California Proposition 8

[Fallschirmjager]

The fact is that states decide who can get married within their state. It doesn't matter if you or I like it or not, until a state changes it's laws, it is what it is, and in this case, the majority of voters in California have decided that they do not wish to extend marriage to homos.

 

[fj1200]

The fact is that states decide who can get married within their state. It doesn't matter if you or I like it or not, until a state changes it's laws, it is what it is, and in this case, the majority of voters in California have decided that they do not wish to extend marriage to homos.

This is far to concise and clear-minded for your average hetrophobe to grasp. Anyway THEY don't really give a damn about the LEGAL status of those that choose to engage in unnatural sex acts, what they care about is deluding the public into accepting their deviant behavior as "normal". THAT is what ALL this crap is about really.

As for the idiotic "consenting adults" argument. Social mores are established to protect children in many cases and if society condones homosexual deviance, children can be tricked when most vulnerable to engage in acts that they will regret sooner or later. We MUST protect the children.

 

[Sihouette]

Well...that's not quite how it works.

Gays will challenge the newly voted-in law as "unconsitutional". Or whatever angle they think they can wiggle on.

That's why I started this thread incidentally. Kind of a mock court room setting to try the two sides of the argument pro and con.

I'm still waiting for TopGun, Mare, dawk or any of that side of the argument to weigh in and tell me exactly why we should permit rights to marry between any two adults and not also permit rights to marry between more than two adults...

Which of course will be the next bit of legislation put to the test with respect to marriage. Residents of Utah must be quite excited about the gay legislation on at least one aspect: the precident set for other than two hetero people for marriage.

So I'll await Topgun's reply as to why more than two adults may not marry. Unless Topgun feels that more than two should be able to marry.

I can see that fj1 and I are basically on the same page. As to the label of "heterophobes"... I recently read somewhere that a gay bar was moving to ban hetero females from patronage there because they were afraid that they would "agitate" their current customers. One wonders if really it wasn't a move by fearful gays that some of the precious ranks of their Twinks might defect back to hetero and no longer be availible to harvest for gay encounters?

Gotta wonder why gays would want to ban hetero women from their bars...as if they posed some sort of threat to "gay since birth" homosexuals...?

 

[Fallschirmjager]

Personally I don't give a rip one way or the other if homo's are allowed to marry or not. In fact, I really don't give a rip one way or the other if polygamists are allowed to marry as many people as they want to, or if the FLDS down in Texas want to allow their daughters to get married at 13, what it all boils down to is that the states make that decision, hopefully based upon the will of the people, and what the people decide is it, whether anyone likes it or not. If the homo's in California don't like the laws there, they can move to Mass. and get married.

What does bother me is when the courts get involved and invalidate the will of the people based on legal maneuvering instead of the Constitution, because that has been the biggest problem this country has faced.

 

[Pandora]

The fact is that states decide who can get married within their state. It doesn't matter if you or I like it or not, until a state changes it's laws, it is what it is, and in this case, the majority of voters in California have decided that they do not wish to extend marriage to homos.

I am all for states rights when it can work, but it Can Not work in marriage. People get married and move around from state to state. It would not work to say you are married as long as you live in MASS. but the moment you move to Vermont (why would anyone want to live in Vermont?) anyways once you get there you are no longer married because their laws are differnt from Calif.

States right work in a whole lot of things but it would not work for homosexual marriage or polygamy.

 

[Pandora]

Personally I don't give a rip one way or the other if homo's are allowed to marry or not. In fact, I really don't give a rip one way or the other if polygamists are allowed to marry as many people as they want to, or if the FLDS down in Texas want to allow their daughters to get married at 13, what it all boils down to is that the states make that decision, hopefully based upon the will of the people, and what the people decide is it, whether anyone likes it or not. If the homo's in California don't like the laws there, they can move to Mass. and get married.

What does bother me is when the courts get involved and invalidate the will of the people based on legal maneuvering instead of the Constitution, because that has been the biggest problem this country has faced.

I would be up for a nation wide vote, just like we do for president.

 

[Fallschirmjager]

I would be up for a nation wide vote, just like we do for president.

Why? Would you care to point out to me exactly where in the constitution it gives the federal government the right to regulate marriage? I've read it, and I can't seem to find that provision anywhere!

 

[Pandora]

Why? Would you care to point out to me exactly where in the constitution it gives the federal government the right to regulate marriage? I've read it, and I can't seem to find that provision anywhere!

When I say I would be up for a nation wide vote its not because that would be my first choice, its just a choice that is actually possible or doable.


In reality the government has no rights at all to regulate marriage. Before the IRS when people got married they did not ask the government to validate their relationship. They went to their pastor or priest with their parents and had a ceremony, and it was all documented in their bibles. and one of each party's parent signed as a witness.

The way government has gotten a stranglehold on the situation was by implementing the IRS and using the IRS to give breaks or credits for married people and head of household exc.

I would rather the government has zero to do with marriage and I would rather that people can not get tax breaks for being married. I would rather IRS was abolished and we all paid one consumption tax and had zero other taxes and fees.

But none of what I would rather is actually possible. I will die under the IRS and the government will never ever ever give back our rights, they never give back something they have taken, unless of course we over throw the government. And I would be up to that if a movement ever came about

 

[Segep]

OK.

But you're saying that only two people can enter into a marriage. Why only two? If more than two are "in love" why can't they bond in marriage?

I await your answer.

To get down to brass tacks, there is no reason why they shouldn't. However, we are talking about consenting adult human f@#!ing beings here, not typewriters, toasters or tadpoles.

Your continued attempts to equate or correlate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality show a willful lack of understanding at best, and intentional hate mongering and fear tactics at worst. You are not interested in debate or discussion. All you are interested in is portraying an entire segment of your fellow human beings as somehow subhuman. It's a tried and true tactic for anyone struggling to eradicate an entire minority group.

 

[Segep]

I would be up for a nation wide vote, just like we do for president.

Fortunately, that wasn't how Lincoln handled the emancipation proclamation.

 

[Fallschirmjager]

When I say I would be up for a nation wide vote its not because that would be my first choice, its just a choice that is actually possible or doable.

Doing so would first require a constitutional convention, and the passage of an Amendment to the bill of rights.

In reality the government has no rights at all to regulate marriage. Before the IRS when people got married they did not ask the government to validate their relationship. They went to their pastor or priest with their parents and had a ceremony, and it was all documented in their bibles. and one of each party's parent signed as a witness.

Not entirely accurate. Since marriage is a contract, as such the government does have the right to regulate it. Also, marriage licenses have been required in America for a long time before the IRS. For instance, in Manatee County Florida, they have marriage licenses dating back to the mid 1800's. King County Washington has required marriage licenses since 1866, again, long before the IRS. In Virginia, marriage "bonds" and licenses go back to before the Revolutionary War, and the same applied to all of the original 13 colonies.

The way government has gotten a stranglehold on the situation was by implementing the IRS and using the IRS to give breaks or credits for married people and head of household exc.

I would rather the government has zero to do with marriage and I would rather that people can not get tax breaks for being married. I would rather IRS was abolished and we all paid one consumption tax and had zero other taxes and fees.

But none of what I would rather is actually possible. I will die under the IRS and the government will never ever ever give back our rights, they never give back something they have taken, unless of course we over throw the government. And I would be up to that if a movement ever came about

Again, I fear you are operating under an inaccurate concept of the purpose of the marriage license. It is not, contrary to popular myth, "permission" from the government to get married, it is actually an acknowledgment of a legally binding contract under which the rights of both parties, and their descendent's, are to be guaranteed certain legal protections, and as such is a necessary function of the State government.

As far as the tax code is concerned, you'll have to ask a tax attorney, as that is outside my area of expertise.

 

[Fallschirmjager]

I am all for states rights when it can work, but it Can Not work in marriage. People get married and move around from state to state. It would not work to say you are married as long as you live in MASS. but the moment you move to Vermont (why would anyone want to live in Vermont?) anyways once you get there you are no longer married because their laws are differnt from Calif.

States right work in a whole lot of things but it would not work for homosexual marriage or polygamy.

Why not, it has worked for as long as we have existed as a nation. I myself was married in another State, but my current State fully recognizes our marriage, why should it be any different for anyone else? Any state that refuses to acknowledge a legally binding marriage contract from another state is in clear violation of the "equal protection clause" of the Constitution, and would be found guilty of such in any court in America.

 

[fj1200]

Fortunately, that wasn't how Lincoln handled the emancipation proclamation.

Really? How DID he handle the emacipation proclamation? Why did he wait sooooo long into the war before the proclamation? Why not kick the war off with the proclamation if he was so outraged with slavery? Why did Lincoln write, "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union"

 

[Fallschirmjager]

To get down to brass tacks, there is no reason why they shouldn't. However, we are talking about consenting adult human f@#!ing beings here, not typewriters, toasters or tadpoles.

Your continued attempts to equate or correlate homosexuality with pedophilia and bestiality show a willful lack of understanding at best, and intentional hate mongering and fear tactics at worst. You are not interested in debate or discussion. All you are interested in is portraying an entire segment of your fellow human beings as somehow subhuman. It's a tried and true tactic for anyone struggling to eradicate an entire minority group.

Segep, why the hostility? Why do so many proponents of homosexual marriage constantly resort to claims of "homophobia", and slanders of "hate mongering" and "fear tactics" when the truth of the matter is that most people simply find it to be repugnant. There's no "fear" to it, there's no "hate" to it either, it's simply distasteful for them, and as such they eschew it. As far as "understanding" is concerned, that's a load of horse-hockey too. Are you interested in "understanding" Muslims habit of killing victims of rape while allowing the rapist to go free, or do you simply find the practice repugnant, and leave it at that? To you, the narcissistic practice of homosexuality may be just as "normal" as it is for them to blame the victim, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world shares your view, or has any reason to want to "understand" it either.

Also, the tired old canard of "trying to eradicate an entire minority group" doesn't wash either. Now, if we were in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or any of the other countries in the Muslim world, you might have a point, but here in the US, your assertions are pure tripe and clap-trap. You know Iran doesn't have a homosexual "problem", because they KILL them, on sight, and generally without a trial. When was the last time that happened here? So please, do us all a favor, and if you want to advocate for your position, do so without all of the typical feminine hysterics, all it does is bore the hell out of everyone.

 

[Fallschirmjager]

Fortunately, that wasn't how Lincoln handled the emancipation proclamation.

Are you operating under the misconception that the Emancipation Proclamation freed anyone? Let me help you out there, it did not. At most it gave legitimacy to the slaves in the northern controlled parts of the Confederacy where the Union Commanders had already freed the slaves. It did not address those Negroes (to use the vernacular of the period) that were still living in slavery in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Delaware, or in any of the states of the Confederacy that were still under Confederate control. The fact of the matter is that slavery was still perfectly legal in America right up until the 13th Amendment was ratified, and it was that, and not some silly proclamation that freed them.