Marriage licenses illegal

[lost_sailor]

Discrimination rocks, dude!

[Cool Texan]

Gay marriages are illegal...banning them in unconstitutional. 2nd time this week I've said this....I love irony.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Finally, someone that can actually intrepret the law as it is written and in the spirit it was written. I actually expected the AG to rule the other way but I commend him for upholding the law on this very difficult case.

AS far as it being descrimination that's horse pucky. Change the laws the correct way by following due process so that discrimination is abolished. Who cares if they have equal rights? Just don't ask me to swallow the were a gay married couple. Not gonna happen.

Now will the criminal commissioners be charged with criminal mischief or will they just go on doing more stupid stuff like this and over step their bounds without actually considering the law, the people, the impact and who they are actually working for? Probably not.

[Cool Texan]

What the commissioners did might be technically "illegal"...but apparently, had they not done it, they would have been acting unconstitutionally. Darned if they did, darned if they didnt. State Supreme will decide it...so we'll see.

[img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

[El-Kabong]

Myers' nonbinding written opinion also said current state law forbids counties from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as Multnomah County has been doing for about a week.

vs.

"The Oregon Supreme Court likely would conclude that withholding from same-sex couples the legal rights, benefits and obligations that under current law are automatically granted to married couples of the opposite sex violates" the constitution, Myers said.

I don't think this resolves anything. If AG Meyers is correct that gay marriage is illegal and that denying the rights is unconstitutional
then the only resolution that I can see is that marriage (if sanctioned by the government) is unconstitutional.

so back to where this all began, government should stay out of religious matters.

[happybrew]

Absolutely, El-Kabong! So out go all the divorce laws too! Sounds good to me!

happybrew

[BrianMaguire]

Originally posted by Cool Texan:
What the commissioners did might be technically "illegal"...but apparently, had they not done it, they would have been acting unconstitutionally. Darned if they did, darned if they didnt. State Supreme will decide it...so we'll see.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No, it is not up to the Mult. county commissioners to determine if the current law was unconstitutional. It is up to the Oregon Supreme court, the proper way would be a suit brought to the supreme court. When the case is taken up with the high court and THEN it is determined if it is unconstitutional. What the Mult County Commissioners did was against the very essence of the constitutional republic we live in. There is a process and when various government bodies go against the process we risk destroying the foundation of the country. Dianne Linn should be removed from office and IMO go to jail. Suppose for instance that Dianne Linn suddenly has the opinion that the State WIldlife laws are unconstitutional and allows within portland gill netting. She can't determine a laws validity, its just not right, its not the way the system works.

[ 03-12-2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: BrianMaguire ]

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Oregon Attorney General rules that Oregon Law prohipits same sex marriage. Multnomah county has been violating state law by issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.

[Pop'n Fish]

Great news! Let's hope that the Oregon courts uphold the AG's ruling!

[Radke]

That is great news!

While it doesn't harm me, or society, we need to keep those people in their place, and Oregon in the dark ages.

[ 03-12-2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Radke ]

[SalmonSeason]

She could go to jail...It's an Unclassified Misdemeanor

But they won't do that...oops! Sorry bout that Martha

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by CATCH AND EAT:
AS far as it being descrimination that's horse pucky. Change the laws the correct way by following due process so that discrimination is abolished. Who cares if they have equal rights?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It's discrimination based on gender, and/or based on sexual orientation.

Do you mean change the law so that discrimination is legal? That's a big step backwards, very ultra-conservative.

As for who cares ... that would be me.

[Reelentless]

A scene at San Francisco's City Hall


"Next."

Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

[Straydog]

The Attorney General "ruled" nothing. The AG gave his opinion of the law. The courts will make the ruling at some point in time.

I vote for Lost Sailor for the most humorous sarcasm and Cool Texan for the best eye for Irony. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]


[img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]

[ 03-13-2004, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Water Ready]

You can't vote! The County Commissioners didn't say so! :depressed:

[2LEYS]

Well said seasport. When do you draw the line. Wait, you can't draw a line because it would be discrimination to draw a line.

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Discrimination between right and wrong.. Hmmm I like it. The multonomah county commissioner discriminated againts the public and their right for input, most likely with help from the lovely mayor Vera Katz (who I would bet dollars for donuts in a lesbian looking to validate her own lifestyle). I am glad this was found to be illegal and I hope that the people of portland can recall the county commissioners. Why should people practicing socially deviant behavior be granted special privildges?

[happybrew]

Following Sea Sport,

"Hey, I'm a kid who wants to pray in school."

"You can't"

"Why not?"

"Because of the separation of church and state"

"So I can't pray?"

"NO! But you can attend this sex education class that will tell you all about birth control."

"But my church says birth control is wrong"

"So?"

"Well, you said there was a separation of church and state, so I couldn't pray. If there's a separation of church and state, and that means I can't pray in school, then it should also mean you can't tell me all about birth control, and how great it is. If praying would violate someone else's rights, even though they're not doing it, telling me about birth control would violate my rights."

"Nope, it doesn't, so just shut up. Besides, it makes sex sterile. When sex is sterile, then you hetero's have no argument against gay sex, which is also sterile."

"But my church says both birth control and gay sex are wrong."

"Shut up, don't pray, and remember, we put those guys in your church and in your seminaries so that you all would quit your whining and do the sterile thing, not reproduce, and go along with what the rest of us think you should do."

"But what about my rights?"

"Shut up. You only have the right to hear what we have to say. If you disagree, it's discrimination against us."

happybrew

[ 03-14-2004, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: happybrew ]

[lost_sailor]

Sorry, but an AG opinion is not the end of the line by any means. That would be Supreme Court of the United States.

You guys ... sheeez ... I'm right, you're wrong, shut up.

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
-Jesus of Nazareth-

[Straydog]

Some very creative fiction being produced here.

Glad our world dosen't operate in such a ficticious manner.

[drhall99]

I can only say that issues like these are simple distractions from the real problems in this world. There are people developing new strains of diseases to use against us. Globally, we are polluting our environment and destroting the very ecosystem that supports us. Most importantly, right NOW, there are children all over the world with no families and no one to love them.
If the gay marriage issue is your priority(either side), then you live a very sheltered life.

Doug

[ 03-14-2004, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: drhall99 ]

[Snapset]

Dr. Hall, homeless children are only symptoms of the problem. The root cause of the symptoms you describe is the decay of the family. By calling a Homosexual union a marriage, the family and its meaning is being eroded once again. In order to save the children, you must first preserve the families.

[fishingchef]

This is a discrimination issue. If it offends your beliefs oh well. At one time people of color couldn’t live in this state. Less then 40 years ago it was illegal to be in an interracial marriage. It’s still a somewhat free country. The constitution should not have any discrimination in it. We need to ditch these out dated puritan beliefs in our laws.

If you don't see or hear things that offend you, then you are not living in a free country.

Are we becoming a Christian Theocracy or are we a democracy? If we follow some of the current trends we will be no better then Iran.

The Supreme Court will end up deciding this issue, as it should.

Religion is one of the greatest evils. More people have been killed in the name of some religion then anything else.

We have much bigger issues in this state and country. Like a lack of jobs and food for our citizens

[happybrew]

Fishing chef, where did you get the idea that more people have died because of religion than anything else? You've been reading fiction. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Tutsi's and Hutu's, Pol Pot, the French Revolution, etc. had nothing to do with religion. As far as it being a great evil, tell that to the Salvation Army, Catholic Community Services, ADRA, and the other religious based groups alleviating poverty and misery around the world. Evil? Get a grip.

happybrew

[fishingchef]

On topic
The libertarians are correct on this issue. All marriages should just be considered a civil contract.
All marriages are considered a civil contract in Oregon according to our constitution. Although at this time it does state between a man and woman. We should change that. If you want it to have a religious ceremony go for it. That’s your right. But don’t press your beliefs into our constitution and laws of the land based on your religion and that’s what allot of this is about. This is a civil issue not religion issue.
The courts need to decide like they did in black civil rights.


This is way off topic now but oh well. I started it.
Lets look at the crusades, inquisition, Bosnia, witch trials, abortion clinic bombings and many other wars have been fought in the name of religion. Jews against the Islamic, Christian against Islamic, Hindus against seeks (bad spelling), Christians against native peoples in the white conquest of the globe. Aryian religions against all people of color.

As far as well meaning missionaries go. Before missionaries showed up in Hawaii there were over a million natives. 10 years later less then 100,000 natives. Mostly do to the spread of disease. That same story is true to this day all over the world. Millions of native peoples have been killed by disease spread by missionaries. This has been going for hundreds of years. Entire cultures have been destroyed because Christians thought they were pagans. They needed Christ you know.

[Snapset]

Fishing chef, I got no problem with your separation of church and state position. I think you are being slectively condemning with regards to Christians and Jews and you are ignoring the epic slaughters perpetrated by non Judeo/Christian societies, but that is neither here nor there. None of your argument has anything to do with marriage. If it did, I am sure that the devout atheists I know would want nothing to do with marriage.

[lost_sailor]

Originally posted by Snapset:
... The root cause of the symptoms you describe is the decay of the family. By calling a Homosexual union a marriage, the family and its meaning is being eroded once again. ...

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">One of the healthiest families I know has "two mommies." How do I reconcile your viewpoint with my reality?

[dlgobeavs]

Originally posted by fishingchef:
This is a discrimination issue. If it offends your beliefs oh well. At one time people of color couldn’t live in this state. Less then 40 years ago it was illegal to be in an interracial marriage. It’s still a somewhat free country. The constitution should not have any discrimination in it. We need to ditch these out dated puritan beliefs in our laws.

If you don't see or hear things that offend you, then you are not living in a free country.

Are we becoming a Christian Theocracy or are we a democracy? If we follow some of the current trends we will be no better then Iran.

The Supreme Court will end up deciding this issue, as it should.

Religion is one of the greatest evils. More people have been killed in the name of some religion then anything else.

We have much bigger issues in this state and country. Like a lack of jobs and food for our citizens

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Well said!!

I have a question for the group. It seems to me that the tone of this thread borders on violating the most basic rules of the iFish AUP. The AUP specifically prohibits "hateful" posts. Is it me, or does there seem to be a lot of unneeded hateful remarks?

If you are worried about whether or not someone has a piece of paper on their wall that states they are "married"... you need to get in your boat and go fishing for the day and relax.

[crabbait]

Happybrew - The reality is more like this:

"Hey, I'm a kid who wants to pray in school."

"Go right ahead."

"I can pray?"

"Pray all you want. Pray constantly. Pray publicly or privately. Just don't force others to pray or disrupt people who are not praying."

"Why not?"

"Because of the separation of church and state"

"So I can pray?"

"Yes! And you can attend this sex education class that will tell you all about birth control."

"But my church says birth control is wrong"

"So?"

"Well, you said there was a separation of church and state so wouldn't teaching me about birth control violate the separation of church and state?"

"Nope, it doesn't because no one is forcing you to use birth control or to have sex at all. Feel perfectly free to abstain from any sexual contact for the rest of your life if you wish. Knowing about birth control may help you to make informed decisions if you ever decide to be sexually active. Information does not make you immoral, just less ignorant."

"But my church says both birth control and gay sex are wrong."

"That is fine. You are free to believe whatever you wish. You are not free to discriminate or persecute people who do not believe the same way you do."

"But what about my rights?"

"Your rights end when you start to force your beliefs on others or judge others based on your beliefs or try to limit the freedoms of others."

"But what about gays and all the other people who do not believe the way my family does?"

"Love each other. Its in your bible, in fact it was Jesus' biggest thing. Look it up."

[ 03-14-2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: crabbait ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

Digobeavs the hate you are talking about is coming from your own back porch. Here was a perfectly legit topic about the "opinion" and then a poster made comments about "Christians being the big evil". Why not take this kind of hate to task? The posters statements were uncalled for and ill concieved. Just your typical hate the truth post because someone did not agree with you.

Truth be known, there are many out there of non religious background that detest the idea of gay marriage just as many of us here do. I for one do not hate gays one bit and do in fact care for them a great deal just as I would care for the Christian or non-Christian. Makes no difference. I do draw the line at the issue of marriage and will continue to disagree with all that it is "okay". Sorry, it's not and never will be. To compare this to interracial marriages is a joke. Has nothing to do with it at all.

[Arc burn]

So, Can I marry my bird dog now or not?? He could sure use the medical insurance.

[Cool Texan]

This thread is still being argued?

Time to move on folks...this will all sort itself out in the courts.

[2LEYS]

Sure. It is all OK now. Because christians think beastiality is wrong. To ban it is descrimination. We can't have any of that. If you want it then it shall be yours. Welcome to the 21st century.

Kissing cousins? Why not? We have stated down a scary road and there is no looking back. Polygamy? Sure bring them on....

[Snapset]

Lost Sailor: You could ask them to adopt you. :smile:
Honestly I don't know that any reconciliation is necessary. If you say 2 lesbians lead a healthy family, I believe you. I am not here to judge anybodys family. However, I do have an opinion on what marriage is, and this forum is an opportunity to express my opinion. Thanks for the polite response. Please don't take my humor the wrong way. Cool Texan, it is not only still being debated, it is still being read, apparently.

[happybrew]

Fair enough, crabbait, but depending upon the school district, I don't think it's normally as dire as I painted it or as rosy as you did. I was trying to make a point, and I didn't do it very well, of how we got to where we are now. If you look at it historically, virtually all churches banned birth control until the 1920's, when the Anglican church lifted its ban, and others followed suit. The rise of secularism and a pleasure based utilitarian ethic, and decline of a duty/virtue based teleological ethic, contributed to the view that marriage was not something done out of duty or virtue, but for the personal pleasure of the participants. When marriage is viewed as being done primarily for pleasure, and the marriage act is rendered sterile for this purpose, then any possible argument against homosexual marriage is obliterated, even the argument that it's between a man and a woman.


I think that anyone who wants to criticize gay marriage needs to examine their own attitude toward marriage as well, to take the plank out of their own eye before they point out the speck in someone elses. And yes, I've taken a whole lumberyard out of my eye, still finding splinters.

happybrew

[flop eared mule]

Its discrimination plain and simple. The rest of us need to get a life and quit whining over it.

[roadsend]

I think 2-leys hit it right on the head. If our society is going to redefine the multi-thousand year old definition of marriage then it is only a matter of time before we have cousins, siblings, polygamy and beastiality.
I wonder if a married dog will still need to wear a collar with tags or if the wedding ring will suffice.

[Straydog]

For all of you pushing for marriage as you say it has been defined for thousands of years per the Bible, here are the facts in this regard.

Are you sure this is how we want to reflect marriage in an ammendment to the Constitution?

Careful what you pray for....... :whazzup:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Genesis 29:17-28; II Samuel 3:2-5)


B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Samuel 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chronicles 11:21)


C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)


D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Genesis 24:3; Numbers 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Nehemiah 10:30)


E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deuteronomy 22:19; Mark 10:9)


F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine
of one shoe. (Genesis 38:6-10; Deuteronomy 25:5-10)

[happybrew]

Heck, I'd be willing to throw in the other shoe too!

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally posted by flop eared mule:
Its discrimination plain and simple. The rest of us need to get a life and quit whining over it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I actually think it is knowing the difference between right and wrong as defined by the majority of society. (excluding the people republic of euegene, california, the people republic of multnonmah county) In most peoples minds discrimination involves unchangeable things like disability, race, or ethnicity, not sexual deviancy. Along your lines of thinking NAMBLA can't be too far off track. Yes it is a real group, and yes they also too feel discriminated against.

[lost_sailor]

Here's to "most people" and the "majority" having some compassion and common sense.

FYI, children and dogs are not "consenting adults."

[Cool Texan]

Originally posted by lost_sailor:
Here's to "most people" and the "majority" having some compassion and common sense.

FYI, children and dogs are not "consenting adults."

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[CATCH AND EAT]

Good gravey Straydog. Nice twists to scripture.

Lost Sailor [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

BTW the natorius Dianne Linn has decided to continue to issue Marriage Licenses to gay couples. This lady just does'nt learn very fast does she. Where can I sign that recall petition at????/

[ 03-15-2004, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[WaterDog]

I really have a hard time understanding how a gay marriage is going to lead folks to marrying a dog or the molestation of children for that matter. Give me a break.
It’s great to see bigotry and discrimination alive and well. Something to be proud of for sure. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] &lt;sigh&gt;

[CATCH AND EAT]

Nice.

[roadsend]

Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as a relationship between man and woman. If you want to redefine it, be ready for dogs etc. Not to include them is downright speciesism.
We have only recently overcame sexism in our culture. Speciesism is the next frontier of discrimination to be addressed. Who says that a dog cannot indicate consent?
By the way, how about adult cousins, uncles, parents and siblings? Why not polygamy?
If you are going to redefine, without any historical precedent, a major institution of our culture; why not pull out all the stops and let EVERYONE do whatever they want and call it marriage.

[Snapset]

Waterdog, who is the bigot here? Is it any one person in particular, or is it all of us who don't see things exactly as you do? If you are calling me a bigot, I would really like to know that. I am sure whoever the bigot is here, they would be grateful to know that you have applied that label to them, so they can change their way of thinking so it fits yours.

[2LEYS]

FYI, children and dogs are not "consenting adults."

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What if the dog likes it?

It is all just stepping stones to the total destruction of societies morals.

[dlgobeavs]

Originally posted by Snapset:
Waterdog, who is the bigot here? Is it any one person in particular, or is it all of us who don't see things exactly as you do? If you are calling me a bigot, I would really like to know that. I am sure whoever the bigot is here, they would be grateful to know that you have applied that label to them, so they can change their way of thinking so it fits yours.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I thought a quick definition might help you decide who fits the bigot label.

From a few different sources:

1. "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."

2. "A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked."

3. "In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion."

I would like to higlight a key theme TOLERANCE. If you have it... you aren't a bigot. If you wear intolerance proudly in the name of your church, party, belief, or opinion...well the shoe fits.

[Snapset]

Show me the intolerance. I haven't seen a bit of it on this thread, until the name calling started.

[dlgobeavs]

Originally posted by Snapset:
Show me the intolerance. I haven't seen a bit of it on this thread, until the name calling started.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This whole thread is themed around intolerance.

I strongly believe that every person has a right to their own views. But, "you" (and I use the term "you" to represent everyone not single you out personally) have to take ownership of how those views label you. For instance, I believe that everyone in this country has the right to live their lives as they choose, as long as it doesn't hinder anyone else from living the life that they choose. If including gays in having that same right labels me as supporting "sinners", I'll be happy to wear that label.

But, if "you" (once again not singling you out) believe that based on your religeon you get to decide how others live THEIR lives, that makes you intolerant AND a bigot.

I think one of the most interesting aspects to this discussion (and the other two threads that have come before on this topic in the last week), is the amount of people who start off by stating that they know many friends who are gay... then proceed to spout forth a tirade of intolerance.

I would like to suggest a litmus test for tolerance and bigotry. Look someone in the eye and tell them why YOUR view on a particular topic should influence how THEY live THEIR lives (any topic where you want to influence the way someone else lives their private lives that do not affect anyone else). If you believe that they are offended, you are intolerant. If your opinion on that topic is a product of believing that your religeon makes you right... you are a bigot.

[ 03-16-2004, 08:24 AM: Message edited by: dlgobeavs ]

[Straydog]

There are posts that put forth as fact that gay people are such by choice. This is intolerance of lots of science to the contrary.

There are posts that say gay people will be condemned to punishment in their after life. This is intolerance of many people's interpretation of the Bible.

There are posts that dispute how marriage has been chracterized through history. This is intolerance to other's interpretation of the Bible and of history.

People tend to sugar coat thier bigotry with statements that they have lots of gay friends or family members then show their true bigotry with follow up regarding how wrong these people are in their sexual orientation.

Intolerance and bigotry is indeed alive and well in this thread.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Seems the liberal side to be more intollerant than the conservative side. Seems when conservatives disagree with someone on an issue like this the "biggot" label is swiftly applied. So I guess it would be fair to say that those intollerant of religion are also classified as biggots? Therefore we are all biggots because we have our own standards and beliefs right or wrong.

Real deductive and perceptive reasoning to throw out the biggot label so "liberally"

[ 03-16-2004, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[Straydog]

Interesting perspective C and E.

I haven't seen any posts proclaiming that Christians will suffer in their afterlife due to their CHOSEN religious beliefs.

I haven't seen any posts that say if you CHOOSE to be a believer your next step will be to have sex with animals or your sister.

Further, in comparing a trait (accepting Christianity) which is totally by choice with one (Homosexuality) that has been scientificaly shown not to be by choice in many instances, is in of itself, a little biggoted in my opinion.

[ 03-16-2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[dlgobeavs]

Originally posted by CATCH AND EAT:
Seems the liberal side to be more intollerant than the conservative side. Seems when conservatives disagree with someone on an issue like this the "biggot" label is swiftly applied. So I guess it would be fair to say that those intollerant of religion are also classified as biggots? Therefore we are all biggots because we have our own standards and beliefs right or wrong.

Real deductive and perceptive reasoning to throw out the biggot label so "liberally"

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Just curious, but are K K K members bigots, or are we intolerant of their views?

[ 03-16-2004, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: dlgobeavs ]

[dlgobeavs]

[ 03-16-2004, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: dlgobeavs ]

[DJFISHS2XS]

Heres the tricky part, weather you agree or disagree with the marriage system. where do the benifits come from. I say the majority of the people who well pay for the benifits (higher taxes, medical insurance,etc)(at least I think these are the benifits that the gay couples are after) should have the most weight on the matter.
now I have read horror storys on people not being able to see sick/hurt people in the hospital, or not being able to get death discounts on airlines or any of the minor things that are given to imidiate family members that should be extended to gay familys because our simpthy should not be based on leaving a careing loving partner out.
but benifits cost someone money If I knew the bottom line on whay gays are after I would know which direction to go. I also once read that particuly male homosexuals are more often prone to medical problems. Im not sure if its true but I do have a funny story on that. I once was at a house warming party/cookout for a friend, and a gay couple next door was there, A Vollyball game
was started and I was very pleased to report that the male in the gay releationship was much like one of the guys, very athletic and easy to be around, but the (loss of words)(girl I guess fits but not a great description)was getting hurt very easy and was borderline hypercondreact (spelled wrong) so I think the stats on how often they might be sick is off a bit flamboyant yes sick not.. Now Im trying to keep an open mind but cant find the agenda is what this long post is about....anyone got any clues....DJ

[Straydog]

I'm sorry, but as a heterosexual with no homophobia hang ups, I am having a problem agreeing that being able to make life or death medical decisions about one's partner is a "minor thing" that gays are pursuing.

It does add another element when, in some people's mind, it just all boils down to "what will this cost and who will pay for it?"............. :depressed:

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Hey digilo, are members of ALF and ELF biggots. Their liberals.
Your point is pointless, grouping the masses in with extremeists.

[Snapset]

Here is the rub. This thread is about redefining the word "marriage" to include a contract between 2 homosexual people. It is not about allowing people to live their lives as they see fit, within the framework of the law, or the idea that someone should judge people who do not behave the same way as they do. It is about changing the meaning of a word, "Marriage" which means something very important and specific, to the majority of Americans. My opinion is that the word means what it means, don't change it. I can see the direction we are headed in society, and I fully expect to be on the losing side of the argument. That doesn't mean I should keep my mouth shut, because my opinion might be criticized or because someone might take it upon themselves to label the people who disagree as bigots. Honestly people, that is not the purpose of this forum. We should be able to have a mature discussion without the name calling we see on the flame sites. We may end up fishing in the same boat someday.