Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

If you ban Rogan Josh, then I ask for the same ban. Same length same reason. For I believe what he does, and share his same concerns about a double standard.

[chequita guevara]

RJ would be banned for being insulting and rude, not for his views. Whatever I may think of your views, Ben, insulting and rude is not it.

[Arrian]

Missed the beginning of this thread.

I voted "in USA, full gay marriage rights."

However, the more I think about it, the more I think that the State (US Government) should call all unions (gay, hetero, whatever) "civil unions" with respect to its laws, and leave the "marriage" bit to religion. Thus, I would not get married to my girlfriend, but rather enter into a civil union. I don't really give a flying **** what it's called, and honestly I'd rather it doesn't have any religious mumbo-jumbo attached.

Then there is the issue of special rights/privileges attached to marriage or civil unions under the laws of the US of A. I agree with those who say that, if the purported reason for such benifits is childrearing, then attach it to having kids (birth or adoption. Frankly, more for adoption - that should be encouraged, don't you think?) not marriage/union.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

I agree with Arrian.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I mean what I said earlier - I don't agree with gay marriage simply on the grounds of the wording. By allowing gay 'marriage' you cause the word 'marriage' to be associated with an activity that many married people find offensive, immoral and disgusting.
I don't think that is right.

I'm pretty sure that there are many straight married couples that commit what would be considered immoral, disgusting or offensive sexual acts. e.g Swingers, masochists and not to mention those that partake of the abominable 'backdoor activity' etc. Does that change your opinion of marriage or of its sanctity?

[Caligastia]

I read this interesting article today:

The problem with the gay marriage issue
Thomas Sowell


March 2, 2004


The problem with the "gay marriage" issue is that the more fundamental issue is not gay marriage. The real issue is who should decide such issues -- that is, what kind of country and what kind of government do we have or want to have?

What does democracy mean if any headstrong minority can violate the laws passed by a majority and enshrined in centuries of legal precedents?

Some headstrong minorities have taken to the streets and some have violated the rule of law in the very courts of law, while wearing their judicial robes. In San Francisco, a mayor is openly defying state law, and both the judges and the state attorney general are too scared to do anything, for fear of angering homosexual voters.

Even those who incessantly repeat the mantra of "diversity" do not follow up the logical implications of that diversity. A diverse society can degenerate into a fragmented society and an internally warring society unless the various groups and interests agree to respect some over-arching principles and authority.

The history of the human race around the world shows how hard it is to create and maintain a national unity when different segments of the society think that what they want over-rides what everyone else wants and justifies violating the very accord that makes a society possible.

Race riots, military coups, anarchy and civil wars have erupted again and again, for centuries on end and in countries around the world, because some group decided that what it wanted was all that mattered. It has happened from the Balkans to Sri Lanka, Nigeria, Rwanda and a seemingly endless list of others.

History has told us repeatedly what is at the end of that road -- and we don't need to go there.

Gay marriage is an issue solely because a few headstrong judges in Massachusetts and an opportunistic mayor in San Francisco decided that they were above the law. Even in two ultra-liberal states like California and Massachusetts, the voters do not want gay marriage.

To those for whom their own goals over-ride everything else, this just means that the voters and the law must be disregarded. But if those on the left feel free to violate the law, why not those on the right? And where does that lead?

After years of tolerating lawlessness and violence by liberal and radical groups, especially since the 1960s, some were shocked when someone on the other end of the spectrum bombed a building in Oklahoma City.

Some blamed it on conservative talk radio -- which neither advocated nor condoned such acts -- while remaining utterly silent about the liberal media's sympathetic treatment of lawlessness and violence by those espousing the causes of the left. The New York Times, for example, ran a sympathetic account of one of the radical domestic bombers of the past on the very day when a more horrendous act of violence occurred -- September 11, 2001.

Gay marriage is not a local issue but a national issue because maintaining the rule of law -- or what is left of it -- is a national issue of historic importance if we are not to see America degenerate into the world's largest banana republic, or worse.

The time is long overdue to start impeaching judges who think their job is to veto laws they don't like or condone lawlessness that they agree with. The time is also long overdue to re-examine lifetime appointments of judges, which allows them to act like little tin gods, at the expense of our freedom and the country's elected government.

An independent judiciary does not mean judges independent of the Constitution from which they derive their power or independent of the laws that they are sworn to uphold.

When voters go to the polls this November, they need to consider not only what particular candidates will do in office but, at the federal level especially, what kinds of judges those candidates will appoint or confirm. There is no point complaining about judges -- or about taxes or any other laws or policies -- if you go into that voting booth on election day and vote on the basis of how candidates look or talk.

[chequita guevara]

Lousy article. Not well thought out at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whatever I may think of your views, Ben, insulting and rude is not it.

Thank you, but I do believe Rogan has merit in his complaints, hence I ask for a ban if he is banned.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Thank you, but I do believe Rogan has merit in his complaints, hence I ask for a ban if he is banned.

The issue isn't about your opinion... it's how it's expressed.
You try to be polite... He's just being offensive. If you want to be banned, you can just stop posting.

I will repeat this one more time. Post about the topic. not the people...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Lousy article. Not well thought out at all.

Care to elaborate?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Arrian
However, the more I think about it, the more I think that the State (US Government) should call all unions (gay, hetero, whatever) "civil unions" with respect to its laws, and leave the "marriage" bit to religion. Thus, I would not get married to my girlfriend, but rather enter into a civil union. I don't really give a flying **** what it's called, and honestly I'd rather it doesn't have any religious mumbo-jumbo attached.

I agree - that is exactly my view.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ming
He's just being offensive.

You are calling me 'offensive' for disagreeing with your point of view? Unbelievable! Which part of my above post was in any way offensive?

I stand by it 100% so ban me if you like.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


You are calling me 'offensive' for disagreeing with your point of view? Unbelievable! Which part of my above post was in any way offensive?

I stand by it 100% so ban me if you like.

RJ, calling a gay person a butt****** is, I'm sure, as offensive as calling you or any other heterosexual simply a ****er. It could be considered an apt description but its still offensive.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
You are calling me 'offensive' for disagreeing with your point of view? Unbelievable! Which part of my above post was in any way offensive?

I stand by it 100% so ban me if you like.

No... nothing to do with "disagreeing with your point of view... It has everything to do with your "Why don't you butt****ers go find your own word for your "unions" and leave ours alone." comment. That is simply offensive. I've received MANY complaints already, and not just from gay members.

If you post crap like that again, I will ban you.

[Rogan Josh]

Good grief, that was ages ago. I thought you were complaining about my post now 3 above.

But fair enough, maybe that was a tad too vicifourous. Just so I don't offend poor wee Ming's sensibilities, I have edited it to something a little less contentious.