[rocksy1826]

for Andy:

 

[SOT]

Duhhh. If asked the majority of gays that advocate marriage rights in MA do it for one of two reasons:

1. To secure the benefits associated with marriage (insurance, life, medical care of spouse, adoption)

So yes I do feel very sad for the majority of gays who have no concept of love but are looking for more access to health insurance and benefits afforded "married couples".

2. To assert an ab normal relationship style ont he rest of the world. If it's considered "marriage" it's more "normal".

Sorry to say no matter how you slice it, it ain't marriage. Not even close. It doesn't surprise me that one of the most F'd up states in the US would consider this a "right" or some sort of constitutional issue.
Billy having to daddies or two mommies, is sad enough, let alone trying to pretend it's marriage.

Lastly, creating a form of marriage, that will have no legal basis anywhere else in the US. asserts a states right over the fedeal gov't and the sovereign powers of others states. It's sad that MA can't get it's own shit together yet it feels it can now assert it's laws on other states.

 

[kwflatbed]

New Jersey is running right along the same lines.

 

[rocksy1826]

to make an argument for the states to really feel is important it is necessary to make your argument be more than "because we're in love and we want the title". People constantly make this about the benefits and finances instead of the basic concept of what marriage is supposed to be about.

My older sister is a lesbian. She is not married. Her ex girlfriend and she are both successful with good benefits on their own. They discussed marriage. Why? for the same reason straight people do. Wanting that whole aspect of a continuing step of the relationship. I know several married, gay couples. None went about it for the reason of benefits.

To make a legitimate case to the state, more has to be said than "but i wannnttt it!". Romance isn't factored into politics. they have to show legitimate harm being done in some way to put a fire under the asses of people so they feel that the discrimination is truly damaging to homosexual couples.

Maybe it's the whole male/female thing here but I seem to be the only one here that sees the possible loss of gay marriage as tragic for the romantic factors of it. While I am not gay? I know several that would be devastated by it. This is why I said to try to stop thinking of this as all about money and benefits and think about your feelings for your spouses and what you would feel if you weren't able to have married them because of something like this.

This whole controversy is more about emotion, love and affection than logic... but it is constantly trying to be battled out with logic and finances. I wish people would get their priorities together and stop making everything in life about money.

 

[Spart12]

To all of those saying that "Billy having two dads is bad enough" or are trying to say that two same sex individuals is not a healthy family environment....I want to know by what expeirance you say that? The parent who raised me is homosexual so I have a real perspective on this, and I can tell you that nothing about her being homosexual affected me in a bad way. The only negative I have felt is when OTHER PEOPLE say that they way I grew up wasnt healthy or that it was wrong, especially when they have no basis to make such a statement. I didnt turn out gay, nor am I some type of lowlife degenerate.

 

[justanotherparatrooper]

My argument is pretty simple, this is simply changing the "standards" of what society as a whole generally believes is right or wrong. I just wonder where the line gets drawn. Btw I do have friends who are gay and its a topic thats come up...I still argue the same position.

 

[rocksy1826]

My argument is pretty simple, this is simply changing the "standards" of what society as a whole generally believes is right or wrong. I just wonder where the line gets drawn. Btw I do have friends who are gay and its a topic thats come up...I still argue the same position.

your ******* is showing a little. rethink it. it's not that simple. it's totally different things. you can't lump everything together just because it's been frowned on in the past.

your logic says that we should still be opressive minorities as well because it's what we once did.

evolution. it happens

 

[justanotherparatrooper]

just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one hun.

 

[LandShark9C1]

I would vote for gay marriage; would also vote for gay "unions" in order to keep "marriage" between a man and a woman. In fact I don't see what the fuss is some gay people have about not calling it a marriage. It's like, what difference does it make what you call it, you are getting the same thing. right?

I don't see what the big deal is, I think people who are gay are born that way, I don t think its thier "fualt" they happen to be gay, so if they want to get married it's no skin off my back. Its not like marriage is so sacred these days. I know some people who are on marriage 3 or 4.
.02

 

[pahapoika]

100% against it

and if it passes then i want to marry a german shepard !

 

[SOT]

Yes gay can be a genetic defect, it can be a choice. Just ask any number of girls in college, Ms. America pageant winners, and movie and music stars.

QUOTE=LandShark9C1]I would vote for gay marriage; would also vote for gay "unions" in order to keep "marriage" between a man and a woman. In fact I don't see what the fuss is some gay people have about not calling it a marriage. It's like, what difference does it make what you call it, you are getting the same thing. right?

I don't see what the big deal is, I think people who are gay are born that way, I don t think its thier "fualt" they happen to be gay, so if they want to get married it's no skin off my back. Its not like marriage is so sacred these days. I know some people who are on marriage 3 or 4.
.02[/QUOTE]

 

[Guest]

This should be the definition of slippery slope.

First, gay marriage.

Then.....polygamy. What's next?

Why can't I marry my sister? My mother? My grandmother? My father?

Why can't I marry a sheep?

Doesn't anyone else see the explosively dangerous precedent this sets?

 

[209]

This should be the definition of slippery slope.

First, gay marriage.

Then.....polygamy. What's next?

Why can't I marry my sister? My mother? My grandmother? My father?

Why can't I marry a sheep?

Doesn't anyone else see the explosively dangerous precedent this sets?

I think you are making a big jump that is a bit ridiculous. As you know marrying imediate family carries genetic reprocussions on a fetus where as another living things wellbeing could be put at risk from this act. Secondly, animals cannot consent and that would carry genetic issues as well. Same sex partners obviously cannot reproduce and are consenting adults, no harm to anyone.

So with that said. Why do you care? A gay person isnt going to pop out of a corner and force you to marry them.

Yes you can argue the fact that marriage orginates from religion and religion does not condone same sex marriage. Is that just the catholic, protostant, religion's, what about hindu or native american, hell some people don't believe in religion at all. Isnt there freedom of religion in this country, so that really shouldnt' matter. Because what are you doing exactly?? You are pushing your own(popular) religious beliefs onto others and forcing them to follow them. For a country founded on freedom I find it very ridiculous that this is even an argument. Well I guess that the constitution just doesnt apply to gay and lesbian people. It didnt apply for black people for the longest time either so maybe we could get our asses in gear and fix this problem. We could start talking about gays in the military but thats a different thread all in itself.

Gay people oooooooo scary, keep away I dont want to catch their gayness. FEAR....That is why gays are outcasted. Just like the blacks, the jews, the so called witches, etc. etc.. With this thinking in mind we might as well re institute slavery and the jim crow laws.

 

[Guest]

I think you are making a big jump that is a bit ridiculous.

As recently as 20 years ago, the thought of gay marriage was equally as ridiculous.

As you know marrying imediate family carries genetic reprocussions on a fetus where as another living things wellbeing could be put at risk from this act.

Lots of people get married, but never reproduce. What if I get an irreversible vasectomy, or I'm permanently sterile? Who are you to impose your moral beliefs on me, that I can't marry my mother?

And what about marrying my brother or father? We couldn't possibly reproduce, so where's the possible harm? Do you believe that brothers should be able to get married?

Secondly, animals cannot consent and that would carry genetic issues as well.

Who are you to tell me what my animal is telling me? I know my animals better than anyone!!

Same sex partners obviously cannot reproduce and are consenting adults, no harm to anyone.

I know you're going to try to dodge the question, so I'll ask it a second time, just to make it all the more obvious;

Since they couldn't possibly reproduce, should brothers be able to get married? How about fathers & sons?

So with that said. Why do you care? A gay person isnt going to pop out of a corner and force you to marry them.

It's all about an overall breakdown of societal values. This country is circling the bowl, with the breakdown of traditional values being the #1 culprit. As I said, slippery slope.

Yes you can argue the fact that marriage orginates from religion and religion does not condone same sex marriage. Is that just the catholic, protostant, religion's, what about hindu or native american, hell some people don't believe in religion at all. Isnt there freedom of religion in this country, so that really shouldnt' matter. Because what are you doing exactly?? You are pushing your own(popular) religious beliefs onto others and forcing them to follow them. For a country founded on freedom I find it very ridiculous that this is even an argument.

Guess again, junior. I haven't been to church in so long, I'd probably be struck down by lightning if I did. I didn't mention religion, you did. It's about societal values, not religious. Granted, they are based on religious principles, but they served us pretty damn well over the last 200+ years, and now that they're being eroded, society is going to hell in a handbasket.

Coincidence? I think not.

Well I guess that the constitution just doesnt apply to gay and lesbian people. It didnt apply for black people for the longest time either so maybe we could get our asses in gear and fix this problem. We could start talking about gays in the military but thats a different thread all in itself.

That's an invalid comparison. Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual identity is among the most powerful of human characteristics.

As for the constitution, it says whatever the people want it to say. It's fascinating to me that the liberals are trying their damndest in this state to block a vote of the PEOPLE on banning gay marriage, because they know it would surely pass. They're subverting the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (state constitution) and the rights of the people in order to further their own polticial agenda. It's simply disgusting.

Gay people oooooooo scary, keep away I dont want to catch their gayness. FEAR....

You're afraid of gays? I'm sorry to hear that, because I'm certainly not.

That was a pretty sad, ham-handed attempt to take one out of the liberal playbook.....call your opponent a homophobe. Nice try.

That is why gays are outcasted. Just like the blacks, the jews, the so called witches, etc. etc.. With this thinking in mind we might as well re institute slavery and the jim crow laws.

As I mentioned, comparing gay marriage to slavery is like comparing apples to moonrocks. It just shows how intellectually bankrupt your argument is, because you just pulled out the last resort of liberals when they're losing a debate....the race card.

Simply pathetic.

 

[209]

Who are you to tell me what my animal is telling me? I know my animals better than anyone!!

Ill go with science onthis one, Beastmaster.

I know you're going to try to dodge the question, so I'll ask it a second time, just to make it all the more obvious;

Since they couldn't possibly reproduce, should brothers be able to get married? How about fathers & sons?

Point taken, question dodged.

It's all about an overall breakdown of societal values. This country is circling the bowl, with the breakdown of traditional values being the #1 culprit. As I said, slippery slope.

Sounds like your saying gay people are a contributing factor to the downfall of society.

Guess again, junior. I haven't been to church in so long, I'd probably be struck down by lightning if I did. I didn't mention religion, you did. It's about societal values, not religious. Granted, they are based on religious principles, but they served us pretty damn well over the last 200+ years, and now that they're being eroded, society is going to hell in a handbasket.

Coincidence? I think not.

Well, Old man, I realize you didnt bring up religion but it always gets brought up one way or another (God striking down gay people). What about the gay child molesting priests( i know another topic another time). I do agree that religion has done very well for society since its been around with some exceptions. And yeah society is going to hell in a handbasket thanks to drugs, lack of good mentors, and parents not doing their job, (among many other things, but I would say those are the big ones).

That's an invalid comparison. Skin color is a benign, non-behavioral characteristic. Sexual identity is among the most powerful of human characteristics.

As for the constitution, it says whatever the people want it to say.
It's fascinating to me that the liberals are trying their damndest in this state to block a vote of the PEOPLE on banning gay marriage, because they know it would surely pass. They're subverting the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights (state constitution) and the rights of the people in order to further their own polticial agenda. It's simply disgusting.
So can I vote to imprison all gay people because of their sexual preference. I mean your saying we should vote, should we be able to vote on everything. What if we vote to remove freedom of speech from the constitution. Is that okay.

You're afraid of gays? I'm sorry to hear that, because I'm certainly not.

Didnt say I was afraid of gays.

That was a pretty sad, ham-handed attempt to take one out of the liberal playbook.....call your opponent a homophobe. Nice try.

The point was that history shows people outcast those they are afraid of, the unknowns.

As I mentioned, comparing gay marriage to slavery is like comparing apples to moonrocks. It just shows how intellectually bankrupt your argument is, because you just pulled out the last resort of liberals when they're losing a debate....the race card.

First off, apples to moonrocks. Never heard that before but its funny.
Second, I'm far from a Sharpton fan, but the reason for the race argument was this. Generally speaking, we oust a group of people that are not like the majority of the population and impose laws, restriction on equal rights, and nearly spit on them because of it.
Lastly, I did not comment on the thought that I was going to win or loose, just that I wanted to voice my opinion on the matter. Nothing like a good debate.

Latest Reputation Received ThreadDateComment

Gay Marriage Poll01-04-2007 03:07No voting in the USA?
No I'm not saying that we shouldn't vote at all....But this topic is one of which should be recognized as a right under the constitution. Why isn't it your right to enter into a legal binding, loving, contract with a same sex partner, when both are consenting adults.

I dont feel as if it is my right to beable to step in and vote saying NO you have no right to enjoy the pursuit of happieness of marriage because you are not a man and woman you are a man and man or woman and woman.

 

[rocksy1826]

Delta, you missed my statement about how taking a parent/child relationship and turning it romantic/sexual is PROVEN to have negative mental effects on the child.

There is a huge difference. Stick to the topic at hand. Same-sex marriage. Not animals, not incest.

Going off topic like that is just grasping at straws to find reasons that it isn't ok. The topic is same-sex marriage.

As I mentioned, comparing gay marriage to slavery is like comparing apples to moonrocks. It just shows how intellectually bankrupt your argument is, because you just pulled out the last resort of liberals when they're losing a debate....the race card.

Simply pathetic.

no it isn't. it's another thing that people were afraid of. people discriminated against minorities and realized later it was wrong to.

and do you see that by arguing about beastiality and incest (totally off topic) that you are showing the same intellectual bankrupt argument that you are claiming 209 is? Pot calling kettle....

Pointing out Jim Crow and slavery is valid due to the fact that people were wrong to discriminate and abuse people for being different colors.... and we realized we were wrong.

There is no harm if same-sex couples marry. There IS harm in the things you are stating. Knock off straying topics due to being "intellectually bankrupt" and state what the percieved harm of same-sex couples marrying is.

Refusing to change and grow is what leaves society so miserable and hateful towards each other.

I'm disapointed in your argument, Delta. i thought you were more compassionate and open-minded than that.

 

[justanotherparatrooper]

Delta is trying to make the same point I am...at what point does society say something is unacceptable? the proponents of gay 'marriage' just refuse to answer it because to do so undercuts theyre argument.

 

[rocksy1826]

Delta is trying to make the same point I am...at what point does society say something is unacceptable? the proponents of gay 'marriage' just refuse to answer it because to do so undercuts theyre argument.

and your argument is still ridiculous because of the fact that you have to go totally off topic.

by your logic, we should never change anything because it opens up changing everything. By your argument, things in the past that were changed due to society realizing that discriminating against it was wrong, should be changed back to the prejuidice ways because realizing and overcoming our wrongs just leaves it open for people to molest children and rape dogs.

my point is that you're saying that nothing should ever change due to possibly leaving us open to changing other things.

Your argument says that society is unable to decide what is truly harmful and what isn't. You have not once stated how same-sex marriage itself will harm society. Saying it opens us up to allowing incest is off-topic completely.

i'm calling you out, insisting that you state why same-sex marriage itself is going to harm society. You continue to evade the question by going off-topic and bringing it things that are not the question right now.

if you can't argue on topic, stfu.

I'm truly sorry you are so terrified of change. That's what it boils down to. You are arguing that we shouldn't ever make changes because then ANYTHING can be changed.

 

[kwflatbed]

The missing link is all of this has contributated to the moral decay of this country.

The more liberal this country gets the further down the tube it goes.

All of our forefathers would be in disgust at the way this country has turned out.

From an old mans point of view it gets worse with every new generation and it
will destroy itself and the world.

 

[mikey742]

Good posts Rocksy i do agree with you.