macattak1 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I guess my issue ( and its NOT just this issue ) is how tiresome it is becoming having personal "agendas" rammed downs one throats...I mean isn't that why issues are actually put to the vote in the first place? And reason this is such an issue is it ( gay marriage ) is, and always will be a hot topic...very few I have found are middle ground.....I'm personally up in the air, but fact is it was voted on, game over till next time...will they leave it alone...absolutely NOT...because it conflicts with THEIR PERSONAL desires and beleifs....this will eventually be another win for self centerd-ness...he who screams the loudest basically gets their own way eventually.... Well. They are fighting for their personal rights. For that I applaud them. Besides my personal view, it is the Anger and Tactics that they use. And again, for me, it always comes back to 'and what about those that have no voice?' Its a hot topic because it is either absolutely wrong or absolutely right. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 (edited) Well. They are fighting for their personal rights. For that I applaud them. Besides my personal view, it is the Anger and Tactics that they use. And again, for me, it always comes back to 'and what about those that have no voice?' Its a hot topic because it is either absolutely wrong or absolutely right. Peace and Blessings I'm not quite sure there is such a thing as having 100% personal rights...some may think so, but that would mean there would be NO rules...and we all know THAT is NOT the case.....and everyone DOES have a voice...BUT seems that some factions ( in this case the gay marriage advocates ) have a case of selective hearing.....the voters spoke, but thats not good enough for them....thus my "personal agenda" quip....yet another case of I didn't get what I want now its fuss time... Edited May 26, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Isn't there protection of freedom of religion? If so, the church can't be made to perform the ceremony. Wow... a Canadian understands our legal system and constitutional separations better the most Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 Wow... a Canadian understands our legal system and constitutional separations better the most Americans. won't prevent lawsuits.....my feeling is they will NOT go away unless they get their way....( sorry if the word they comes across as derogatory...not intentional, but I don't and will not spend hours researching politically correct angst ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 won't prevent lawsuits It certainly does here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I guess my issue ( and its NOT just this issue ) is how tiresome it is becoming having personal "agendas" rammed downs one throats... Who's doing that? How does gay people being allowed to marry hurt you in any way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 won't prevent lawsuits.....my feeling is they will NOT go away unless they get their way....( sorry if the word they comes across as derogatory...not intentional, but I don't and will not spend hours researching politically correct angst ) They can sue, but they will always fail. Religious institutions and, in fact, private clubs can exclude anyone because of their race, religion, orientation, color of their hair. Doesn't matter. If a church is within its rights to excommunicate all gay couples, they are certainly within their right to deny them religious marriage. I don't know of a single court in the land that would change that - especially if the state provide marriage, which it would have. The only cases where a church's will can be bent is if direct government funding is used but require conversion before services are rendered or overt political action - then the government can strip tax status and dictate whatever they want. Fine by me. I'm sorry, but this particular argument against gay marriage carries no weight for me. It's sort of like the stupid slippery-slope argument: first gay couples, next polygamy and bestiality. Flippin' heck... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 Who's doing that? How does gay people being allowed to marry hurt you in any way? by creating such a rucus when they failed to get their own way.....and watch....it will get worse...tenacious bunch the rainbow boys and girls.....they obviously don't care what others opinions are if they do NOT get their own way....hey, lets vote on it...oh, thats right, we already did..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 so, hey...MAYHEM.....everybody just do what they want....yehah! And the rights were given to an UPROAR...so it went to vote...they lost, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IT....and there was NO harm to anyone there either.... Conservatives always get mad when judges 'legislate from the bench', but in reality, it's very much a part of their job and this is a case where it certainly should happen. Under the US Constitution, people are supposed to be equal under the law. That means two people wishing to join (outside of exceptional circumstances) should not be seen by the law as any different than two other people (in theory, anyway). Courts and legislatures have an obligation to protect the rights of all people...majority, or minority. It's not the place of the majority to tell the minority what to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 They can sue, but they will always fail. Religious institutions and, in fact, private clubs can exclude anyone because of their race, religion, orientation, color of their hair. Doesn't matter. If a church is within its rights to excommunicate all gay couples, they are certainly within their right to deny them religious marriage. I don't know of a single court in the land that would change that - especially if the state provide marriage, which it would have. The only cases where a church's will can be bent is if direct government funding is used but require conversion before services are rendered or overt political action - then the government can strip tax status and dictate whatever they want. Fine by me. I'm sorry, but this particular argument against gay marriage carries no weight for me. It's sort of like the stupid slippery-slope argument: first gay couples, next polygamy and bestiality. Flippin' heck... with you 100%....and in terms of should they be allowed or not, I'm on the fence...however, with all the fuss being created I'm starting to lean towards voting against...not that that has ANY clout anymore ( voting that is ) and THAT is what annoys me, shut the hell up and give it a go NEXT time around...and trust me , eventually they WILL win the right through persisitance and being a royal pain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 they obviously don't care what others opinions are if they do NOT get their own way And why should they? They see themselves as no different than other people who want to marry. Their opinion has no effect whatsoever on you....but yours has a profound impact on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 Conservatives always get mad when judges 'legislate from the bench', but in reality, it's very much a part of their job and this is a case where it certainly should happen. Under the US Constitution, people are supposed to be equal under the law. That means two people wishing to join (outside of exceptional circumstances) should not be seen by the law as any different than two other people (in theory, anyway). Courts and legislatures have an obligation to protect the rights of all people...majority, or minority. It's not the place of the majority to tell the minority what to do. so, shared public toilets is next....LOL!...because hey, apparently by law we are seen no different.....and so does that mean we should have the minority telling the majority what to do.....logic is flawed SUV...I'm just angry its become an issue POST vote... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 And why should they? They see themselves as no different than other people who want to marry. Their opinion has no effect whatsoever on you....but yours has a profound impact on them. how? its a hot button for sure...but what actually ARE they missing out on by being unable to marry? is there a possible agenda i'm missing, why is it such a big issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 Who's doing that? How does gay people being allowed to marry hurt you in any way? not just gay people SUV, add greenies, CAFE, EPA, the list is endless....who actually does have rights?......and choices? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 and so does that mean we should have the minority telling the majority what to do No. Everyone's rights should be protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 (edited) And why should they? They see themselves as no different than other people who want to marry. Their opinion has no effect whatsoever on you....but yours has a profound impact on them. But they do want a special victim status under "hate crime laws". They do want protection under anti-descrimination laws (a.k.a. affirmative action laws). They want to walk down a public street wearing ass-less chaps, while engaging in inappropriate behaviors under the auspices of celebrating diversity. How is it logical that gays want these special considerations, while saying they're just like everyone else? Edited May 27, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibinubu12 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 But they do want a special victim status under "hate crime laws". They do want protection under anti-descrimination laws (a.k.a. affirmative action laws). They want to walk down a public street wearing ass-less chaps, while engaging in inappropriate behaviors under the auspices of celebrating diversity. They can't tell others they want these special considerations, while saying they're just like everyone else, can they? Lets cross that bridge when we get to it. What I can't understand is why someone can tell someone else that they cannot marry their love. Regardless of whether you agree with their lifestyle (and I'm guessing that you don't), you can't seriously say that they shouldn't be allowed to marry just because they are different from you, can you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 But they do want a special victim status under "hate crime laws". They do want protection under anti-descrimination laws (a.k.a. affirmative action laws). They want to walk down a public street wearing ass-less chaps, while engaging in inappropriate behaviors under the auspices of celebrating diversity. How is it logical that gays want these special considerations, while saying they're just like everyone else? One certainly doesn't have to agree with all of those things to support gay marriage....especially not the inappropriate behaviour....that shouldn't be tolerated by anyone. Arguments can be made for their protection from hate and discrimination though, because they still are a controversial group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Lets cross that bridge when we get to it. What I can't understand is why someone can tell someone else that they cannot marry their love. Regardless of whether you agree with their lifestyle (and I'm guessing that you don't), you can't seriously say that they shouldn't be allowed to marry just because they are different from you, can you? I'm honestly conflicted on the subject. On one hand, I don't wish to prevent two persons from having the same "civil" rights under the law, however I would not assign the same "marital" status to a same sex couple. There is a difference, and no matter what the legislation, there always will be. Just as men and women are supposed to be equal (under the law), but they aren't the same. The law differentiates between the two. I would consider myself to be pro-civil union, but anti-gay marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 One certainly doesn't have to agree with all of those things to support gay marriage....especially not the inappropriate behaviour....that shouldn't be tolerated by anyone. Arguments can be made for their protection from hate and discrimination though, because they still are a controversial group. Controversial how? Unless the person in front of me identifies him/herself as gay, there is nothing to be controversial about. Unless gays are somehow different than everyone else (by virtue of some disability or victim status), then why should special consideration be given them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark B. Morrow Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 (edited) won't prevent lawsuits.....my feeling is they will NOT go away unless they get their way....( sorry if the word they comes across as derogatory...not intentional, but I don't and will not spend hours researching politically correct angst ) The lawsuit claim is a Red Herring. A divorced Catholic has no standing to sue to be married in the church. A Jew has no right to sue to be married by a priest or minister. A Christian has no right to be married by a rabbi. Government must stay out of the practice of religion except as a last resort (e.g. a faith that practices human sacrifice or keeps people against their will). Religion should apply its dogma to its own followers and leave non-adherents alone. Say you lived in a majority Orthodox Jewish community that wanted to legislate banning pork products from the town. Surely the majority could prevail in a ballot. If you're not Jewish why should you have to live by their religious law. You would not be hurting anyone by consuming bacon. Gays getting married does not harm heterosexual couples. Some may be offended but that is not a legitimate reason to deny equal treatment to others. Many were offended by desegregating schools, interracial marriage and even birth control. The U. S. Supreme Court overturned long standing laws in thesematters in Brown v. Board of Ed, Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Conn. The Catholic Church can't even convince many of its own members to obey the rules on contraception and divorce why should the Church be involved in legislating for non-Catholics? The idea that the word Marriage is religious is nonsense. I was married by a judge and the State of Pennsylvania issued us a Marriage License. Edited May 27, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Unless the person in front of me identifies him/herself as gay, there is nothing to be controversial about. And if they do, it then becomes controversial? If that's the case, doesn't that show the need for protection from discrimination? Should someone be able to be fired because their gay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 The lawsuit claim is a Red Herring. A divorced Catholic has no standing to sue to be married in the church. A Jew has no right to sue to be married by a priest or minister. A Christian has no right to be married by a rabbi. Government must stay out of the practice of religion except as a last resort (e.g. a faith that practices human sacrifice or keeps people against their will). Religion should apply its dogma to its own followers and leave non-adherents alone. Say you lived in a majority Orthodox Jewish community that wanted to legislate banning pork products from the town. Surely the majority could prevail in a ballot. If you're not Jewish why should you have to live by their religious law. You would not be hurting anyone by consuming bacon. Gays getting married does not harm heterosexual couples. Some may be offended but that is not a legitimate reason to deny equal treatment to others. Many were offended by desegregating schools, interracial marriage and even birth control. The U. S. Supreme Court overturned long standing laws in thesematters in Brown v. Board of Ed, Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Conn. The Catholic Church can't even convince many of its own members to obey the rules on contraception and divorce why should the Church be involved in legislating for non-Catholics? The idea that the word Marriage is religious is nonsense. I was married by a judge and the State of Pennsylvania issued us a Marriage License. That is what it is all about. It is all about removing any rights that others have such as: Not dispensing fertility drugs to gay couples. Not allowing gay relationships in christian schools. Suing bible publishers. Doctors not performing abortions, etc. Who a church will or will not marry. I would not sue to be allowed to marry in a synagogue. But Churches will be sued for not allowing gay weddings to be done on their property or if they refuse to marry a gay couple. Most of it is already happening. I am just wondering what will happen when they go after the Muslims? But I don't think they will do that very much. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 And if they do, it then becomes controversial? If that's the case, doesn't that show the need for protection from discrimination? Should someone be able to be fired because their gay? No. However, Doctors will be sued and fired for not performing abortions, giving fertility drugs to gays, etc. I say unfair to both. Unfortunatly the gays only see it as unfair for one side. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 And if they do, it then becomes controversial? If that's the case, doesn't that show the need for protection from discrimination? Should someone be able to be fired because their gay? My words belie my meaning. What I'm getting at is I don't consider it any of my business whether or not someone is gay, and don't appreciate being informed against my will. I say "against my will" because I don't (and wouldn't) ask. I don't make a habit of telling people my sexual preferences/practices with my wife, and would consider it extremely poor taste by anyone who would. If a person can be fired for being a smoker, an adulterer, or any other behavior the boss/owner doesn't like, I see no reason why someone can't be fired for being gay. I don't consider it right, but in a free society people have to be free to be morons, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.