PEARL!

PEARL![/b][/quote]
Hehe - 2nd that!

Hehe - 2nd that![/b][/quote]
Here here.

Yours is the typical rhetoric of reaction. Substitute the word "black" for "gay", replace the word "marriage" with "integration" or with "equal rights", and your post could have been a stereotypical letter to the editor in the 1950s through the 1970s. The blather about states rights and the braying regarding "liberalactivistjudges" is EXACTLY the same.

Over the past 30 years the laws against sodomy and the others used to restrict the actions of two consenting adults have been overturned. A panel of judges in Massachusetts has determined that there is no basis in law to deny same-sex couples the rights that so-called normal couples have. Nobody is "attacking" the rule of law - you're just whining because the rulings don't seem to be going your way.

These things happen - just like Brown vs Board of Education caused changes in other areas. This is not evil-doers and "liberalactivistjudges" imposing their will on the people - this is just part of the natural process of a society maturing changing.

Welcome to the 21st Century. Deal with it.

(Question for PD based on this statment but everyone else too)

Do you believe that society is "progressing"? If so, what is the final goal?

It could be that "our" current ideals of "equality" are nothing more than current cultural trends. On the other hand, maybe there is such a thing as Progress but if so what dictates that this is so.

Yes, I do.

In my lifetime (I'm breathing down on 51) I've seen major changes in the way society regards people.

I recall listening to the "grownups" on my Mom's side of the family fret about JFK "turning America over to the Pope", yet last election's inclusion of Lieberman as a candidate caused barely a ripple.

I'm old enough to recall the Mike AI/Carrie/et al of an earlier generation rant about the "liberalactivistjudges" who decided that seperate but equal was a crock of shit and that American citizenship wasn't a racial classification.

The academic distinction between "cultural norms" and "progress" seems to be an artificial (or academic, which is often the same thing :) one.

PD gay marriage is not about civil rights.... there is no lynching of gays going on in the streets of America.

This is simply social engineering coming from activist judges. This is the only way the liberal agenda can see the light of day. If liberals come straight out and put their agendas in the form of legislation it rarely ever passes.

PD you may be happy now, but those who love by judicial fiat, will also die by it. What happens when judges who don't share your views start creating and making their own laws? It goes both ways.

If we as a society, as a Nation want to change the laws to allow gay marriage, then it should be a legislative issue - there should be debates, and lets have a vote. Judges should not force it down the countries throat by "finding" rights in the Constitition.

It is just like Roe Vs Wade. I am for abortion, I think its none of the Gov'ts business, but the Roe vs Wade ruling is a legal joke.

PD if the US is ready for gay marriage - then get your local represenatives to push it.... We all know this would fail, because the majority of this Country is not ready for gay marriage.

Well according to statistics (those damnable statistics)

Half of the country isn't ready for marriage as they end up divorced


Including me

Well according to statistics (those damnable statistics)

Half of the country isn't ready for marriage as they end up divorced


Including me[/b][/quote]


Very true Vick. Maybe marriage is a little to easy to get into, and a little to easy to get out of.

For some reason much of mankind's circle of empathy seems to get larger and larger even to the point of extending it to animals. Maybe some day we won't kill insects either. Maybe one day we'll have "People for the Ethical Treatment of Viruses".

But why?

PD gay marriage is not about civil rights.... there is no lynching of gays going on in the streets of America.

This is simply social engineering coming from activist judges. This is the only way the liberal agenda can see the light of day. If liberals come straight out and put their agendas in the form of legislation it rarely ever passes.

PD you may be happy now, but those who love by judicial fiat, will also die by it. What happens when judges who don't share your views start creating and making their own laws? It goes both ways.

If we as a society, as a Nation want to change the laws to allow gay marriage, then it should be a legislative issue - there should be debates, and lets have a vote. Judges should not force it down the countries throat by "finding" rights in the Constitition.

It is just like Roe Vs Wade. I am for abortion, I think its none of the Gov'ts business, but the Roe vs Wade ruling is a legal joke.

PD if the US is ready for gay marriage - then get your local represenatives to push it.... We all know this would fail, because the majority of this Country is not ready for gay marriage.[/b][/quote]
I see ... since it's rare that someone is killed for being gay, there isn't a problem. Merely denying people the same rights as others have is, apparently, no bid deal.

Of course it's a civil rights issue, Mike - what else can you describe it as?

Whe Steve and Edie get married, there are certain rights and privledges that they obtain. What reason under the law can you offer (besides "most people don't do it that way") to deny Steve and Eddie, or Stevie and Edie, those same rights?

What you call "finding" rights in the constitution I consider stripping away the bigotry and ignorance of the past. I point again to Brown v Board of Education - the "country" was not "ready" for that.

I don't have a clue if there ever will be a "People for the Ethical Treatment of Viruses", or why people would go there - but nothing would suprise me.

I don't have a clue if there ever will be a "People for the Ethical Treatment of Viruses", or why people would go there - but nothing would suprise me.[/b][/quote]


PD they choose their civil rights by choosing to want to marry the same sex. If there is no societal norms, then there will be chaos. Where do we stop extending these "civil rights"? Should Mormons be able to have 10 wives? What about if someone wanted to marry a 12 year old? Farm animals?

And this is just dealing with marriage. What about everyone else's "rights".

It is funny how libs are. The 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms ( and there is tons of supporting material from our founders that explains this) yet they want to outlaw people possessing firearms. Yet liberal judges find all kinds of rights in the Constitution for abortion and now gay marriage.... Interesting how that works.

Well according to statistics (those damnable statistics)

Half of the country isn't ready for marriage as they end up divorced


Including me[/b][/quote]
this has to be the best statement i have read thusfar!

It's funny how reactionaries are. When in doubt, bring up guns.

Mikey, guns, farm animals and 12 year olds aren't a part of this discussion.

The question about Mormons is an interesting and relevant one - not sure how I feel about that. Gotta give credit where credit is due - you actually put a real point in there.

I'm still waiting for some fucking reason (beyond bigotry and superstition) that extending marital priveldges to same-sex couples will somehow lead to the chaos of "no societal norms."

The same arguement was applied to giving women the vote and own property. The same arguement was applied to extending full rights of citizenship to people of
color.

Whether you like it or not, societal norms change. I say again - deal with it.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 25 2004, 04:11 PM

You might learn what a history book is...the fucktards that today call themselves "wiccans" weren't around back then. "Wicca" is a 20th century creation...there's nothing ancient about it - cept the bastardization, borrowing and reinterpretation of theologies that existed long before it. Gerald Gardner was a total nutjob.

Very few people who even actually practiced anything remotely occultish were actually burned...burning wiccans is a beautiful idea tho.

I'm gonna go service mark "burning times charcoal" and just hope...

best of luck -
aeon

You might learn what a history book is...the fucktards that today call themselves "wiccans" weren't around back then. "Wicca" is a 20th century creation...there's nothing ancient about it - cept the bastardization, borrowing and reinterpretation of theologies that existed long before it. Gerald Gardner was a total nutjob.

Very few people who even actually practiced anything remotely occultish were actually burned...burning wiccans is a beautiful idea tho.

I'm gonna go service mark "burning times charcoal" and just hope...

best of luck -
aeon[/b][/quote]


:okthumb:

I have a friend who opened a Montessori school. When she went to train as a teacher, she swatted at a fly. Her instructors were none too pleased and explained that even insects were God's creatures. :rolleyes:

It's funny how reactionaries-to-reactionaries are. When you don't have an answer, say it's not part of the discussion.

Personally, I think that people who would limit the rights of gays to marry are as morally objectionable as those who think the "poor" are entitled to the wealth of other individuals simply because they squeezed their way out of the womb....

I have a friend who opened a Montessori school. When she went to train as a teacher, she swatted at a fly. Her instructors were none too pleased and explained that even insects were God's creatures. :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
I don't believe in God nor do I kill insects. I couldn't harm a fly.

Don't come to my house during mosquito season - the murdering that ensues will appall you. :D

It's funny how reactionaries-to-reactionaries are. When you don't have an answer, say it's not part of the discussion.

Personally, I think that people who would limit the rights of gays to marry are as morally objectionable as those who think the "poor" are entitled to the wealth of other individuals simply because they squeezed their way out of the womb....[/b][/quote]
As I think has been pretty well documented, I'm not afraid to discuss guns, or welfare - or, if you prefer the buzzword, "redistribution of wealth."

However, I'm hard pressed to understand how anyone can legitimately connect either of those issues to the issue of gay marriage.

I do believe in God (or sumthin), but I kill every fucking insect that, like, crowds my space, man.

The issue has the same root...some fucking asshole wants to tell someone else what to do with their life (substitute life for : money, body, or other personal property as needed) when it's none of their fucking business...

Consistency....learn it, love it, live it..

The issue has the same root...some fucking asshole wants to tell someone else what to do with their life (substitute life for : money, body, or other personal property as needed) when it's none of their fucking business...

Consistency....learn it, love it, live it..[/b][/quote]

DJ glad your house still has water.... because you are on fire!

Hmmm... seems that we need to have an amendment limiting the judiciary power.

But, at one point, I believe the Supreme Court ruled that they were the Supreme authority on all matters constitutional and they would probably tell everyone that it was unconstitutional to limit their power/authority... :blink:

But we neither need, or should desire a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage... It should be left where it is, at the state level. Who knows, at some point maybe there will be a "gay state" kind of like Utah is the mormon state.

:yowsa:

I have a friend who opened a Montessori school. When she went to train as a teacher, she swatted at a fly. Her instructors were none too pleased and explained that even insects were God's creatures. :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
HAHAHAHA Peaches, I have been there before...

I went to a Montessori school, and this kid in my class kept picking on me. One time he held my arms behind my back and I slammed him in the face with the back of my head. Hard... it was ugly... I was 9. :ph34r:

Anyway, the principal called my father and told him that his son "engaged in fisticuffs," to which my father replied: "My son told me all about it. Mrs. ****, this is Brooklyn, not Bombay. I tought my son to defend himself and that's what he did."

Great school, but a little on the passive side.

Okay, here's my (insert rude polical leaning term here) take on this issue:

The US government should pass a law that changes the word "Marriage" to the words "civil union between two persons" in every law on the books.

"Marriages" could then still be a religeous act, a sort of superset of a civil union (IE: you can be both married and civil unioned, or just civil unioned... marriage by itself would be an empty legal term). As a result and by default, all "spousal" policies would end up applying to anyone who is "civil unioned".

It seperates the issue of equal treatment of all people from the religeous issue of the preservation of the instituion of marriage.

just my humble opinion.

Alex

:o[/b][/quote]
Just to be clear: I don't support the idea of banning gay marriages at all. I just think that politically, what he's done (or what he's been advised to do, more likely) is brilliant.

Don't come to my house during mosquito season - the murdering that ensues will appall you. :D[/b][/quote]
That's self-defense. I do make exceptions.

February 26, 2004. Alex, I agree with you.

I agree with this suggestion.

Don't come to my house during mosquito season - the murdering that ensues will appall you. :D[/b][/quote]
lol- oh damn Peaches I'm half asleep, read that and almost choked on my coffee!

I don't eat animals, couldn't hurt one but I'm with you on that one. It's a southern thang.

September 10, 1996. The Senate passed the "Defense of Marriage Act" which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages. It passed 85-14 and was signed by President Clinton.

It's amazing how consistent administrations are. Again, it's my contention that the two primary parties in the US are more similar than dissimilar. It's no wonder I never end up voting.

Republicans and Democrats are no friends of libertarians. That's for sure.

Excellent!!! :)

Someone needs to bash Alex in this thread....He's Canadian for christ's sake.

Alex, you're ugly and have shitty taste in clothes. - there I feel better.

Abosultely perfect assesment of the issue however. :okthumb:



Last edited by OldJeff at Feb 26 2004, 09:29 AM

Exactly....there is NO difference...they are simply both sides of the same coin...

Exactly....there is NO difference...they are simply both sides of the same coin...[/b][/quote]
but .. but .. but .. they each say they are worlds apart, they are 100% right and that the other is trying to ruin the country.