 Zeegrr60
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 1528 Posts
|
Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:46:55 PM
It's always fun to look at the faces of the morons when they figure out what they did was illegal. Here's hoping we see those faces more and more...'cause they funny! |
|
 LordJim
Male, 50-59, Europe
2493 Posts
|
Wednesday, February 08, 2012 1:21:59 PM
Draculya
Very well put, sir. |
|
 Fatninja01
Male, 18-29, Australia
23998 Posts
|
Wednesday, February 08, 2012 12:38:28 PM
k then |
|
 5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
17474 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 9:25:26 PM
Hey! I don't comment on EVERY "homosexuality thread" on IAB! So there!
Oh wait... heck! |
|
 Viking864
Male, 40-49, Southern US
817 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:49:42 PM
This is ridiculous, it's not like the Greeks ever achieved anything throughout history [/sarcasm] |
|
 Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:45:47 PM
Why in the hell did the government have to stick their fingers into private matters like relationships in the first place?
There should be no benefits or negatives across the board concerning marriage. PERIOD.
Granting benefits for doing something, then telling certain people (who are capable of making their own decisions) that they can't choose to do it because they're different is discrimination, and the government is not allowed to discriminate between it's citizens.
Which means the government has two options:
Open the door for all forms of relationships (between consenting adults, mind you. The ones capable of making their own decisions),
OR
get out of marriage all-together. |
|
 Draculya
Male, 30-39, Asia
6686 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 7:06:09 PM
People who oppose same sex marriage today are so going to look like someone who'd kick a black woman off a bus with a couple of decades hindsight.
So even if you don't feel comfortable with it, it'd be best not to post evidence of your opposition on-line where your kids or grand kids will be able to retrieve and look it up later.
"Grandad, look what I found on i-am-bored. It makes you look like a hater. You suck". |
|
 LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
2696 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:26:39 PM
As for the issue of allowing marriages between more than 2 people. Well, it's partially solved by allowing homosexual marriage (as long as there's an even number of people in the multi relationship, they could technically have a ceremony with all members and all of them become legally bounded with 1 of the people in the relationship).
But as for allowing it in general, I support it as long as it doesn't give them /extra/ benefits over 2 people marriages. I've never been married so I'm having a hard time coming up with an example, so I'll use a really petty example so hopefully people will understand what I mean. Some membership cards will give a 2nd card free or reduced price to a spouse. If it's a multiple marriage, it should still only apply to 1 spouse and not to every spouse. That sort of thing. |
|
LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
2696 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 4:17:08 PM
"MY opinion is that something that has been passed by the vote of the people TWICE doesn't have any place in the court system at all. What good is our proposition process if everything gets overturned by somebody???????"
So majority rule 100% of the time? Say 51% of voters in a certain state decided black people cannot marry anyone who isn't black. They can marry other black people, but no caucasians, no asians, no hispanics, etc. You actually think, because 51% (or even 99.9%) of the people voted for it, it should become law and be unable to be challenged except by asking the same exact people to vote opposite of what they already voted? That's not how our country works, and that most definitely should not be how our country works. It allows the majority to easily stomp on the rights of the minority. |
|
 MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
2410 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:45:28 PM
QueenZira-"Conservative = opposition,"
Bad Logic. I know quite a few homosexual conservatives.
QueenZira-"and your posts say as much"
My post say what they say. What you 'devine' from them are your own biases.
If marriage gets redefined to include homosexual couples, it's not going to affect me or my wife in any way. It WILL affect a few friends, but only in the positive sense.
My posts SAY that Cajun's logic was flawed. Nothing more.
Cajun24-"Your point?"
An example of a law that only affects a few people. Most do.
jtrebowski-"As have same-sex marriages. Your point?"
I see you didn't care to post my part that said about gay marriage: "And here, and now, we don't (but soon may).".
Same sex marriages have not, as yet, become part of the culture. It may (probably will) become allowable by the culture, but will take longer to become inbeded into |
|
 jtrebowski
Male, 40-49, Southern US
3062 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:24:03 PM
"And now, they are. They have become part of our cutlure."
As have same-sex marriages. Your point? |
|
 SmagBoy1
Male, 40-49, Southern US
2809 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:21:44 PM
bompa1997, majority rule does not equal just or fair or free of discrimination. If it did, we'd likely still have slavery, or at least Jim Crow laws, in the South. Just because a majority believe something doesn't make it right. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9677 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:18:11 PM
And that's all I'm gonna say on that matter herein.
I doubt it.
You oppose a form of consensual marriage between adults because you don't like it.
Just like the people who oppose homosexual marriage.
You make a false appeal to authority to "support" your position.
Just like the people who oppose homosexual marriage.
Sure, you use "science" and they use their god, but that's just a matter of names because you're just using "science" as an authorative name to assign to your own opinions, i.e. just like they're using their god.
You say that your favoured group excludes the group of people you don't like.
Just like the people who oppose homosexual marriage.
You're just like them. |
|
 Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9512 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:13:08 PM
It just seems to me that the ruling has overturned Prop 8 for the wrong reasons. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9677 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:08:38 PM
And again Angilion, if you *refuse* to see female subordination quite plain throughout history...Well there are none more blind than those who refuse to see.
That applies extremely well to people who can see only their own prejudices. Like feminists.
The statement was not that women were subordinate to men in many times and places in history.
The statement was made without qualifiers (i.e. referring to ALL women and ALL men in ALL times and ALL places) that women were SLAVES of men.
You are making an utterly untrue statement in order to misrepresent reality and people who disagree with you. Which is par for the course for a feminist (or a follower of any other biopolitical ideology - they're all inherently nasty and prejudiced). |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9677 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:04:06 PM
MY opinion is that something that has been passed by the vote of the people TWICE doesn't have any place in the court system at all. What good is our proposition process if everything gets overturned by somebody???????
I think I will start a proposition which states that any proposition passed by the people goes into effect immediately and there is ABSOLUTELY NO way to overturn it in court.
Whoa! You'd utterly negate the entire constitution of the USA? That's rather radical. |
|
Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9512 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 3:00:52 PM
Would make DOMA and other Federal laws...what?
It would make them unconstitutional. |
|
 QueenZira
Female, 18-29, Midwest US
1799 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:58:48 PM
And again Angilion, if you *refuse* to see female subordination quite plain throughout history...Well there are none more blind than those who refuse to see. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9677 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:58:26 PM
You've convinced me, marriage in the US should just back to the way it was before marriage certificates were issued: a private contract. Fortunately that arrangement would make DOMA and other Federal Laws as they would go beyond regulating interstate commerce.
Satisfied?
Would make DOMA and other Federal laws...what?
Since I didn't say that marriage should be a private contract, you can't possibly have been convinced that it should be by my posts (which, to belabour the point) didn't say it should be.
Next time you argue with yourself for rhetorical reasons, please don't put my name in it. |
|
QueenZira
Female, 18-29, Midwest US
1799 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:57:00 PM
No I'm not angilion, I've merely offered a rebuttal to your predictable run on a tangential issue.
Which you would know, if you actually viewed it.
The acronym for sexual minorities stands as thus GLBT. G. L. B. T. Note the conspicuous lack of a P in that formulation. Until the day science affirms P to be in that same category of minority sexual orientations/ gender identities in need of protection, I will only back those designations.
And that's all I'm gonna say on that matter herein. |
|
Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9512 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:56:07 PM
I'm going to go think about my stance on the issue.
I think I will start a proposition which states that any proposition passed by the people goes into effect immediately and there is ABSOLUTELY NO way to overturn it in court.
So you propose to turn our REPUBLIC into a DEMOCRACY? Where by the way the constituency can voluntary shrink itself? Sorry bub, bad idea. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9677 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:55:22 PM
You don't think that the lack of any homosexual marriages was because that men actually OWNED women?
No, because that wasn't the case in ancient Rome (the culture used as an example). It wasn't the case in most times and places, except in cases of slavery (obviously) which was not sex-specific and had no relevance to marriage (only free people could marry, unsurprisingly).
Feminist hyperbole and propaganda is not reality and I'm not a follower of that collection of irrational prejudices, so of course I'm not going to use it in lieu of thinking. |
|
bompa1997
Male, 50-59, Western US
55 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:51:44 PM
MY opinion is that something that has been passed by the vote of the people TWICE doesn't have any place in the court system at all. What good is our proposition process if everything gets overturned by somebody???????
I think I will start a proposition which states that any proposition passed by the people goes into effect immediately and there is ABSOLUTELY NO way to overturn it in court. |
|
Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
9512 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:51:22 PM
@Angillion
You've convinced me, marriage in the US should just back to the way it was before marriage certificates were issued: a private contract. Fortunately that arrangement would make DOMA and other Federal Laws as they would go beyond regulating interstate commerce.
Satisfied? |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
9677 Posts
|
Tuesday, February 07, 2012 2:50:39 PM
QueenZira:
You appear to be trying to portray me as being opposed to homosexual marriage. Why else would you "answer" me by linking to a video in favour of it?
If you have no counter-argument for the things I've actually written, you could try digging deep into yourself and searching to try to find enough scraps of honesty and integrity to remain silent. Or you could make stuff up and pretend it's mine, to smear me. It all depends on what kind of person you are. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}