Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#352 Aug 06 2010 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
gbaji wrote:
Dyadem of Future Fabulous! wrote:
Lady Bardalicious wrote:
gbaji wrote:

Gay couples didn't want or care about marriage until they were told by their political leaders that it was important that they did. Talk about manipulation!


Oh, please point out when this happened on a timeline

Do it, I @#%^ing dare you.


Yes please. I would like to know the exact date and time that the government told me that I should fight for my rights. I was under the impression that the day I came out and told everyone I was gay, before any state had same sex marriage, and started fighting for gay rights... I had no clue that the government told me to do it.


Most states didn't have any actual codified prohibition against gay couples marrying until the 1980s. Did you know that? The first case in the US of a gay person *attempting* to get a marriage license was in 1970. The laws didn't expressly prohibit it, but everyone simply assumed that state defined marriage was specific to heterosexuals and almost no gay people ever tried to get married "legally" for most of US history.

It's only been in the last 30 years or so that it's become an issue. And even today, if you ask most gay people if *they* want or ever plan or even vaguely desire to get married, a vast majority of them will not only say "no", but "hell no". It's a fabricated issue. Always has been.

Sodomy Laws weren't repealed until the 1970's at the earliest. Some states still had them until 2003. It's kind of hard to ask for marriage equality when a part of what defines your relationship is illegal.

The gay community was a largely underground one prior to the 1980s because people had a tendency to hate us and judge us without knowing us. The 50's and 60's did a great job of branding us the "gay public menace"
#353 Aug 06 2010 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Woah! Love isn't the issue here. Why do you think I mentioned common law marriage laws earlier as well? Lots of people love eachother, live together, and share their lives together. But we only have ever in the history of the world passed laws mandating that if they do that for 5 years (or whatever) that they are legally considered bound by a state marriage contract, when the couple doing so consists of an adult male and an adult female.


Again, common-law marriages are not and have not ever been mandated by the government after a period of time. Go look up the requirements for a common-law marriage in any state that still supports them. Every single one of them requires the participants to hold themselves as married for it to be valid, a voluntary act.

Common-law marriages are simply a tool for two people who want to be married to be so without needing the involvement of legal documents or religious ceremonies, rather just requiring a verbal agreement.

Your arguments may actually start holding some weight if you knew what you were talking about.
#354 Aug 06 2010 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
But! Common law marriage made for a really funny episodes of Who's the Boss? when they tried to file taxes as single and got audited by the IRS, who assumed they were married after living together for 7 years.
#355Almalieque, Posted: Aug 06 2010 at 8:07 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's why Mdenham and I separated the question into two different questions to reduce confusion.
#356 Aug 06 2010 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The outcome of a child is not dependent on the parent combination, but there are inherent advantages for certain parent combinations.

Just like growing up poor instead of with money. You can grow up poor and be just fine, but there are inherent advantages of growing up with money. That doesn't mean the child will turn out a certain way in a certain scenario, but the advantages are still there. I just want you to admit to those advantages.
So now you're blatantly stating that same-sex couples are inferior, but dancing around the actual assertion of in what way you think they're inferior.
#357 Aug 06 2010 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
No, what he's saying is that we shouldn't let homos or poor people marry.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#358Almalieque, Posted: Aug 06 2010 at 8:23 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) No, I'm blatantly saying what I said. If you're too stupid to understand that concept, then that's a personal problem.
#359 Aug 06 2010 at 8:27 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Ash wrote:
So now you're blatantly stating that same-sex couples are inferior, but dancing around the actual assertion of in what way you think they're inferior.


No, I'm blatantly saying what I said. If you're too stupid to understand that concept, then that's a personal problem.
Ok, dance around this question then:

What, specifically, are the "advantages" of being raised in either a same sex or hetero household?

You can't say there are "obvious advantages" without naming them.
#360 Aug 06 2010 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
By the by, I'm wondering what Westboro Baptist is doing regarding this. I don't want to go to their site from my work computer though. Smiley: um
#361 Aug 06 2010 at 8:36 AM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
that they are legally considered bound by a state marriage contract,


You automatically loose every argument about this because you don't even understand that there IS NO SUCH THING as a "state marriage contract".

Seriously, you once argued that it was a large stack of papers people had to sign.
#362 Aug 06 2010 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
Kaelesh wrote:
gbaji wrote:
that they are legally considered bound by a state marriage contract,


You automatically loose every argument about this because you don't even understand that there IS NO SUCH THING as a "state marriage contract".

Seriously, you once argued that it was a large stack of papers people had to sign.

Like a mortgage, no?

"Do you, Judy, take John to be your lawfully wedded husband? If so, please sign here, and initial here, here and here."
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#363 Aug 06 2010 at 8:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Thanacus wrote:
Your arguments may actually start holding some weight if you knew what you were talking about.

You're in for a long road ahead.

Hey, 49k Ding.

Edited, Aug 6th 2010 9:41am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#364 Aug 06 2010 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
Demea wrote:
Like a mortgage, no?


He seriously argued that. It was hilarious.
#365 Aug 06 2010 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Ash wrote:
So now you're blatantly stating that same-sex couples are inferior, but dancing around the actual assertion of in what way you think they're inferior.


No, I'm blatantly saying what I said. If you're too stupid to understand that concept, then that's a personal problem.
Ok, dance around this question then:

What, specifically, are the "advantages" of being raised in either a same sex or hetero household?

You can't say there are "obvious advantages" without naming them.


To me, the only thing that really matters is that they love the child.

I do wonder, though, if it were a rich homosexual couple. Would the "advantage" of being rich cancel out the "disadvantage" of being *****?
#366 Aug 06 2010 at 8:52 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Assuming they're white, maybe.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#367REDACTED, Posted: Aug 06 2010 at 9:05 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) bsphil,
#368 Aug 06 2010 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
All we have to do to ruin religion is allow gays to marry? Centuries wasted.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#369 Aug 06 2010 at 9:13 AM Rating: Good
knoxxsouthy wrote:
So does this mean I can sue the govn under the equal protection clause because married couples receive benefits singles do not? That's the argument this judge is using to justify this political decision.


Of course you can. Why wouldn't you be able to? I don't know (or think) that you would win, but here in the good ol' US of A, you have the right to file any kind of lawsuit you see fit.

Quote:
Homosexual marriage will destroy the insitution of marriage and cheapen religion in the process. This is one of the primary reasons homosexuals are pushing this so vehemently. They know that it's just another avenue to attack people who disagree with their lifestyle choice.


Smiley: snore
#370 Aug 06 2010 at 9:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Homosexual marriage will destroy the insitution of marriage and cheapen religion in the process.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Edited, Aug 6th 2010 10:16am by AshOnMyTomatoes
#371 Aug 06 2010 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
****
8,187 posts
I enjoyed each one of those HA's Ash.
____________________________
Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
#372 Aug 06 2010 at 9:22 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
As for an actual reply:

knoxxsouthy wrote:
Homosexual marriage will destroy the insitution of marriage
How?
Quote:
and cheapen religion in the process.
How?
#373REDACTED, Posted: Aug 06 2010 at 9:48 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ash,
#374 Aug 06 2010 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Ash,

Why don't you look at the effects on marriage no-fault divorces had on the institution for an indication of the results homosexual marriage would have.

Why don't you answer the question directly, without having to refer to an entirely unrelated subject?
#375 Aug 06 2010 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Sage
Avatar
****
8,187 posts
I think I understand what your problem is:

Allowing gay marriage will:
-Increase the needs for wedding decorators
-Increase the revenue of caterers
-Produce such fabulous weddings that straight men will never be able to compete and women will never be satisfied with their dream wedding because "The gays did it better".

____________________________
Things I sometimes play...

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"
"I want to be a unicorn!"
"Awww, why's that?"........
"So I can stab people with my face."
#376 Aug 06 2010 at 10:01 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Homosexual marriage will destroy the insitution of marriage and cheapen religion in the process.
On the contrary, Christianity destroyed gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage again is only making up for the wrong that was done so long ago.
This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 195 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (195)