Guest CronoT Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Do you think the top leader of the civil rights movement being a pastor was an accident? The entire movement was based almost completely on religious and moral underpinnings. -=Mike Yes, to add to the quality of life. What you're advocating will subtract from the quality of life of people. No, I'm personally not advocating anything. You're asking for the change without any consideration of anybody having a legitimate problem with it. -=Mike The only kind of legitimate concern over this is legal, pure and simple. If you're offended by it because it goes against your religion, tough shit. I'm Christian, and I don't think that gay marriage is wrong. What anyone else does that has absolutely no affect on me is none of my fucking business. Tell me, straight out, how gay marriage will directly affect your life, in a certifiable, non-abstract way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Do you think the top leader of the civil rights movement being a pastor was an accident? The entire movement was based almost completely on religious and moral underpinnings. -=Mike Yes, to add to the quality of life. What you're advocating will subtract from the quality of life of people. No, I'm personally not advocating anything. You're asking for the change without any consideration of anybody having a legitimate problem with it. -=Mike The only kind of legitimate concern over this is legal, pure and simple. If you're offended by it because it goes against your religion, tough shit. I'm Christian, and I don't think that gay marriage is wrong. What anyone else does that has absolutely no affect on me is none of my fucking business. Tell me, straight out, how gay marriage will directly affect your life, in a certifiable, non-abstract way. You're mistaking me for somebody who personally dislikes or likes gay marriage. I, personally, am quite ambivalent. I won't be impacted if its legalized OR if it remains as it is. You have to give me a reason to give a shit --- and calling me a homophobe when I'm undecided is pretty damned idiotic. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 There is no practical reason against Gay Marriage, none what-so-ever. There just isn't. There are religious reasons though, and that seems to trump everything else. Oh and the "ewww dicks inside asses is gross, creepy, keep it away....keep it away" factor, that people deny right through their teeth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 4, 2004 There is no practical reason against Gay Marriage, none what-so-ever. There just isn't. There are religious reasons though, and that seems to trump everything else. Oh and the "ewww dicks inside asses is gross, creepy, keep it away....keep it away" factor, that people deny right through their teeth. And this isn't making a case. The only person who did so thus far is Loss. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 There is no practical reason against Gay Marriage, none what-so-ever. There just isn't. There are religious reasons though, and that seems to trump everything else. Oh and the "ewww dicks inside asses is gross, creepy, keep it away....keep it away" factor, that people deny right through their teeth. And this isn't making a case. The only person who did so thus far is Loss. -=Mike well I wasn't trying to make a case for it. That was about 10 "gay marriage" threads ago. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 You're mistaking me for somebody who personally dislikes or likes gay marriage. I, personally, am quite ambivalent. I won't be impacted if its legalized OR if it remains as it is. For someone who takes this position, you sure are quick to debate it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Religous reasons ARE practical reasons for some people. They are just as much entitled to their believes as you are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Religous reasons ARE practical reasons for some people. They are just as much entitled to their believes as you are. Religion is not practical. Not saying it is wrong or right, that is a different discussion, but Religion in itself is not practical at all, that is why you have to have FAITH. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 How is it not practical? Even though I don't agree with them, the bible does lay out a practical way of living out your life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 How is it not practical? Even though I don't agree with them, the bible does lay out a practical way of living out your life. I am not saying there aren't practical aspects of the bible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Can't we just keep our religious beliefs to ourselves? If we keep it in the church, I think things will be fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Then maybe you should keep your beliefs on gay marriage to yourself. Then I think everything will be fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Then maybe you should keep your beliefs on gay marriage to yourself. Then I think everything will be fine. well unless gay marriage enters the political arena. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Metal Maniac 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Ok. So should bigamy be legal? Because honestly, I think that all the arguments I can see for gay marriage could be applied here as well. It doesn't affect you, and I have a right to live my life as I so please. So why shouldn't I be allowed to marry multiple women? Or do people here think that bigamy should be legal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Then maybe you should keep your beliefs on gay marriage to yourself. Then I think everything will be fine. well unless gay marriage enters the political arena. Hypocrite. If one people's beliefs are allowed to influence their politics than so are everyones. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hogan Made Wrestling 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Ok. So should bigamy be legal? Because honestly, I think that all the arguments I can see for gay marriage could be applied here as well. It doesn't affect you, and I have a right to live my life as I so please. So why shouldn't I be allowed to marry multiple women? Or do people here think that bigamy should be legal? You shouldn't be allowed to marry multiple women in the government sense of marriage because it makes no sense to apply divorce, next of kin laws, etc. to that situation. Do you give 50% to each one who divorces you? If you want to live with a half dozen women and call them all your wives, I have no problem with that. And if some church in Utah wants to give you a ceremony for each one, they can do that to. But you can only have one government marriage at a time barring a total re-write of the laws. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Well if we have to rewrite a bunch of laws + the tax code we might as well kill two birds at the same time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 If one people's beliefs are allowed to influence their politics than so are everyones. Religious beliefs aren't political beliefs. Or at least, they shouldn't be, and I'm not going to consider them such. If you want to actually make a case against gay marriage, fine. But religious reasoning does not work because (and here's the big important part) not everyone believes in your religion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrRant 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 So.. everyone has to believe in your reasoning for the case to be valid? If everyone believed in the same reasoning then this wouldn't be an issue... would it? Christ you are being an idiot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Damn, Rant. Didn't know you were such a Jesus freak. Homophobe... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Mike's advice is right for politicians, but in the case of this debate, he's treating us all like we should be campaigning in this thread, but we're not required to do so. If I was speaking publicly on the issue of gay marriage, I'd definitely not say everything I'm saying here. There's definitely a part of me that wants to shake people and say, "Don't you realize you're being a bigot? People are going to look at you just like they viewed the pro-segregation crowd 35 years ago over time." If I was ever in a position where I was lobbying to make a difference, I would never do such a thing. If I'm on a message board talking personally about this issue, I have no problems saying it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Religous reasons ARE practical reasons for some people. They are just as much entitled to their believes as you are. Religion is not practical. Not saying it is wrong or right, that is a different discussion, but Religion in itself is not practical at all, that is why you have to have FAITH. Do you support fighting global warming? Because it does not have appreciably more actual evidence. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Mike, I'm curious as to your response to this. I tried to argue your viewpoint with friends of mine and this was what I was told in response. "History lesson! Against popular demand, a President set numerous slaves free. Despite popular opinion, women got the right to vote. It was the courts that decided 'separate but equal' wasn't good enough. Courts decided that schools should not be segregated. Courts had to work against popular belief in order to do what was right." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2GOLD 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Mike, I'm curious as to your response to this. I tried to argue your viewpoint with friends of mine and this was what I was told in response. "History lesson! Against popular demand, a President set numerous slaves free. Despite popular opinion, women got the right to vote. It was the courts that decided 'separate but equal' wasn't good enough. Courts decided that schools should not be segregated. Courts had to work against popular belief in order to do what was right." Slavery, the right to vote and segregation were United State Government sanctioned issues. Marriage is controlled by the states. Therefore, the states should have the right to decide. As much as I hate to admit that cause gay marriage being banned makes me sick to my stomach. But states still set the rules and guidelines for marriage, not the government. Unless you want to authorize the United States Government handle marriage licenses, thus advocating a Department of Marriage, instead of the states then it remains the states issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Mike, I'm curious as to your response to this. I tried to argue your viewpoint with friends of mine and this was what I was told in response. "History lesson! Against popular demand, a President set numerous slaves free. Despite popular opinion, women got the right to vote. It was the courts that decided 'separate but equal' wasn't good enough. Courts decided that schools should not be segregated. Courts had to work against popular belief in order to do what was right." Your friend needs to study his history. Badly. Lincoln actually had a mandate as more than a few states had already banned slavery --- that whole free/slave split was not a new one. And --- and this should be noted --- he only freed slaves in the South (he was unable to free slaves in Union territory due to various legal reasons). Slaves everywhere were freed via Constitutional Amendment --- which requires significant popular support to pass. Sure, the South being unable to vote on it and being forced to accept it if they wanted back in the Union helped --- but it was not an unpopular desire. Women had won their right to vote in several states (especially in the midwest --- though they ALWAYS had it in NJ) before the Amendment. Their getting the right to vote was OVERWHELMINGLY popular, as it did require a Constitutional Amendment to pass --- which it did. "Seperate but equal" being bad was ALSO popular --- as it was not a practice in most of the country. The places where it was law wouldn't even permit people to discuss or vote on it, so the Courts had no option. In the case of gay marriage, it IS being voted on and rejected. Sadly, the SOLUTION was real bad (busing is one of the great disasters in history) --- but the desire to do it was very real. Eisenhower wouldn't have sent in the Nat'l Guard into Little Rock if it was exceptionlly unpopular --- no matter if the Governor was ignoring it or not. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Mike, I'm curious as to your response to this. I tried to argue your viewpoint with friends of mine and this was what I was told in response. "History lesson! Against popular demand, a President set numerous slaves free. Despite popular opinion, women got the right to vote. It was the courts that decided 'separate but equal' wasn't good enough. Courts decided that schools should not be segregated. Courts had to work against popular belief in order to do what was right." Slavery, the right to vote and segregation were United State Government sanctioned issues. Marriage is controlled by the states. Therefore, the states should have the right to decide. As much as I hate to admit that cause gay marriage being banned makes me sick to my stomach. But states still set the rules and guidelines for marriage, not the government. Unless you want to authorize the United States Government handle marriage licenses, thus advocating a Department of Marriage, instead of the states then it remains the states issue. If you'd like to get technical, the issues that you listed were originally states' issues under the 10th Amendment. Mike has slavery right in his description. However, there is NOT A FEDERAL VOTING RIGHT. If you look at the 15th Amendment more closely, it reads that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Essentially, it says that the States can not discriminate as to who could or could not vote based upon race. Thus, it is a civil liberty and not a right. Hence why felons can't vote in some states. It is still a state issue under the 10th Amendment. Segregation, meanwhile, falls under the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment when it comes to Brown v. Board of Education. Plessy v. Ferguson, meanwhile, ruled that the 14th Amendment did not apply, which is why it was overturned at a later date. The end of segregation was not a popular one in the south, and to some degree, in the north. Boston, anyone? Neighborhood schools? It always winds coming back around somehow. As I said earlier, the Supreme Court will wind up with a case on gay marriage. Using the precedent set by Brown v. Board of Education, they will sue for Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment. I mean, if there are federal tax breaks for marriage, well, it's now become a national issue. There is also precedent set by Roe v. Wade in terms of there being 49 states with laws on their books cooked by one Court ruling. Oh, and Mike, there's a quote from Eisenhower when asked about whether or not the end of segregation was good for the country: "I don't know." --Ryan ...studying politics is fun!... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Damnit, Wildbomb -- I thought I got all the "long post-itis" out of you... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Sometimes I have this uncontrollable urge to type, and well...I couldn't help myself. I will now revert back to my blatant rip-off of sarcasm and partisan banter. --Ryan ...You know what's really addicting? Heroin. That stuff'll grab you by the balls... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 Do you think the top leader of the civil rights movement being a pastor was an accident? The entire movement was based almost completely on religious and moral underpinnings. -=Mike Yes, to add to the quality of life. What you're advocating will subtract from the quality of life of people. No, I'm personally not advocating anything. You're asking for the change without any consideration of anybody having a legitimate problem with it. -=Mike The only kind of legitimate concern over this is legal, pure and simple. If you're offended by it because it goes against your religion, tough shit. I'm Christian, and I don't think that gay marriage is wrong. What anyone else does that has absolutely no affect on me is none of my fucking business. Tell me, straight out, how gay marriage will directly affect your life, in a certifiable, non-abstract way. If you're a Christian, what biblical basis do you have for not opposing gay marriage? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SP-1 Report post Posted November 4, 2004 (edited) EDIT: Stupid Board. Edited November 4, 2004 by SP-1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
