Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gay Marriages: San Francisco California Superior Court Ruling

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    we can all agree that forbidding inter-racial marriage was stupid and rasict then why cant we do the same about forbidding gay marriage


    We are... inter-racial groups, homosexual groups, and polygamist groups are all correct in wanting to change the law. Simply because they are seperate groups doesn't mean they are not fighting for similar ends (and should be fighting for those ends).

    but the shutting the door behind gay marriage is a stupid agrument...gay marriage has been legal in many other era`s...way before christianity...we all think marriage is a christian invention....WRONG...


    So has Polygamy. In fact, I'd say polygamy has been much more widespread than homosexual marriage in history.
    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

    Comment


    • #77
      Perhaps one of the reasons people have a different response to polygamy is the association with child abuse that it has acquired.

      This argument won't go anywhere because all of this depends on what you define as marriage. In the end it will be what people think 20 years from now that decides this issue, and I don't think court rulings at this point will have much effect on what the issue in the long run. The definition of marriage (two adults, or a man and a woman, or multiple people of any gender) isn't any more concrete than the opinions of the majority, and is subject to change as people continue to die and raise hippie children.
      Lime roots and treachery!
      "Eventually you're left with a bunch of unmemorable posters like Cyclotron, pretending that they actually know anything about who they're debating pointless crap with." - Drake Tungsten

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Odin


        You conveniently leave out that Jesus told a rich guy that if he want's to go to heaven he must give away all his earthly belongings, or when he said that the meek will inheret the Earth. Good Christians, like my family (who would be categorized as religious progressives) would be FOR wealth redistrobution. My family would call you a sinner for your support of greed.
        Giving away wealth is one thing. Taking it away is quite another. That is theft, which violates yet another commandment.

        No, you socialists believe that wealth per se is "cruel." Al Gore used and still uses this phase constantly. Their is no ambiguity that the goal of socialism is to eliminate the wealthy -- as fast as possible. Why, when you get into total power, we begin to see long lines of the wealthy waiting their turn at the guillotine.

        The desire of the wealthy to keep what they have is not greed. The desire of the socialists to steal it from them though is.
        http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

        Comment


        • #79
          [QUOTE] Originally posted by Ned

          The desire of the wealthy to keep what they have is not greed. [QUOTE]

          The hell if it isn't

          Comment


          • #80
            Now that's the Ned we know and love.
            Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

            Comment


            • #81
              No they won't, because those on the side of freedom will eventually prevail.


              Not if people like you keep voting for the other side.
              Only feebs vote.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by chegitz guevara
                Now that's the Ned we know and love.
                Thanks Che.

                On the polygamy issue, I dare say that it can still be outlawed under the rational of the court because the marriage of a spouse to a third person violates the essential "exclusivity" of the first marriage contract.

                But, of course, this is unimportant in Islamic societies where women do not seem to have the same rights as men. There, men seem to have exclusive rights in their wives, but not the other way around.
                http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Darkstar
                  Giancarlo, is English your native language? I ask seriously. Please, re-read your posts. You state you are against Polys (quoting you)"because I am gay". If that isn't what you meant to post, you should clarify that. You are the one that is apparently having trouble reading. And perhaps posting. Is that a mistype on your part? An editting error?
                  I thought you were referring to why I was in favor of gay marriage. Obviously it was a communication error on your part. I do not have against polygamists (don't use polys because that sounds like you are refering to posters here lol). I'm not a bigot. So stop accusing me of such. In this thread we are talking about gay marriage, not polygamy.

                  You also jumped subjects. You stated clearly you were against polygamy, because you are gay. Not that you are against gay marriage. That, you state clearly that you are for. I presume that's (quoting you)"because I am gay".
                  I never said I was against polygamy. I said personally I don't care.. honestly, I don't care if someone has more then one wife or husband. But it is pretty mean to not be satisfied with one person. Now you are just being a jerk for making up my beliefs for me.

                  Perhaps you should calm down? Are you actually posting what you think you are posting? Is there a Giancarlo to English translator available, or is that a cypher that isn't made available until I make my 100K post?
                  YOu are the one who should lay off the ad hominems. Everything I have made here is in clear english (despite a few mistakes that any human can make). I think you should calm down and stop attacking people personally.

                  It's just not logically connected as it currently stands.
                  That's correct. Polygamy is not logically connected to gay marriage.
                  For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    On the polygamy issue, I dare say that it can still be outlawed under the rational of the court because the marriage of a spouse to a third person violates the essential "exclusivity" of the first marriage contract.


                    Actually, I bet that when polygamy is taken up by the court again, the Court will not be able to continue to say the state can make it illegal. Back in the 1870s, they used a 'rational basis' test for free exercise of religion. They don't use that test anymore for the free exercise clause.
                    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Ned
                      Giving away wealth is one thing. Taking it away is quite another. That is theft, which violates yet another commandment.
                      Taxes are not theft. Even the Bible says so. "Give unto Caesar"
                      No, you socialists believe that wealth per se is "cruel." Al Gore used and still uses this phase constantly. Their is no ambiguity that the goal of socialism is to eliminate the wealthy -- as fast as possible. Why, when you get into total power, we begin to see long lines of the wealthy waiting their turn at the guillotine.
                      you have it backwards, the goal of socialism is to eliminate the poor
                      The desire of the wealthy to keep what they have is not greed. The desire of the socialists to steal it from them though is.
                      this is what we call, "****ed reasoning"...
                      To us, it is the BEAST.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        "the goal of socialism is to eliminate the poor"

                        If I were you sava, I would change the wording cause that kinda sounds like you get rid of them by force.
                        For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Sava
                          this is what we call, "****ed reasoning"...
                          ____________________________
                          "One day if I do go to heaven, I'm going to do what every San Franciscan does who goes to heaven - I'll look around and say, 'It ain't bad, but it ain't San Francisco.'" - Herb Caen, 1996
                          "If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God." - Archbishop Desmond Tutu
                          ____________________________

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Giancarlo
                            If I were you sava, I would change the wording cause that kinda sounds like you get rid of them by force.
                            interpretation is in the eye of the beholder... it's not surprising you read it that way...
                            To us, it is the BEAST.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Sava
                              interpretation is in the eye of the beholder... it's not surprising you read it that way...
                              Well suit yourself.. just don't come back whining to me when people interpret it differently then what you intended.
                              For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Giancarlo


                                Well suit yourself.. just don't come back whining to me when people interpret it differently then what you intended.
                                I'm not responsible for other people's stupidity.
                                To us, it is the BEAST.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X