colin
|
posted on July 11, 2003 08:44:52 AM new
Marriage or wedlock is the bound between a man and a women.
That's it. Anything else is not a marriage and shouldn't be recognized as sure. Maybe a Companionship or partnership but not a marriage.
Merriam-Webster's,
1 a : the state of being married b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
|
austbounty
|
posted on July 11, 2003 08:55:34 AM new
SHOCK HORROR
12 has a point
About my argument that incest leads to deformity.
He’s saying, not necessarily.
I guess the only reason I would oppose it is because of my personal belief, which has, been moulded by my upbringing/social influences.
I feel I know incest to be wrong ‘intuitively’
If you can accept that, on THAT basis Cheryl, I think 12 is justified in saying that he ‘knows’ homosexuality to be ‘wrong’ intuitively.
Some cultures are accepting of marriage between cousins, it may be a survival ’thing’ or a means to ‘keep the money in the family’. Anglos too I believe, and some Semites, but I’m sure not just limited to these groups.
I think that the argument of ‘aids’ as evidence that homosexuality is ‘wrong’ is however flawed, otherwise one could also say that to be African is ‘wrong’.
I’m afraid, I must ‘come out’ and admit that I am not completely ‘accepting’ of homosexuality, but I do think they should be permitted to exercise their ‘free will’.
I do however more openly object to ‘gross’ displays of sexuality. (Not homosexuality but sexuality..full stop)
Eg. The Gay-Mardi-Gras held in Sydney once a year.
I feel (intuitively) that apart from a small kiss or touch, adult displays of sexuality are best kept behind closed doors. (gay or straight).
Any way, I feel the whole issue still trivial compared war.
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 11, 2003 08:58:51 AM new
::Neon please read... THE LAWS ARE ALREADY IN PLACE... what legal basis do you need? ::
Twelve - I am asking you what you feel is the legally based justification for the existance of these laws.
::Coming from someone that supports murder (Abortion) I am not surprised at your views on this... ::
Two can play that game Twelve. I seem to remember that you to support murder under the guise of the Death Penalty but truth be told - It's irrelevent andyou are once again attepting to derail the debate. Why don' you just admit that the laws have no legal justification. I mean you and ebayauctionguy have been asked the question three times now and neither of you can come up with any.
::this has been asked twice now and seems like "we" are being selective about what deviant behaviors "we" are going to tolerate.::
But see there-in lies the twist Twelve. I don't consider homosexuality "devient" behavior.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
austbounty
|
posted on July 11, 2003 09:02:34 AM new
COLIN!!!
I missed you.
Do you think it’s a ‘bit more’ ok for a man to have sex with a man when he is in jail.
They tell me that 25% have done so.
Is it far far better to give than to receive??
|
davebraun
|
posted on July 11, 2003 09:07:37 AM new
12, it could be argued successfully that your thought processes are a form of deviated behavior and that expressing them could be banned. I would counter that there's no point in being stupid if you can't show off. God made you in his divine wisdom a narrow minded bigoted SOB, it is your right to express it.
|
colin
|
posted on July 11, 2003 09:07:46 AM new
assy,
I'm sure you would know better then me.
I don't care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
http://www.reverendcolin.com
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 11, 2003 09:16:12 AM new
Colin - If a you attached the same legal rights to such a "Companionship" status I think many would have no complaint. If there was a legal union which homosexual couples could enter into that would give them the same legal rights as "marriage" and which was recognized on the same level by hopitals, employers, etc I think that would be an acceptable compromise.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
austbounty
|
posted on July 11, 2003 09:18:34 AM new
cum-on-col
spit it out boy
I've seen pics of the group you hang with & I'd bet my balls that they have a higher ratio of being, as we say in Australia 'Guests of Her Majesty' than the round table.
I haven't engaged in gay practices or been to jail, I just thought it reasonable to assume that you would be better informed than the rest of us.
i'm just seeking enlightened opinion.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on July 11, 2003 11:12:17 AM new
no point in being stupid if you can't show off
Ahhh so that is why you post the way you do davebraun... epxplains alot.
I am glad we can all post our opinions here...
Neon, those laws have been on the books long before I was born, maybe not before you were born, so you know some little secret about them?
However, I have no desire to look into the background of something I agree with... it is the LAW it is ILLEGAL for gays to marry... you can play merry-go-round all you want.... you don't believe homos are deviants... I do.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND... 
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 11, 2003 11:40:32 AM new
So in other words Twelve - there is no legal justification.
There are ridiculous laws on the books everywhere - that does not make them right and sometimes someone with better sence comes along out decides to abolish them. Singapore finally abolished their law against the sales and manufacturing of chewing gum 
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on July 11, 2003 02:51:09 PM new
neonmania and davebraun, you both support gay marriage, but what about incestuous gay marriage?
Do you think it would be ok for a man to marry his brother? Do you think it would be ok for a woman to marry her sister? A father/son mariage? A mother/daughter marriage? If not, then why not?
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 11, 2003 03:07:03 PM new
EAG - perhaps you have not read any of my posts. If you had read them you would see that I advocate gay marriages because of the LEGAL BENEFITS extended. In the case of family members - the rights are already extended. Family members already have a say in final medical decisions, are defacto beneficaries in the case of death without a will, etc.
If you want to screw your sister, have a ball. I think that in such a situation there are much deeper issues to be dealt with.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on July 11, 2003 03:15:39 PM new
Neon, you didn't answer the question. Do you think it would be ok for a man to marry his brother? Would you have a problem with it?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on July 11, 2003 03:44:00 PM new
OK for who ebayauctionguy? If two brothers got married, what does it matter to you? If a guy married his pet cat, how does that affect you?
[ edited by kraftdinner on Jul 11, 2003 03:44 PM ]
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 11, 2003 03:48:17 PM new
EAG - I tell you what - you answer the question I have asked four times now and I will answer yours. What is the LEGAL JUSTIFICATION in your eyes for the denial of rights to law abiding citizens based soley on sexual on sexual preference.
If you will actually answer that question and not dance around it I will give you a definative answer to your question.
BTW - "Because it is already the law" is not a legal justification, in fact it is not even a valid arguement considering that it is not actually against the law, it has just not been yet included in the legal definition of existing laws. Homosexual marriages are not illegal, they are simply not as of yet recognized.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on July 11, 2003 03:55:14 PM new
Neon, I answered your question in an earlier post: I can't give a LEGAL justification for denying gays marriage. But I also can't give a LEGAL justification for denying marriage between a farmer and a sheep.
Now answer my question: Do you think it would be ok for a man to marry his brother?
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 11, 2003 04:06:08 PM new
IF that's his thing, fine. I do not morally agree. Truth be told, I find incestuous relationships more than a little disturbing from a psychological stand point but if two people are willing to make a legal commiment of partnership and responsibility for each other in a non procreating relationship then what is the harm?
At the same time I personally don't find it neccesary. I view marriage as a legal step, I'm not into the symbolism aspects. With that in mind, I don't see the neccesity of marriage among relatives since they are granted most of the same rights via the blood relationship.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 11, 2003 04:09:57 PM new
Oh and BTW - In your farmer and the sheep anology - it is quite basic. The sheep is not legally capable of entering into a legal contract and that is what marriage is.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
ebayauctionguy
|
posted on July 11, 2003 04:22:26 PM new
Well there you have it: neon said incest is ok! What's the harm? Anything goes!
There is something very wrong with liberals' moral compass.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on July 11, 2003 05:08:22 PM new
"Because it is already the law" is not a legal justification
How so?
Try this site and see how the United States see marriage...
http://www.lc.org/ProFamily/DOMAs.html#Top
Notice that most outlaw same sex marriages...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 11, 2003 05:14:54 PM new
EAG - Way to twist! I could have sworn I said that I am morally opposed to it however if you are dealing with a non procreating relationship between two legal adults I don't see the justification for criminal intent or charges. (I do however see a lot of need for psychological counseling).
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 11, 2003 05:22:50 PM new
::"Because it is already the law" is not a legal justification
How so? ::
Twelve you are not normally that dense. I'm asking you to JUSTIFY existance and rational behind the law. Basically your response is the equivalent of a Because I said so" response.
You are usually much better at facing a question or topic head on. The fact that you repeatedly and pointedly avoid it leads me to believe that even you are not able to legally justify the denial of rights based on sexual preference.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
davebraun
|
posted on July 11, 2003 05:25:10 PM new
ebayauctionguy, a sheep is personal property and as such does is not entitled to the protections of our constitution. As you seem hung up on this point I am sure you could probably circulate a petition grandfathering in whatever prior relationship you are trying to establish. I would gladly sign on your behalf although personally I prefer my sheep as a sweater.
Regarding incest you may wish to contact the offices of the Honorable Orin Hatch for his opinion in the matter. Historically his constituents have an interest in this area.
You also cannot enter into a marriage contract with: Toy Trains, Your Car, Fishing Gear, A Smith & Wesson, your coin collection or a book. I mention these only in passing. Hope this has been helpful.
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on July 11, 2003 05:44:53 PM new
Neon, considering how I feel about gays... "I said so" is good enough for me.
I don't care if they are "legally" justified in your mind. The laws are on the books and if you went to the web site I provided, most states prohibit same sex marriages and will not recognize those that do allow them...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
REAMOND
|
posted on July 12, 2003 10:03:44 AM new
most states prohibit same sex marriages and will not recognize those that do allow them...
Once ANY state allows same sex marriage, all states maay have to recognize the marriages performed by that state.
The "contracts" clause of the constitution requires states to recognize contracts from other states. NO STATE SHALL..PASS ANY... LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS
Even though the contracts clause has a somewhat sketchy history and is thus far none too firm regarding the marriage contract, equal protection and due process will I think successfully enter the argument.
There can now be no excuse for any state not to recognize a lawful gay marriage of another state if they recognize straight marriages.
|
mlecher
|
posted on July 12, 2003 10:25:37 AM new
God, you neo-con have some SERIOUS issues. Here we all are discussing basically the LEGAL aspects of Gay Marriage and you guys barge in with the weird stuff. Farmers & Sheep? Cats? Your Sister? Little Children? What the heck do you guys do in your spare time?
What a minute....I reeally don't want to know 
What you neo-cons do when you not publicly supporting a proven liar in strictly YOUR business. However, I do have issues against sex with children, they are to young and immature to understand the consequences. And your own Sister? Please stop it, we do not want the gene for stupidity doubled up.....
If you have ever seen a group of men around a women, you realize women are only the carriers of the STUPID gene but most are immune to its effects.....
[ edited by mlecher on Jul 12, 2003 10:27 AM ]
|
neonmania
|
posted on July 12, 2003 10:39:48 AM new
MLecher - I gave them the benefit of the doubt that when they were refering to marriage among family members they were speaking of two legally consenting adults. Maybe I gave them too much benefit consider the sheep, dalmations, and other animals they presented as possibilities but I was trying to have a logical discussion regal the legal issues not a contest for most disturbing variation.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
- Thomas Edison
|
Twelvepole
|
posted on July 12, 2003 10:51:35 AM new
If you liberals want deviant behavior to be legally justified, then it should be all DEVIANT behavior... but I guess you are either too stupid to figure that out or are in denial...
Reamond, better go to the website and read... many states have ALREADY passed laws saying they will not recognize same sex marriages...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
|
austbounty
|
posted on July 12, 2003 10:57:38 AM new
Mlecher
Stop slappin’em.
ROFLMAO
But the ‘right’ do seem to have a big hang up about sex.
How much did they spend to find out some more about Monica's BJ,, was it $49Mill!!!!
What a waste of monet, while all along they probably had the sollution at hand.
Next they will want 'seed on the soil' illegal in America too!!!!???
On a lighter note..
Women would rather look better than they think, because man can use our eyes better than our brains.
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular.
|
austbounty
|
posted on July 12, 2003 10:59:52 AM new
Carefull Reamond, you're moving left.
|
