Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

2001MustangGT · Mar 14, 2005

jsn112 said:
No offense, but where did you learn American history?

Probably straight from the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and others...

knuckle50 · Mar 14, 2005

jsn112 said:
So you don't think HIV and Aids are relevant among homosexual men regardless they are married or not?

Here is another data: homosexuals are more likely to have outside sexual relationships when compare to heterosexuals. That's not to say heterosexuals don't have outside relationship. But it's stageringly worse among homosexuals.

African-Americans have a higher prevalence of AIDS than white people. Should they not be allowed to marry?

I'd also like you to give me some statistics.

Also, the entire premise of your argument is false because marriage encourages staying with one partner and discourages screwing around, therefore slowing the spread of AIDS.

Also, you have consistently dodged the question of how it hurts the "sanctity" of marriage.

jsn112 · Mar 14, 2005

2001MustangGT said:
Probably straight from the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and others...

Then you have not finished learning. I suggest you learn more, especially the Mayflower. No offense of course.

knuckle50 · Mar 14, 2005

2001MustangGT said:
Probably straight from the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, and others...

Yep.

Susan · Mar 14, 2005

NFSteelers said:
Sanctity means sacred. Marriage is a sacred thing... it is meant for a man and a woman, not for a man and a man or a woman and a woman. In order to protect that, homosexuals cannot get married.

"Sanctity means sacred" is a circular definition that does not give any explanation for itself. You need to explain the reasons for this "sanctity" to make an actual definition.

For example, are heterosexual couples somehow "sacred" because they can bear children? Are heterosexual couples more "sacred" because they are capable of two sex acts that a male/male couple can't do and one that a female/female couple can't do? Give us actual things that define "sanctity" rather than a circular argument that makes little sense to someone who has no reason to agree with it.

Also, no one has ever answered this: how does Bob and Joe or Jane and Ann next door getting married hurt your marriage? How does it endanger anything but your personal "squick factor" if both of you are straight? If one of you isn't, what says he or she will leave you to go have :groupray:

with the neighbors unless there's already something fatally flawed in your marriage?

Also, the definition of marriage used to say that a wife was the property of her husband, basically a chattel slave. That definition has changed over the years, as has the definition of marriage being between only people of the same race. Both of these changes were ferociously argued against with the same argument you see now: fear and paranoid ramblings about "they're going to destroy our marriage."

There is only one person who can save or destroy your marriage. Go in the mirror and take a long look at him or her, then go show your significant other just how much you love him or her. That will do a lot more for preserving your marriage than worrying that someone else is going to destroy it

ZACTAK · Mar 14, 2005

knuckle50 said:
Threatening IN WHAT WAY?

Other than making you feel "icky", what does gay marriage do to affect your marriage?

Go back and read what I said, I have said it already.

2001MustangGT · Mar 14, 2005

jsn112 said:
So you don't think HIV and Aids are relevant among homosexual men regardless if they are married or not?

nope!

Here is another data: homosexuals are more likely to have outside sexual relationships when compare to heterosexuals.

So?

That's not to say heterosexuals don't have outside relationship. But it's stageringly worse among homosexuals.

So if Republicans cheat more than Democrats, should we deny them marriage?

First of all, loyalty to your partner is irrelevant.

Second, if it was relevant, then it would be an argument for gay marriage, not against. Because making gay marriage legal would be like telling gays "hey, settle down and commit to monogamy because youll get extra government benefits and soecial respect if you do"

I contend that making gay marriage illegal will do nothing to slow the infidelity rates of gays. I also contend that making straight marriage illegal will increase infidelity among straights. All of these are reasons in favor of legalizing gay marriage.

knuckle50 · Mar 14, 2005

jsn112 said:
Then you have not finished learning. I suggest you learn more, especially the Mayflower. No offense of course.

What it comes down to is HOW DOES IT AFFECT YOU? So tell me. What problems does this cause for you and/or your marriage?

I'm a social libertarian. I believe in legalized pot, same-sex marrage, abortions for everybody, and I've flirted with legalized prostitution (not in favor of it now). If it's a victimless "crime and it doesn't affect me, I don't have a problem with it.

EDIT: And no, you haven't told me before. At least not a reasoned, logical argument. How does it affect you in your every day life, and how can you balance that against not allowing people to have fundamental rights and still say you'd rather deny them the rights?

jsn112 · Mar 14, 2005

knuckle50 said:
African-Americans have a higher prevalence of AIDS than white people. Should they not be allowed to marry?

I'd also like you to give me some statistics.

Also, the entire premise of your argument is false because marriage encourages staying with one partner and discourages screwing around, therefore slowing the spread of AIDS.

Also, you have consistently dodged the question of how it hurts the "sanctity" of marriage.

Probably true, but homosexuals just add more to the list. Besides, you don't have a statistic either because marriage among homosexual is a recent event. No long term data is considered legit for now. However, it is true that homosexuals have higher degree of having sexual relationship outside of their personal relationships.

2001MustangGT · Mar 14, 2005

jsn112 said:
Then you have not finished learning. I suggest you learn more, especially the Mayflower. No offense of course.

Can you point out to me where the Mayflower is in the Constitution? Can you show me examples of the founding fathers referencing the Mayflower in their ideas for an independent America?

Can you maybe tell us all which Mayflower immigrants worked with Franklin and Jefferson and Paine etc... in the founding of America?

2001MustangGT · Mar 14, 2005

jsn112 said:
Probably true, but homosexuals just add more to the list. Besides, you don't have a statistic either because marriage among homosexual is a recent event. No long term data is considered legit for now. However, it is true that homosexuals have higher degree of having sexual relationship outside of their personal relationships.

So, in essence, you are saying that we should single out homosexuals and discriminate against them just because they cheat and spread disease among themselves. Is this correct?

Can you show me any evidence that supports your as-yet-unsupported assertion that marriage increases STD and HIV and cheating rates?

knuckle50 · Mar 14, 2005

Arguing is fun, but I think we know who any undecided observer would have decided in favor of by now...

You've just taking your arguments and trying to work backwards from your pre-existing beliefs, without even questioning the bigotry inherent in them.

jsn112 · Mar 14, 2005

2001MustangGT said:
Can you point out to me where the Mayflower is in the Constitution? Can you show me examples of the founding fathers referencing the Mayflower in their ideas for an independent America?

Can you maybe tell us all which Mayflower immigrants worked with Franklin and Jefferson and Paine etc... in the founding of America?

Oh great. So now you're spinning...big time. Prove to me that Franklin and Jefferson preceded the Mayflower. Perhaps then I will consider them the "founding fathers." American history didn't start with Franklin and Jefferson.

ZACTAK · Mar 14, 2005

Susan said:
"Sanctity means sacred" is a circular definition that does not give any explanation for itself. You need to explain the reasons for this "sanctity" to make an actual definition.

For example, are heterosexual couples somehow "sacred" because they can bear children? Are heterosexual couples more "sacred" because they are capable of two sex acts that a male/male couple can't do and one that a female/female couple can't do? Give us actual things that define "sanctity" rather than a circular argument that makes little sense to someone who has no reason to agree with it.

Also, no one has ever answered this: how does Bob and Joe or Jane and Ann next door getting married hurt your marriage? How does it endanger anything but your personal "squick factor" if both of you are straight? If one of you isn't, what says he or she will leave you to go have with the neighbors unless there's already something fatally flawed in your marriage?

Also, the definition of marriage used to say that a wife was the property of her husband, basically a chattel slave. That definition has changed over the years, as has the definition of marriage being between only people of the same race. Both of these changes were ferociously argued against with the same argument you see now: fear and paranoid ramblings about "they're going to destroy our marriage."

There is only one person who can save or destroy your marriage. Go in the mirror and take a long look at him or her, then go show your significant other just how much you love him or her. That will do a lot more for preserving your marriage than worrying that someone else is going to destroy it

Marriage, the act of marrying is sacred. Throughout the history of the United States marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. Marriage = man +woman. Let Sacred = Marriage, Sacred = man + woman. By allowing homosexuals to marry will take away from the sacredness of marriage, ie. the sanctity of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman is sacred because that is how it is done historically. Now someone is going to bring in the interracial comment... so I will repeat myself marriage is sacred between a man and a woman.

Being a President is a sacred thing. Only a select number of individuals get to be president. If 10 people were allowed to be president at a time, the meaning of George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Jefferson, Bush, Reagan, etc. would be significantly less because the job would be less sacred. Applying this to marriage, if more and more people are allowed to get married then the sacredness of marriage is reduced. And so I believe we must keep it within a man and woman to keep it sacred....sanctified.

This is how it will affect my marriage in the future.

jsn112 · Mar 14, 2005

2001MustangGT said:
So, in essence, you are saying that we should single out homosexuals and discriminate against them just because they cheat and spread disease among themselves. Is this correct?

Can you show me any evidence that supports your as-yet-unsupported assertion that marriage increases STD and HIV and cheating rates?

I didn't make diseases as my basis for against gay marriage. I was responding. If you must know, my basis for against gay marriage because it is not morally right in God's eye.

knuckle50 · Mar 14, 2005

jsn112 said:
Oh great. So now you're spinning...big time. Prove to me that Franklin and Jefferson preceded the Mayflower. Perhaps then I will consider them the "founding fathers." American history didn't start with Franklin and Jefferson.

Likewise, you can't take anything in American history and say it's more relevant than the Constitution or Founding Fathers.

The Pilgrims came over on the Mayflower to flee from religious persecution so they could have freedom to practice their religion. Or are you talking about a different Mayflower (one that's not completely contradictory to your entire argument)?

2001MustangGT · Mar 14, 2005

jsn112 said:
Oh great. So now you're spinning...big time. Prove to me that Franklin and Jefferson preceded the Mayflower. Perhaps then I will consider them the "founding fathers." American history didn't start with Franklin and Jefferson.

Yes it did. "America" didnt exist until the Decleration of Independence, in case you werent aware.

Australia wasnt a seperate nation on its own the moment Britain dropped prisoners on its shores. It had to obtain independence. Same with America.

FYI "America" used to be a collection of colonies owned primarily by Britain.

When the mayflower was around, there was no Decleration of Independence, which means that America was not a seperate nation, which means that the laws we are governed by in Amerca today, including the constitution and bill of rights, did not exist.

I cant believe I have to tell you this stuff. Colonists landing on foreign shores does not a nation make. America started with the revolutionary war and the constitution and the decleration of course. Which was long after the Mayflower thing.

Anyway, thats too much of a derail as it is...

Ginny · Mar 14, 2005

...one day everyone on this earth will kneel before the Almighty God that gave breath to their lungs...The One that gave us a choice to accept that violent death of being nailed to a cross for the remission of their sins...as disgusting and vile as they all are.

Thank you Jesus Christ for all you have done for me. Thank you for loving me and giving me the opportunity to choose between you and an eternal hell.

Heaven is as real as hell is and I am eternally grateful for my salvation through you. I pray each person turns from their ice cold hearts and wakes up to the reality that this barren country has turned away from you and your teachings. May you have patience with those that do not give You the time of day. May we turn back to the foundations that this country was founded upon.

I thank you for a Christian forum in which people who do not give you the time of day still come to a place to chat with the word Christian in the name of the forum....as atheist and agnostic as they may be.

Lord, this will be a place where people who do not know you will be given several opportunities to hear Your name whether they like it or not...so that one day they cannot say they were never told...that day that they stand before you called The Judgement to testify if they had a relationship with you...or not.

Just thank you, Jesus....thank you.

ZACTAK · Mar 14, 2005

knuckle50 said:
Arguing is fun, but I think we know who any undecided observer would have decided in favor of by now...

You've just taking your arguments and trying to work backwards from your pre-existing beliefs, without even questioning the bigotry inherent in them.

I don't think you can accurately make that statement.... And just because a person has different beliefs then yours does not mean it is bigotry.. saying because our views are different from yours is bigotry is actually the act of bigotry.

jsn112 · Mar 14, 2005

knuckle50 said:
Likewise, you can't take anything in American history and say it's more relevant than the Constitution or Founding Fathers.

The Pilgrims came over on the Mayflower to flee from religious persecution so they could have freedom to practice their religion. Or are you talking about a different Mayflower (one that's not completely contradictory to your entire argument)?

Tell me what is "their" religion that they are practicing?

Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

FORD lover

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

退屈させた1 つ (bored one)

Contributor

FORD lover

Active Member

Senior Veteran

FORD lover

FORD lover

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Active Member

FORD lover

I like to whisper, too!

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Similar threads