Abortion

[Mare Tranquillity]

My twisted hate? Are you in a bad mood today?

I dont care one way or the other what homosexuals do or dont do. That does not equal hate. Not caring and hating are very different things.

Yes, I guess I am. Your insistence that your greed for your grandmother's money is equivalent to love and committment between two people seems beneath you. You say that you don't care what gay people do but you continue to muddy the issue with complete irrelevancies just as Dr. Who does and many of the other gay-haters do. Why? You are putting in a lot of effort for no reason if you don't care if gay people marry.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes well MT sees any disagreement as hate. It is people like him that point out the need to prevent hate crime legislation that would so clearly be abused.

Why don't you give us some examples of the hate crime laws we now have that have been abused? You talk big, Who, but you're real short on specifics.

Denial of Constitutional rights, legal persecution and discrimination, and outright lies all feel like hatred when one has been the butt of them for centuries.

 

[Pandora]

Yes, I guess I am. Your insistence that your greed for your grandmother's money is equivalent to love and committment between two people seems beneath you. You say that you don't care what gay people do but you continue to muddy the issue with complete irrelevancies just as Dr. Who does and many of the other gay-haters do. Why? You are putting in a lot of effort for no reason if you don't care if gay people marry.

LOL not greed for my grandmothers money. I dont want to see her money got to death taxes and I dont want my money to go to death taxes, I want it to go to my children.

If its about love then commit to eachother, no need for government validation. Its when its about money you need government validation.

 

[Dr.Who]

Why don't you give us some examples of the hate crime laws we now have that have been abused? You talk big, Who, but you're real short on specifics.

All of them are violations of first amendment free speech laws. If a crime deserves 1 year in jail but saying a nasty word ups the ante to 5 years in jail then clearly the speech adds an additional four years.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/1080


"Incidents like the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, in which three students were falsely accused of hate crimes, showcase the dangerous rush to judgment found in these types of cases. The charges were brought by a prosecutor fighting for election and the students were crucified by the national media. In addition, federal prosecutors could charge those accused of hate crimes in a federal court even if they were found innocent in a state court, avoiding the ban on double jeopardy."
http://www.thelantern.com/opinion/hate-crime-legislation-unconstitutional-redundant-1.855495

This isn’t paranoia, as the pink guillotine has already used similar laws overseas to persecute people uttering unfashionable beliefs. For instance, Ake Green, a Swedish pastor imprisoned for preaching against homosexuality in a sermon. And then there was Bill Whatcott, a Christian who was fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for criticizing homosexuality, just to mention a couple of cases. (note: there was no other crime other than speech)
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/4812

Denial of Constitutional rights, legal persecution and discrimination, and outright lies all feel like hatred when one has been the butt of them for centuries.

Marriage laws are still on the books so I suppose the courts have held them to be constitutional and not discriminatory. And I did not know that you have been alive for centuries.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

All of them are violations of first amendment free speech laws. If a crime deserves 1 year in jail but saying a nasty word ups the ante to 5 years in jail then clearly the speech adds an additional four years.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/1080


"Incidents like the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case, in which three students were falsely accused of hate crimes, showcase the dangerous rush to judgment found in these types of cases. The charges were brought by a prosecutor fighting for election and the students were crucified by the national media. In addition, federal prosecutors could charge those accused of hate crimes in a federal court even if they were found innocent in a state court, avoiding the ban on double jeopardy."
http://www.thelantern.com/opinion/hate-crime-legislation-unconstitutional-redundant-1.855495

This isn’t paranoia, as the pink guillotine has already used similar laws overseas to persecute people uttering unfashionable beliefs. For instance, Ake Green, a Swedish pastor imprisoned for preaching against homosexuality in a sermon. And then there was Bill Whatcott, a Christian who was fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for criticizing homosexuality, just to mention a couple of cases. (note: there was no other crime other than speech)
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/4812




Marriage laws are still on the books so I suppose the courts have held them to be constitutional and not discriminatory. And I did not know that you have been alive for centuries.

Read the fine print on the Lakeman Award for Disingenuous Religious Posting.

 

[Dr.Who]

Read the fine print on the Lakeman Award for Disingenuous Religious Posting.

I think you would do better to lay aside whatever bitterness and anger you may have and just focus on the debate rather than continually calling people haters and liars.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think you would do better to lay aside whatever bitterness and anger you may have and just focus on the debate rather than continually calling people haters and liars.

When one lies and expresses hate, then a spade can be called a spade. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[top gun]

I am just saying we already have the same rights, what you are talking about is new and different than the current rights we currently have.

I would like to be able to marry my grandmother and not have to pay the death tax or/and marry my sister and get her on my insurance but I cant do either.

You know how I feel, I think marrage should be that anyone at any time can marry any one or any thing in groups or in singles for any reason and no special rights should be given to any person married.

Actually I think it would be cool if government validated marriages could cost 10 thousand dollars and give not one single extra right. Maybe if that happened people would stop wanting the government to validate their relationship.

But this is the abortion topic so Ill be quiet

But Pan they don't have the same rights.

In most places they can't get the legal protection of a marriage. That's a huge thing. It encompasses more things than I can probably even mention. And it's being done to two consenting adults that are hurting absolutely no one by wanting to be legally married.

It always kills me when people start jumping around to stupid stuff... what if I wanted to marry my grandma... what if I wanted to marry my Labrador Retriever... what if I wanted to marry my washing machine...

Those are clear signs that one really has no logical reason at all for objecting to gay people getting married.

And it is exactly as Mare said like the old laws prohibiting blacks for marrying Whites. It hurt no one. Both people on the union were doing so willingly as adults.

It was strictly an arbitrary rule set up by the religious community to unfairly try and govern individuals personal behavior as they saw fit even though the act itself was totally harmless.

Now look how far we've come. Gay people want nothing more... they just want the same.

Live & let live...

 

[palerider]

Actually, we're asking for the SAME right as you already have: you are allowed to marry a person based on YOUR sexual orientation, why shouldn't we have that same right?

No. Sorry, you aren't. Maybe in bizarro world where having the same rights actually means having special rights, but not here. You are asking for special rights that none of us presently have based on nothing more than your sexual orientation. That is the fact of it. Twist it how you will, but that is the fact.

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually, we're asking for the SAME right as you already have: you are allowed to marry a person based on YOUR sexual orientation, why shouldn't we have that same right?

Marriage laws are based on the potential for procreation not based on either heterosexual or homosexual or any other orientation. The state could care less if a man is sexually attracted to his wife as long as he consummates the marriage.

The potential for procreation results in a need to protect the rights of dependent spouses and children that have been produced. Marriage that cannot produce children, which is different than adopting them and different than making them with the help of a third person and a clinic, do not need any laws to protect the rights of a dependent spouse of produced children.

 

[Dr.Who]

When one lies and expresses hate, then a spade can be called a spade. Thanks, but no thanks.

Some people will agree with you that some of us are characterized by lying and hate and others will not. You will strengthen you cause with those who agree with you and you will weaken your cause with those who do not.

I am willing to bet that the number of people who agree with you belong to a small and slightly delusional group while the number of people who do not agree with you are a large majority. So keep saying that some of us are liars and a haters. In fact the more people you can say it about the better.

 

[Dr.Who]

In most places they can't get the legal protection of a marriage. That's a huge thing.

Why does a couple that cannot produce children need any legal protections for those children? Why does a couple that will not have a dependent spouse because of the produced children need legal protections from marriage?

Adoption is something that gay couples engage in. But so do grandmothers and aunts and uncles and other relatives and even strangers. I don't think any of those people should form couples and get married. When people adopt they should get rights associated with adoption not rights associated with marriage.

And for those who have children produced artificially: well they always use sperm from a man and an egg from a woman. Those two are the parents. Those others who raise the children have adopted the children not produced them.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No. Sorry, you aren't. Maybe in bizarro world where having the same rights actually means having special rights, but not here. You are asking for special rights that none of us presently have based on nothing more than your sexual orientation. That is the fact of it. Twist it how you will, but that is the fact.

Coins have two sides, you get to marry the person you are attracted to so gays should be allowed to marry the person they are attracted to--as long as all participants are consenting adults. That's the Constitution guarantee in the US: equal protection under the law.

 

[Dr.Who]

Coins have two sides, you get to marry the person you are attracted to so gays should be allowed to marry the person they are attracted to--as long as all participants are consenting adults. That's the Constitution guarantee in the US: equal protection under the law.

You also get to marry people you are not attracted to. Straight people may marry people they are not attracted to and so can gays. But by law one must engage in the sexual act to consummate the marriage; it is the sociological likelihood of procreation that the state is interested in.

 

[palerider]

Coins have two sides, you get to marry the person you are attracted to so gays should be allowed to marry the person they are attracted to--as long as all participants are consenting adults. That's the Constitution guarantee in the US: equal protection under the law.

Marriage is what it is. I have no objection to civil unions that carry the legal benefits and responsibilites of marriage, but two people of the same sex can not marry any more than a garbage truck can fly under its own power.