that they are only comparable to the extent that you have two public officials who broke the law in order to achieve their own personal political views. Yes, the law was broken in the gay marriages case, but should that law exist? To the state, marriage should be like dog licences: they take the money give out a certificate. The government shouldn't be in the business of making rules to govern behaviour that only effect an individual's private life.
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 »
-
Brian Gideon wrote: So why isn't anyone getting arrested? the mayor apparently claims it's not illegal, or that the law forbidding it is unconstitutional (CA state constitution). so it's not really clear if he's breaking a law or not. there are lawsuits pending on both sides of the issue. at least that's what the news networks tell me. if Schwollenpecker wanted to send in the CA state troopers to arrest the mayor, he probably could - after all, he did say they represent "an imminent risk to civil order". Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer
He is breaking the law until a court says that the law (passed by public referendum with 66% majority BTW) is unconstitutional. however, Liberals who break the law are just excercising their right to protest, Conservatives (like the appeals court judge in Alabama) who do the same are fired or worse... IMO, the mayor should lose his job. if he wanted to overturn the law, he should go to court and contest the constitutionallity of the law there. He has no more right to simply ignore the law than I do to speed when I think the law is wrong. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
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
Stan Shannon wrote: In the former case, the feds wasted no time in ignoring states rights to intervene to stop the judge. In Actually, it was the Alabama Supreme Court that interceded, and dismissed the Judge. Never made it to US Supreme court, and Feds had no grounds to interfere. Now the Media, that's another story. Your observation is a good one though: If a Liberal flaunts a law, he's just protesting, if a conservative does the same, he gets fired. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
-
He is breaking the law until a court says that the law (passed by public referendum with 66% majority BTW) is unconstitutional. however, Liberals who break the law are just excercising their right to protest, Conservatives (like the appeals court judge in Alabama) who do the same are fired or worse... IMO, the mayor should lose his job. if he wanted to overturn the law, he should go to court and contest the constitutionallity of the law there. He has no more right to simply ignore the law than I do to speed when I think the law is wrong. Power corrupts and PowerPoint corrupts absolutely. - Vint Cerf
Rob Graham wrote: Liberals who break the law are just excercising their right to protest, Conservatives (like the appeals court judge in Alabama) who do the same are fired or worse... zzzz someone wake me when conservatives grow a pair and stop relying on the "poor persecuted me" defense. Cleek | Losinger Designs | ClickPic | ThumbNailer