(02-07-2012 02:12 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

Truly sad that you can't understand the difference between two adults who want to enter into a lifetime commitment to each other, and criminals who abuse animals or children. It's disgusting and does no credit to your cause.

Funny...two men sodomizing each other is disgusting to most people.

*shrug*

perspective is everything.

(02-07-2012 02:13 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

i honestly have no issue with polygamy...

kids and animals don't have the ability to understand their own sexuality...therefore, they cannot consent to sex.

But Memphis, what if it's a non-sexual marriage?

Yeah, you can't worm your way out of a theoretical version of a hypothetical situation that isn't actually being discussed. Take that!

(02-07-2012 02:12 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

Truly sad that you can't understand the difference between two adults who want to enter into a lifetime commitment to each other, and criminals who abuse animals or children. It's disgusting and does no credit to your cause.

Boo hoo....I aslo mentioned many adults making a "lifetime commitment to each other." It's a slippery slope. I'm not necesarily against civil unions, don't agree with it, but not against it. I am against "gay" marriage. By the way, I am also against divorce in most circumstances and completely against remarriage except for in the case of the death of a spouse.

(02-07-2012 02:14 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:12 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

Truly sad that you can't understand the difference between two adults who want to enter into a lifetime commitment to each other, and criminals who abuse animals or children. It's disgusting and does no credit to your cause.

Funny...two men sodomizing each other is disgusting to most people.

*shrug*

perspective is everything.

I'm sure your web browser history would be offensive to some. What's your point?

(02-07-2012 02:16 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:12 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

Truly sad that you can't understand the difference between two adults who want to enter into a lifetime commitment to each other, and criminals who abuse animals or children. It's disgusting and does no credit to your cause.

Boo hoo....I aslo mentioned many adults making a "lifetime commitment to each other." It's a slippery slope. I'm not necesarily against civil unions, don't agree with it, but not against it. I am against "gay" marriage. By the way, I am also against divorce in most circumstances and completely against remarriage except for in the case of the death of a spouse.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-rights/

(02-07-2012 02:14 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Funny...two men sodomizing each other is disgusting to most people.

*shrug*

perspective is everything.

If you find it disgusting, don't do it.

(02-07-2012 02:16 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:14 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:12 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

Truly sad that you can't understand the difference between two adults who want to enter into a lifetime commitment to each other, and criminals who abuse animals or children. It's disgusting and does no credit to your cause.

Funny...two men sodomizing each other is disgusting to most people.

*shrug*

perspective is everything.

I'm sure your web browser history would be offensive to some. What's your point?

That what he finds disgusting isn't worthy of consideration...how far can one push their "rights"?

(02-07-2012 02:16 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  By the way, I am also against divorce in most circumstances and completely against remarriage except for in the case of the death of a spouse.

At least you're consistent.

(02-07-2012 02:16 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:13 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

i honestly have no issue with polygamy...

kids and animals don't have the ability to understand their own sexuality...therefore, they cannot consent to sex.

But Memphis, what if it's a non-sexual marriage?

Yeah, you can't worm your way out of a theoretical version of a hypothetical situation that isn't actually being discussed. Take that!

foiled again!

(02-07-2012 02:16 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Boo hoo....I aslo mentioned many adults making a "lifetime commitment to each other." It's a slippery slope. I'm not necesarily against civil unions, don't agree with it, but not against it. I am against "gay" marriage. By the way, I am also against divorce in most circumstances and completely against remarriage except for in the case of the death of a spouse.

Yeah, folks who battled hard and bitterly against interracial marriage complained of that famous "slippery slope" too. You can be against it all ya want... I'm against religious bigots being able to breed, but hey - - - not much I can do about it.

Divorce is legal. Gay marriage is already legal in several states and D.C., and will soon be legal nationwide, just like it is in multiple other nations. If you don't want to have a divorce, or gay marriage, by all means: don't have one.

(02-07-2012 02:18 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:14 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Funny...two men sodomizing each other is disgusting to most people.

*shrug*

perspective is everything.

If you find it disgusting, don't do it.

Finally the truth...a gay black man with an axe to grind. Your bias was obvious.

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)AtlanticLeague Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:04 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I was testing the waters by directing the question at the Liberals on here trying to see how they felt about a man having multiple wives/husbands?

I'm not really a liberal, but this doesn't bother me. What do I care?

It's not a matter of caring or not caring, or of being bothered or not bothered. It's a matter of agreeing or disagreeing that the constitution Requires that a polygamous and/or homosexual relationship be afforded the same legal status as a monogamous, heterosexual one, if the parties so desire.

Anyway, I think the idea that this case -- or any other judicial case -- will compel an unwilling jurisdictio to change its marriage laws will prove quite naive as time goes by. But yes, if "gay marriage" ever does become generally accepted law, then polygamy will become generally accepted, as well. Some **** even weirder than that is coming over the horizon, but that will be another generation's battle.

(02-07-2012 02:16 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:12 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:26 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  it IS unconstitutional...it does nothing but deny rights to a single group...

With that approach, people that want to marry animals are being denied their rights. Don't forget those that won't to marry multiple wives, husbands, children, animals etc. They are absolutely being denied rights.

Truly sad that you can't understand the difference between two adults who want to enter into a lifetime commitment to each other, and criminals who abuse animals or children. It's disgusting and does no credit to your cause.

Boo hoo....I aslo mentioned many adults making a "lifetime commitment to each other." It's a slippery slope. I'm not necesarily against civil unions, don't agree with it, but not against it. I am against "gay" marriage. By the way, I am also against divorce in most circumstances and completely against remarriage except for in the case of the death of a spouse.

i'm sorry but pedophilia and bestiality are NOT a "slippery slope" to anyone other than right-wingers trying to scare the populous.

(02-07-2012 02:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  That what he finds disgusting isn't worthy of consideration...how far can one push their "rights"?

Surely even YOU can differentiate between a consensual relationship between two committed adults, and someone abusing an animal, or a child. Right? You can't be that far gone.... can you?

(02-07-2012 02:22 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  That what he finds disgusting isn't worthy of consideration...how far can one push their "rights"?

Surely even YOU can differentiate between a consensual relationship between two committed adults, and someone abusing an animal, or a child. Right? You can't be that far gone.... can you?

LOL...no. It's an interesting hypothetical. As I'm sure gay "marriage" was 100 years ago. Food for thought. Like I said in the other thread...Civil Unions with all the benefits of Marriage are fine with me but trying to rename it is foolish and a waste of your time. A different name isn't separate and the benefits make it equal.

(02-07-2012 02:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  how far can one push their "rights"?

My stance is that freedom is the default position. That is, you have the freedom to do/be/whatever something unless there is just cause for it to be explicitly forbidden. "Rights" are those things that cannot be forbidden.

So in that sense, for something to be illegal, it must 1) not violate a right and 2) must show just cause to be made forbidden.

And while we may debate whether or not two adult men getting married is protected by a right, there's little argument that it should be expressly forbidden.

(02-07-2012 02:24 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:22 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  That what he finds disgusting isn't worthy of consideration...how far can one push their "rights"?

Surely even YOU can differentiate between a consensual relationship between two committed adults, and someone abusing an animal, or a child. Right? You can't be that far gone.... can you?

LOL...no. It's an interesting hypothetical. As I'm sure gay "marriage" was 100 years ago. Food for thought. Like I said in the other thread...Civil Unions with all the benefits of Marriage are fine with me but trying to rename it is foolish and a waste of your time. A different name isn't separate and the benefits make it equal.

why thank you Gov. Wallace.

(02-07-2012 02:34 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:24 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:22 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  That what he finds disgusting isn't worthy of consideration...how far can one push their "rights"?

Surely even YOU can differentiate between a consensual relationship between two committed adults, and someone abusing an animal, or a child. Right? You can't be that far gone.... can you?

LOL...no. It's an interesting hypothetical. As I'm sure gay "marriage" was 100 years ago. Food for thought. Like I said in the other thread...Civil Unions with all the benefits of Marriage are fine with me but trying to rename it is foolish and a waste of your time. A different name isn't separate and the benefits make it equal.

why thank you Gov. Wallace.

You're as useless as RobertN...do you ever add anything?

(02-07-2012 02:24 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:22 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:18 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  That what he finds disgusting isn't worthy of consideration...how far can one push their "rights"?

Surely even YOU can differentiate between a consensual relationship between two committed adults, and someone abusing an animal, or a child. Right? You can't be that far gone.... can you?

LOL...no. It's an interesting hypothetical. As I'm sure gay "marriage" was 100 years ago. Food for thought. Like I said in the other thread...Civil Unions with all the benefits of Marriage are fine with me but trying to rename it is foolish and a waste of your time. A different name isn't separate and the benefits make it equal.

It's not an interesting hypothetical... it equates something criminal and reprehensible with something that should be celebrated: two people finding each other, falling in love, and choosing to spend the rest of their lives together in equality. It's only food for LACK of thought to make the comparison.

Was gay marriage unthinkable 100 years ago in this country? Sure. But what of it? Lots of things were unthinkable in times past. Imagine the reaction some would have 150 years ago to the notion of a black president. It's only been a couple generations that women weren't allowed to vote. People are still alive, well, and relatively young who lived through the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s. Can you imagine blacks being prohibited from attending the same schools as whites? Unthinkable. Yet, it was law only a handful of decades ago.

We change and evolve. What is unthinkable in the past becomes a simple matter of equality and fairness as old superstitions and fears die away.

Allowing gay men and women to marry each other and live their lives in peace and equality doesn't harm you, or anybody else. Nobody is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex. It will in no way diminish your own marriage. It simply provides fairness and happiness to people who want to live their lives together. It astonishes me that any rational person would oppose it. President Obama is too cowardly to come out and support it fully, although it's obvious that will happen eventually. Maybe he fears that his support will turn it into a lightning rod issue that becomes a focus more on him, and that it will do more harm than good. Maybe.

But in the end, it WILL become legal, everywhere. That is the reality. And the sooner, the better, because coming generations will look back on it in astonishment the same way we look back on times when blacks and whites couldn't marry, or women couldn't vote, or when other human beings were made property. Unthinkable.

(02-07-2012 02:11 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 02:03 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 01:24 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Great news? Right decision? Wow, you really are illiterate.

The courts go beyond their intended purpose and destroy the will of the citizens. History hasn't shown tyranny to be pleasant.

civil rights aren't to be voted on...if they were woman wouldn't be able to vote...interracial marriage would be illegal...and the sodomy laws would still exist.

it's easy for 90% of the population (straight) to hold down the 10% (gay)

and before you complain those are rough numbers.

I had no clue that 2 or 3 rounded up to 10..

the single most comprehensive study i've read was the janus report on sexual behavior done in 1993...they concluded 9% of men...5% of females...but when folks talk about gay...it always seems to come back to men.

Curious. Three reports came out about that same time. Don't remember the names of all of them (One was UC Davis I believe) and all three had numbers of 1-3%.