Gay rights

[cadet]

Alright, Gays seem to scream out in everything. The one thing that irks me is when they scream about "gay rights"

What rights do they NOT have? Somebody clarify that for me. I need opinions.

We're all people, we all got the freedom of speech, vote, etc. plus, everyone who ever lived can tell you that at some point in time, your gonna realize that we all have the right to be made fun of too.

So, what are the "rights" they don't have?
Cause I'm pretty sure they allow gay marriage in some churches. (which, is a religion issue, not political, why they complaining to Uncle Sam and not the catholic church?)

[fj1200]

There are threads about this you know.

However, marriage in this country is not just about what happens in a church.

[Noir]

For the most part gay rights in westernised society's are about the details now, things like being able to have a marriage which is identical to hetro marriages, and things like the repeal of DADT. All I think it will take now is time, a generation or two, and gay rights will be looked upon as black rights and womens rights, history.

[Gaffer]

For the most part gay rights in westernised society's are about the details now, things like being able to have a marriage which is identical to hetro marriages, and things like the repeal of DADT. All I think it will take now is time, a generation or two, and gay rights will be looked upon as black rights and womens rights, history.

So all we have to do is wait for them to procreate. Got it. A generation or two huh? :poke:

[Noir]

So all we have to do is wait for them to procreate. Got it. A generation or two huh? :poke:

Procreate? No, thats not how it works :laugh:

I simply mean that plenty of people around today will be homophobic. in the same way that past generations would of been more racist/sexist. But as we mature as a society we become ever less sexist, racist and (i predict) homophobic.

[ConHog]

Procreate? No, thats not how it works :laugh:

I simply mean that plenty of people around today will be homophobic. in the same way that past generations would of been more racist/sexist. But as we mature as a society we become ever less sexist, racist and (i predict) homophobic.

homophobic, islamaphobic.............


what the hell, i don't ANYONE who is afraid of the gay........ or Muslims in general for that matter.

Dumb words.

[bullypulpit]

Alright, Gays seem to scream out in everything. The one thing that irks me is when they scream about "gay rights"

What rights do they NOT have? Somebody clarify that for me. I need opinions.

We're all people, we all got the freedom of speech, vote, etc. plus, everyone who ever lived can tell you that at some point in time, your gonna realize that we all have the right to be made fun of too.

So, what are the "rights" they don't have?
Cause I'm pretty sure they allow gay marriage in some churches. (which, is a religion issue, not political, why they complaining to Uncle Sam and not the catholic church?)

Here's a list of rights denied same-gender couples, in addition to not being able to marry their partner:

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples (http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples)

[Gunny]

Gay rights

Again?:grenade:

[Gunny]

Here's a list of rights denied same-gender couples, in addition to not being able to marry their partner:

An Overview of Federal Rights and Protections Granted to Married Couples (http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples)

There is no legit list of Rights denied gays. All gays are being denied is a special law that caters solely to their aberrant lifestyle. While those of you on the left haven't gotten it into your thick skulls yet, the Constitution is for EVERYONE. NOT every aberrant minority that comes down the pike wishing to instill its tyranny over the majority.

[Jess]

Procreate? No, thats not how it works :laugh:

I simply mean that plenty of people around today will be homophobic. in the same way that past generations would of been more racist/sexist. But as we mature as a society we become ever less sexist, racist and (i predict) homophobic.

Let us know when that happens, ok? Because just looking around doesn't give me much hope for a mature society.

[Gunny]

Procreate? No, thats not how it works :laugh:

I simply mean that plenty of people around today will be homophobic. in the same way that past generations would of been more racist/sexist. But as we mature as a society we become ever less sexist, racist and (i predict) homophobic.

Blah, blah, blah. Thinking homosexual behavior is aberrant behavior is not homophobic. Just another rhetorical label from the leftwingnuts.

You need to wake up. "As a mature society"? You've "matured" yourself out of your balls, boy. While those that still have 'em are slowly whooping that "mature" ass.

Kind of sad unrealistic idealism is the rule of the day for the gutless who forgot where they came from. I just wish y'all find one place and light and quit screwing it up for the rest of us that still got a pair.

[bullypulpit]

There is no legit list of Rights denied gays. All gays are being denied is a special law that caters solely to their aberrant lifestyle. While those of you on the left haven't gotten it into your thick skulls yet, the Constitution is for EVERYONE. NOT every aberrant minority that comes down the pike wishing to instill its tyranny over the majority.

You said it yourself, Gunny "the Constitution is for EVERYONE". Once you start selectively denying any minority their rights for wholly specious and unfounded reasons, the Constitution is not worth the match it would take to burn it. And if you REALLY want to go down that road, the majority of Americans favor letting same-gender couples marry. Yer in the minority now Gunny. Feeling oppressed yet?

3199

Source: GALLUP Politics (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx)

[OCA]

You said it yourself, Gunny "the Constitution is for EVERYONE". Once you start selectively denying any minority their rights for wholly specious and unfounded reasons, the Constitution is not worth the match it would take to burn it. And if you REALLY want to go down that road, the majority of Americans favor letting same-gender couples marry. Yer in the minority now Gunny. Feeling oppressed yet?

3199

Source: GALLUP Politics (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx)

More proof of why I say America is just about at the bottom of the toilet.

[Gunny]

You said it yourself, Gunny "the Constitution is for EVERYONE". Once you start selectively denying any minority their rights for wholly specious and unfounded reasons, the Constitution is not worth the match it would take to burn it. And if you REALLY want to go down that road, the majority of Americans favor letting same-gender couples marry. Yer in the minority now Gunny. Feeling oppressed yet?

3199

Source: GALLUP Politics (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx)

Yep, I said it. And gays are not being denied ANY Constitutional Rights. End of story.

[OCA]

Yep, I said it. And gays are not being denied ANY Constitutional Rights. End of story.

True that Gunster, there is currently NO constitutional provisions being denied citizens who CHOOSE to engage in the homosexual lifestyle. Should we broaden the constitution to cover lifestyle choices?

[Gunny]

True that Gunster, there is currently NO constitutional provisions being denied citizens who CHOOSE to engage in the homosexual lifestyle. Should we broaden the constitution to cover lifestyle choices?

If we want to open Pandora's Box. Besides, since when did Obama need the Constitution to do anything? He can just declare it like he has everything else. I think he's trying to surpass even Abraham Lincoln in Constitutional violations.

The fact is, NO ONE has a Constutional right to marriage. As far as all the whining goes, being denied benefits by corporations/insurance companies and or other self-serving corporations is a separate issue. The left and homo-supporters just want to make everyone believe the term "marriage" will cover everything.

Too, the left cries about any and every mention of religion in government (which is not unconstitutional to begin with); yet, they want to force their secular bullshit on Christianity.

Want to let gays have civil unions? Go for it. Legally, that's ALL heterosexuals have. The law allows the church to perform the ceremonies because it's convenient for them. You STILL have to go down and pay for that state license before Father May I can marry you. If the JP had to do them all, he might miss that chicken fried steak dinner and tee-time.

[ConHog]

You said it yourself, Gunny "the Constitution is for EVERYONE". Once you start selectively denying any minority their rights for wholly specious and unfounded reasons, the Constitution is not worth the match it would take to burn it. And if you REALLY want to go down that road, the majority of Americans favor letting same-gender couples marry. Yer in the minority now Gunny. Feeling oppressed yet?

3199

Source: GALLUP Politics (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx)

Psst , in THIS country we don't let the majority dictate to the minority.



As for THIS issue. The answer is simple.

Do away with state sanctioned marriage. Let churches marry whomever they want. For government purposes any and ALL marriage licenses are equal under the law (remember the whole freedom of religeon thing) and then NO ONE would have any complaints.

For those of you who don't want to be married in a church, why get married then? Marriage is a religious institution, so shut up. But you can sign contracts to cover all situations that would normally be covered by marriage.

But of course that isn't good enough for SOME people on both sides who want either a complete win or nothing............

[fj1200]

Psst , in THIS country we don't let the majority dictate to the minority.

Pssst... elections.

[Sir Evil]

Psst.....discussing gay rights is gay.:gay:

[ConHog]

Pssst... elections.

Yeah and how does that let the majority rule over the minority? All that does is set up representation. Elections WOULD allow the majority to dictate to the minority if they were direct elections. Which is of course exactly why our founders set the government up the way they did with so many safety precautions in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

[fj1200]

Yeah and how does that let the majority rule over the minority? All that does is set up representation. Elections WOULD allow the majority to dictate to the minority if they were direct elections. Which is of course exactly why our founders set the government up the way they did with so many safety precautions in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

There are plenty of direct elections in this country; we have a new batch every two years around here and likely in your neck of the woods too. I might argue that direct elections are best for controversial issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. There are plenty of other checks that prevent the tyranny of the majority.

[ConHog]

There are plenty of direct elections in this country; we have a new batch every two years around here and likely in your neck of the woods too. I might argue that direct elections are best for controversial issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. There are plenty of other checks that prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Those aren't direct elections which allow the majority to do anything more than elect a representative who may or may not agree with the majority who even elected him on many issues, and even if they do it's unlikely a big enough majority could get together to elect enough like minded folks to push their agenda. Meaning the majority are prevented from ruling the minority.

I might argue that gay marriage and abortion are areas the government should stay out of to begin with.

[fj1200]

Those aren't direct elections which allow the majority to do anything more than elect a representative who may or may not agree with the majority who even elected him on many issues, and even if they do it's unlikely a big enough majority could get together to elect enough like minded folks to push their agenda. Meaning the majority are prevented from ruling the minority.

I might argue that gay marriage and abortion are areas the government should stay out of to begin with.

I agree with you on marriage, it's no place for government, not abortion however. There needs to be regulation with medical procedures.

Re: Direct Elections, does AR not have propositions, constitutional amendments, etc. on the ballot every two years like most other states? It seems that they do; 2010 for example (http://www.votenaturally.org/2010_ballot_issues.html). All they need to do is meet the minimum requirements to get on the ballot.

[ConHog]

I agree with you on marriage, it's no place for government, not abortion however. There needs to be regulation with medical procedures.

Re: Direct Elections, does AR not have propositions, constitutional amendments, etc. on the ballot every two years like most other states? It seems that they do; 2010 for example (http://www.votenaturally.org/2010_ballot_issues.html). All they need to do is meet the minimum requirements to get on the ballot.

Regulation? Sure, but the government shouldn't be deciding the morality of the issue. I mean I see them having a direct say in when life begins so that they can regulate when abortion becomes murder I suppose. But they should not be getting into the business of declaring that some women can get abortions and some can not. They should simply set a definitive point on when life begins as far as the government is concerned, and go on.

Sure we have propositions and constitutional amendments, but even with those they are reviewed by the Court here in Arkansas, just as every state, and the majority are not allowed to trample over the minority simply because they want to. I guess in the abstract if people collected enough votes they possibly could nullify the first amendment even, but we both know that isn' likely because our government contains to many safeguards, you wouldn't need just a majority , you would need an ultra super majority to do so, one that by our very diverse population isn't likely to EVER be had.

[cadet]

I agree with you on marriage, it's no place for government, not abortion however. There needs to be regulation with medical procedures.

Re: Direct Elections, does AR not have propositions, constitutional amendments, etc. on the ballot every two years like most other states? It seems that they do; 2010 for example (http://www.votenaturally.org/2010_ballot_issues.html). All they need to do is meet the minimum requirements to get on the ballot.

Gov't medical procedures my ass. Like Uncle Sam doesn't already have his fingers in everything, they already have "medical procedures" for abortion.
believe it or not, the vast majority (100%) of hospitals know what they're doing.

[fj1200]

Gov't medical procedures my ass. Like Uncle Sam doesn't already have his fingers in everything, they already have "medical procedures" for abortion.
believe it or not, the vast majority (100%) of hospitals know what they're doing.

You don't want regulations re: medical? Not exactly a "gay rights" topic so I didn't expand.


Regulation? Sure, but the government shouldn't be deciding the morality of the issue. I mean I see them having a direct say in when life begins so that they can regulate when abortion becomes murder I suppose. But they should not be getting into the business of declaring that some women can get abortions and some can not. They should simply set a definitive point on when life begins as far as the government is concerned, and go on.

That is dictating morality to some.


Sure we have propositions and constitutional amendments, but even with those they are reviewed by the Court here in Arkansas, just as every state, and the majority are not allowed to trample over the minority simply because they want to. I guess in the abstract if people collected enough votes they possibly could nullify the first amendment even, but we both know that isn' likely because our government contains to many safeguards, you wouldn't need just a majority , you would need an ultra super majority to do so, one that by our very diverse population isn't likely to EVER be had.

Thanks for agreeing that the majority "dictates," subject to the same safeguards employed against the legislature, for example, of course.

[Gunny]

Pssst... elections.

Legislating from the bench does an end around on true legislation. Pretending it doesn't is just more to the dishonest arguments of gays and their enablers. Same crowd tried to pretend there's no slippery slope either. Well, except for that one I've been watching this country go down for 50 years.

[ConHog]

You don't want regulations re: medical? Not exactly a "gay rights" topic so I didn't expand.

What you don't think that doctors would do the right thing medically every time anymore than businesses would do the right thing without SOME form of government regulations?

Me either

[Gunny]

I agree with you on marriage, it's no place for government, not abortion however. There needs to be regulation with medical procedures.

Re: Direct Elections, does AR not have propositions, constitutional amendments, etc. on the ballot every two years like most other states? It seems that they do; 2010 for example (http://www.votenaturally.org/2010_ballot_issues.html). All they need to do is meet the minimum requirements to get on the ballot.

Abortion is covered by the 10th Amendment and should be left up to the individual states. It is NOT covered by the Constitution. And EVERY F-ING TIME the left uses the judiciary to backdoor the Constitution. It's BS. Period. Marriage AND abortion are BOTH state issues.

[ConHog]

Abortion is covered by the 10th Amendment and should be left up to the individual states. It is NOT covered by the Constitution. And EVERY F-ING TIME the left uses the judiciary to backdoor the Constitution. It's BS. Period. Marriage AND abortion are BOTH state issues.

You're , I THINK, missing the point of both FJ and myself. For me anyway, I don't believe marriage and or abortion either one should the business of ANY government.

either abortion is murder or it isn't. IF it isn't , then no government has a role in it. As for marriage, the government has NO legitimate reason to be involved, no matter the level of government.

FJ , if I've misread you here, my apologies.

[Abbey Marie]

You're , I THINK, missing the point of both FJ and myself. For me anyway, I don't believe marriage and or abortion either one should the business of ANY government.

either abortion is murder or it isn't. IF it isn't , then no government has a role in it. As for marriage, the government has NO legitimate reason to be involved, no matter the level of government.

FJ , if I've misread you here, my apologies.

Funny that you would choose to remove the government from two such important areas of life. Because it seems to me that some level of government is involved in all sorts of issues in my life, from the biggest to the smallest. If the government can force me to have my "yard waste" hauled to a special facility, why can't they be involved in the basis of our society (marriage/family) and the murder of unborn children?

If gov't. shouldn't be involved in important and personal areas, then why have criminal laws and vaccinations, etc.? How about laws on alimony and child support? College degrees? Licenses to practice law? Why not let the individual decide if they are ready to work in a field?

[ConHog]

Funny that you would choose to remove the government from two such important areas of life. Because it seems to me that some level of government is involved in all sorts of issues in my life, from the biggest to the smallest. If the government can force me to have my "yard waste" hauled to a special facility, why can't they be involved in the basis of our society (marriage/family) and the murder of unborn children?

If gov't. shouldn't be involved in important and personal areas, then why have criminal laws and vaccinations, etc.? How about laws on alimony and child support? College degrees? Licenses to practice law? Why not let the individual decide if they are ready to work in a field?

Simple, because those other things you mention involve other people, while marriage and abortion only concern yourself and or another consenting adult. Except for if we determine a definitive date when a fetus is a human being and abortion moves to murder in which case the government definitely has a role to play in that.

[Abbey Marie]

Simple, because those other things you mention involve other people, while marriage and abortion only concern yourself and or another consenting adult. Except for if we determine a definitive date when a fetus is a human being and abortion moves to murder in which case the government definitely has a role to play in that.

Totally disagree that abortion involves only the mother. But even if you don't want to admit the fetus is a growing, living human, how about Daddy? Doesn't he count? and as for that fetus, how about the legal abortions that occur after viability? No role for the law there either?

As for marriage, it affects society in countless ways as well. And any kids that are born.

[ConHog]

Totally disagree that abortion involves only the mother. But even if you don't want to admit the fetus is a growing, living human, how about Daddy? Doesn't he count? and as for that fetus, how about the legal abortions that occur after viability? No role for the law there either?

As for marriage, it affects society in countless ways as well. And any kids that are born.

woah woah woah, I completely agree with on my personal feelings about abortion. I am anti abortion, but we're both coming at it from a religious perspective, and I won't push my religion on anyone else, b/c I don't want them doing so to me.

As for daddy, MOST of the time I think he's probably involved in the decision, and in the cases where he's not and it doesn't involve rape or other odd circumstances I think he should be. It frankly disgusts me that a woman can be in a position to have complete say so over whether a man becomes a father or not, but the guy just has to go along with it and hand over his wallet if asked.

As for the abortions that occur AFTER viability. I made it clear. Declare that murder and move on. Let's just pass a law. Ninety days after conception a fetus is considered a life, and doing away with said life is murder. Problem solved with no need to comment on abortion, correct?

[Gunny]

You're , I THINK, missing the point of both FJ and myself. For me anyway, I don't believe marriage and or abortion either one should the business of ANY government.

either abortion is murder or it isn't. IF it isn't , then no government has a role in it. As for marriage, the government has NO legitimate reason to be involved, no matter the level of government.

FJ , if I've misread you here, my apologies.

Dude, you need someone to say it is or isn't murder. Hence, government. So it has a role.

The reality of our 3 departments of government is the Supreme COurt trumps all. So there's no equality. The 10th is clear, and abortion is not covered by the Constitution. Same with marriage. The Sureme Court can declare anything it wants unConstitutional and tough shit. You'll never get the number of votes in Congress to censure the Supreme Court.

It's up to the voters in each state to decide whether or not abortion is legal. The left used the same tactics they have since President "Violate the Constutution" Lincoln was President. The "Union" won by force of arms and the Constitution has been used for toilet paper since.

[ConHog]

Dude, you need someone to say it is or isn't murder. Hence, government. So it has a role.

The reality of our 3 departments of government is the Supreme COurt trumps all. So there's no equality. The 10th is clear, and abortion is not covered by the Constitution. Same with marriage. The Sureme Court can declare anything it wants unConstitutional and tough shit. You'll never get the number of votes in Congress to censure the Supreme Court.

It's up to the voters in each state to decide whether or not abortion is legal. The left used the same tactics they have since President "Violate the Constutution" Lincoln was President. The "Union" won by force of arms and the Constitution has been used for toilet paper since.

True, but they are only defining what murder is, they aren't commenting on abortion at all. Nor should they. What is a fetus prior to becoming life? Not anything the state should be concerned with. You want them declaring that beating off is a waste of sperm so you can't do it?

[Gunny]

True, but they are only defining what murder is, they aren't commenting on abortion at all. Nor should they. What is a fetus prior to becoming life? Not anything the state should be concerned with. You want them declaring that beating off is a waste of sperm so you can't do it?

Incorrect. Roe v Wade does not define "murder". It instead gives women the right to commit murder by defining a woman's right to do as she pleases with her body and further defining an unborn human being by a scientific name.

[fj1200]

You're , I THINK, missing the point of both FJ and myself. For me anyway, I don't believe marriage and or abortion either one should the business of ANY government.

either abortion is murder or it isn't. IF it isn't , then no government has a role in it. As for marriage, the government has NO legitimate reason to be involved, no matter the level of government.

FJ , if I've misread you here, my apologies.

Mostly right. If it's decided, by society?, that a fetus is life then that determines their role; if it's decided that a fetus is property then that determines their role; if it's somewhere in between that determines their role. As for marriage it's nothing more than a contract, implied or written, that might get adjudicated by the courts if a breach occurs.


Funny that you would choose to remove the government from two such important areas of life. Because it seems to me that some level of government is involved in all sorts of issues in my life, from the biggest to the smallest. If the government can force me to have my "yard waste" hauled to a special facility, why can't they be involved in the basis of our society (marriage/family) and the murder of unborn children?

If gov't. shouldn't be involved in important and personal areas, then why have criminal laws and vaccinations, etc.? How about laws on alimony and child support? College degrees? Licenses to practice law? Why not let the individual decide if they are ready to work in a field?

That's the problem, they are involved from the biggest to the smallest. Why should your relationship be preferenced over someone else's relationship? Why should they be involved in the smallest issues of everyday life when they can't be trusted on the largest issues of everyday life? No one is saying that government won't be involved in criminal or contract issues but to justify it's intrusion into every aspect of life "just because" misses the point.

And why should we let the Bar decide who is a good lawyer? ;)


Totally disagree that abortion involves only the mother. But even if you don't want to admit the fetus is a growing, living human, how about Daddy? Doesn't he count? and as for that fetus, how about the legal abortions that occur after viability? No role for the law there either?

Probably not. He most likely contributed his property with no expectation of future return.


As for marriage, it affects society in countless ways as well. And any kids that are born.

Marriage is a requirement for kids? That's quite the outdated view. Gay couples are having kids at faster rates and are not allowed to marry, would you grant them marriage to meet the reality of their lives and society? I can't begin to count the lesbian couples in my neighborhood that have kids.

[ConHog]

Mostly right. If it's decided, by society?, that a fetus is life then that determines their role; if it's decided that a fetus is property then that determines their role; if it's somewhere in between that determines their role. As for marriage it's nothing more than a contract, implied or written, that might get adjudicated by the courts if a breach occurs.




I agree 100%

[LuvRPgrl]

For the most part gay rights in westernised society's are about the details now, things like being able to have a marriage which is identical to hetro marriages, and things like the repeal of DADT. All I think it will take now is time, a generation or two, and gay rights will be looked upon as black rights and womens rights, history.
They arent the same, so it wil never happen.

[LuvRPgrl]

Simple, because those other things you mention involve other people, while marriage and abortion only concern yourself and or another consenting adult. Except for if we determine a definitive date when a fetus is a human being and abortion moves to murder in which case the government definitely has a role to play in that.

If two consenting adullts would enter into a contract that would make one the master, and the other the slave, then only two consenting adults would be affected, yet the govt wont allow such a contract.





Marriage is a requirement for kids? That's quite the outdated view. Gay couples are having kids at faster rates and are not allowed to marry, would you grant them marriage to meet the reality of their lives and society? I can't begin to count the lesbian couples in my neighborhood that have kids.

It may be outdated, but it is still better for the kids, hence why we have epidemics of adhd, obesity, diabetes, and more.
Kids do better when in an enviorment being raised by a male and female. That should be the goal, unobtainable, yes, but still the goal.
Allowing homos to benefit from adopting kids isnt going in the direction of that end.

Homos are benifitting at the expense of the kids.

[fj1200]

It may be outdated, but it is still better for the kids, hence why we have epidemics of adhd, obesity, diabetes, and more.
Kids do better when in an enviorment being raised by a male and female. That should be the goal, unobtainable, yes, but still the goal.
Allowing homos to benefit from adopting kids isnt going in the direction of that end.

Homos are benifitting at the expense of the kids.

Gay couples are having/getting kids regardless of whatever rules may be in place. Are you sure it isn't stable environments that are best for kids rather than male/female?

[ConHog]

It may be outdated, but it is still better for the kids, hence why we have epidemics of adhd, obesity, diabetes, and more.
Kids do better when in an enviorment being raised by a male and female. That should be the goal, unobtainable, yes, but still the goal.
Allowing homos to benefit from adopting kids isnt going in the direction of that end.

Homos are benifitting at the expense of the kids.

If you're talking about two flaming queers who are taking the kids out with them every weekend to gay pride parades and such, you're probably right, but on the other hand some biker dude that has his drug dealing biker buddies over to watch the game with him while the women do GOd knows what isn't good for kids either, so do we now take away kids from bikers?

I thought you were for less government intrusion? So why not let the adoption agencies do their jobs and decide on their own who is best suited for adoption?

Gay people can be good steady influences you know? I'd entrust my daughter to her Godfather's care any day of the week. And often have.

[chloe]

Alright, Gays seem to scream out in everything. The one thing that irks me is when they scream about "gay rights"

What rights do they NOT have? Somebody clarify that for me. I need opinions.

We're all people, we all got the freedom of speech, vote, etc. plus, everyone who ever lived can tell you that at some point in time, your gonna realize that we all have the right to be made fun of too.

So, what are the "rights" they don't have?
Cause I'm pretty sure they allow gay marriage in some churches. (which, is a religion issue, not political, why they complaining to Uncle Sam and not the catholic church?)

why does it irk you?

[LuvRPgrl]

Gay couples are having/getting kids regardless of whatever rules may be in place. Are you sure it isn't stable environments that are best for kids rather than male/female?

absolutely,

women who saw their moms beaten by men, grow up and attract men who beat them
women who saw a man who treats their mom with love and respect, seek the same.

Kids are incredably much more perceptive to certain things than almost all adults give them credit for.
they learn more from what they OBSERVE OTHERS DOING, than anything in a book or what they are told.

I dont care how stable the relationship may be, if a child isnt SEEING and EXPERIENCING a relationship between a man and a woman, they will be confused at best,

and I dont want to hear all the crap from nay sayers about this experience, or that, or how two homos who love each other are better than a man and a woman if the man beats the women,

NO FUCKING SHIT ,,,(not directed at you fj)


If you're talking about two flaming queers who are taking the kids out with them every weekend to gay pride parades and such, you're probably right, but on the other hand some biker dude that has his drug dealing biker buddies over to watch the game with him while the women do GOd knows what isn't good for kids either, so do we now take away kids from bikers?

I thought you were for less government intrusion? So why not let the adoption agencies do their jobs and decide on their own who is best suited for adoption?

Gay people can be good steady influences you know? I'd entrust my daughter to her Godfather's care any day of the week. And often have.

Oh jesus christ, and I thought you were somewhat intelligent.

WHY THE FUCK DO SO MANY BRAINDEAD IDIOTS THINK THAT WE SAY THERE SHOULD BE NO GOVT WHEN WE SAY LIMITED GOVT???
IM NOT ALLOWED TO SUPPORT GOVT INFLUENCE IN ANYTHING IF I THINK GOVT SHOULD BE LIMITED?

I didnt say homo couples cant be good steady influences, (although a majority of them are not) but they cannot, and never will, any more than they can give birth between the two of them, provide the enviorment where kids will learn how to expect others of the opposite gender to treat them properly, and how to treat others of the opposite gender properly. ITS CALLED FUCKING ROLE MODELS, SOMEthing you should be out doing with a big brothers org.

[ConHog]

Oh jesus christ, and I thought you were somewhat intelligent.

WHY THE FUCK DO SO MANY BRAINDEAD IDIOTS THINK THAT WE SAY THERE SHOULD BE NO GOVT WHEN WE SAY LIMITED GOVT???
IM NOT ALLOWED TO SUPPORT GOVT INFLUENCE IN ANYTHING IF I THINK GOVT SHOULD BE LIMITED?

I didnt say homo couples cant be good steady influences, (although a majority of them are not) but they cannot, and never will, any more than they can give birth between the two of them, provide the enviorment where kids will learn how to expect others of the opposite gender to treat them properly, and how to treat others of the opposite gender properly. ITS CALLED FUCKING ROLE MODELS, SOMEthing you should be out doing with a big brothers org.


First thanks for suggesting that I would make an ideal big brother, but there really isn't a big brother organization around. However, I've been raising another man and woman's child for the past 4 + years, that has to count for something.

Second of all, I didn't say anything about you wanting no government intrusion. I SPECIFICALLY said I thought you wanted LESS government. So your insulting me over something I did not say is confusing at best.

Third of all, you have no evidence that supports that children who live with gays grow up to be gay themselves.

If an adoption agency feels like a gay couple would make good adoptive parents then they should be allowed to make that call.

PS - Can you show me where in the COTUS the government has jurisdiction over adoption?

[LuvRPgrl]

First thanks for suggesting that I would make an ideal big brother, but there really isn't a big brother organization around. However, I've been raising another man and woman's child for the past 4 + years, that has to count for something.

Second of all, I didn't say anything about you wanting no government intrusion. I SPECIFICALLY said I thought you wanted LESS government. So your insulting me over something I did not say is confusing at best.

Third of all, you have no evidence that supports that children who live with gays grow up to be gay themselves.

If an adoption agency feels like a gay couple would make good adoptive parents then they should be allowed to make that call.

PS - Can you show me where in the COTUS the government has jurisdiction over adoption?

So, what does a broad ranging statement by me that I want less govt, have to do with some specific areas where I think govt should get involved?
I didnt say I thought you would be an ideal big brother, but I think you could seriously do some good to kids who have none, as far as I know you.
I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT KIDS GROWING UP HOMO IF THEY ARE RAISED BY HOMOS.

Please show me in the COTUS where it gives jurisdiction to any city;, county or state govt

[ConHog]

So, what does a broad ranging statement by me that I want less govt, have to do with some specific areas where I think govt should get involved?
I didnt say I thought you would be an ideal big brother, but I think you could seriously do some good to kids who have none, as far as I know you.
I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT KIDS GROWING UP HOMO IF THEY ARE RAISED BY HOMOS.

Please show me in the COTUS where it gives jurisdiction to any city;, county or state govt

The 10th of course does give jurisdiction to the states .

[gabosaurus]

There are threads about this you know.


Yes there are. Do we really need another one? :poke:

[bullypulpit]

More proof of why I say America is just about at the bottom of the toilet.

And you would know... :laugh:


Yep, I said it. And gays are not being denied ANY Constitutional Rights. End of story.

You can say it 'til yer blue in the face...But the facts do not comport with your opinion.


Psst , in THIS country we don't let the majority dictate to the minority.



As for THIS issue. The answer is simple.

Do away with state sanctioned marriage. Let churches marry whomever they want. For government purposes any and ALL marriage licenses are equal under the law (remember the whole freedom of religeon thing) and then NO ONE would have any complaints.

For those of you who don't want to be married in a church, why get married then? Marriage is a religious institution, so shut up. But you can sign contracts to cover all situations that would normally be covered by marriage.

But of course that isn't good enough for SOME people on both sides who want either a complete win or nothing............

Actually, marriage is a concern for the state in regards to the contractual relationship established by the marriage of two consenting adults. It establishes the transfer or property upon the death of one of the individuals. It establishes responsibility for the raising of any children that may be born or adopted into the family. It provides a means for an equitable division of property in the event of the dissolution of the marriage. So, you see, the state has a compelling interest in marriage as a civil institution. What it does not have is an interest in the gender of the individuals involved so long as those individuals are entering into the marriage contract are of legal age, competent to consent to the contract and are doing so without duress.

And, one final question. My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony and we cannot have children. Yet, in the eyes of the state we ARE married. How is our marriage, then, any different from that of same-gender couples...besides the obvious?

[ConHog]

Actually, marriage is a concern for the state in regards to the contractual relationship established by the marriage of two consenting adults. It establishes the transfer or property upon the death of one of the individuals. It establishes responsibility for the raising of any children that may be born or adopted into the family. It provides a means for an equitable division of property in the event of the dissolution of the marriage. So, you see, the state has a compelling interest in marriage as a civil institution. What it does not have is an interest in the gender of the individuals involved so long as those individuals are entering into the marriage contract are of legal age, competent to consent to the contract and are doing so without duress.

And, one final question. My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony and we cannot have children. Yet, in the eyes of the state we ARE married. How is our marriage, then, any different from that of same-gender couples...besides the obvious?

All of the things you say the government has a concern in marriage about can in fact be done without marriage at all. And I submit that ANYONE who relies on simply being married to take care of such matters is a fool anyway.

[cadet]

Actually, marriage is a concern for the state in regards to the contractual relationship established by the marriage of two consenting adults. It establishes the transfer or property upon the death of one of the individuals. It establishes responsibility for the raising of any children that may be born or adopted into the family. It provides a means for an equitable division of property in the event of the dissolution of the marriage. So, you see, the state has a compelling interest in marriage as a civil institution. What it does not have is an interest in the gender of the individuals involved so long as those individuals are entering into the marriage contract are of legal age, competent to consent to the contract and are doing so without duress.

And, one final question. My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony and we cannot have children. Yet, in the eyes of the state we ARE married. How is our marriage, then, any different from that of same-gender couples...besides the obvious?

so... your not married. your lawfully togeather, but... not married. don't say married if it's a civil ceremony. its disrespectful to all of us, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc.

[ConHog]

so... your not married. your lawfully togeather, but... not married. don't say married if it's a civil ceremony. its disrespectful to all of us, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc.

You do realize that many states have common law marriage laws right?

Oh and what someone else calls their relationship doesn't disrespect you in anyway.

[fj1200]

Yes there are. Do we really need another one? :poke:

Apparently cadet thinks we do.


Actually, marriage is a concern for the state in regards to the contractual relationship established by the marriage of two consenting adults. It establishes the transfer or property upon the death of one of the individuals. It establishes responsibility for the raising of any children that may be born or adopted into the family. It provides a means for an equitable division of property in the event of the dissolution of the marriage. So, you see, the state has a compelling interest in marriage as a civil institution. What it does not have is an interest in the gender of the individuals involved so long as those individuals are entering into the marriage contract are of legal age, competent to consent to the contract and are doing so without duress.

Only because it inserts itself into the contractual relationship.

[ConHog]

Apparently cadet thinks we do.



Only because it inserts itself into the contractual relationship.

I'm wondering do some people not realize the only two things you get out of marriage that you can't get with any type of contractual agreement are

A) The right to not be compelled to testify against your spouse
B) The not insignificant tax break.

Other than that, I can't think of ANYTHING that marriage covers that can't be covered with some form of contract.

[fj1200]

^SS benefits from a government perspective. Partner benefits from a private sector perspective. As examples.

[LuvRPgrl]

And you would know... :laugh:



You can say it 'til yer blue in the face...But the facts do not comport with your opinion.



Actually, marriage is a concern for the state in regards to the contractual relationship established by the marriage of two consenting adults. It establishes the transfer or property upon the death of one of the individuals. It establishes responsibility for the raising of any children that may be born or adopted into the family. It provides a means for an equitable division of property in the event of the dissolution of the marriage. So, you see, the state has a compelling interest in marriage as a civil institution. What it does not have is an interest in the gender of the individuals involved so long as those individuals are entering into the marriage contract are of legal age, competent to consent to the contract and are doing so without duress.

And, one final question. My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony and we cannot have children. Yet, in the eyes of the state we ARE married. How is our marriage, then, any different from that of same-gender couples...besides the obvious?

Glad you raised the point.
Everything you listed can be covered by a standard contract, EXCEPT the part involving kids, HENCE WHY MARRIAGE IS ALL ABOUT THE KIDS.


All of the things you say the government has a concern in marriage about can in fact be done without marriage at all. And I submit that ANYONE who relies on simply being married to take care of such matters is a fool anyway.

except the part about the kids.
Contracts can be broken, but regarding the kids, our society, as well as others, wants as much assurance as possible for the kids to have a good enviorment, the best possible enviorment, and going above and beyond the standard contract rituals, we have, as a society, had our couples make an even higher commitment, to God and to themselves, an oath, a promise, AND THE ONLY REASON THAT OATH AND PROMISE IS SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE OF THE KIDS.
If adults are together and split up, no big deal to anyone, but if they have kids, then split up, the kids suffer. U have doubts about how the kids suffer,

just correlate the charts of divorce rates with the rise in childhood obesity, diabetes, adhd, violence, gun usage, drug usage, drop out rates, etc etc

[fj1200]

Glad you raised the point.
Everything you listed can be covered by a standard contract, EXCEPT the part involving kids, HENCE WHY MARRIAGE IS ALL ABOUT THE KIDS.

But kids are not all about marriage. If it's about the kids then those who are not allowed to be married should have the ability if they have kids; following your logic of course.


except the part about the kids.
Contracts can be broken...

Not one involving kids, family courts will ensure that implied contract is honored.

[LuvRPgrl]

But kids are not all about marriage. If it's about the kids then those who are not allowed to be married should have the ability if they have kids; following your logic of course..
everyone is allowed to be married.





Not one involving kids, family courts will ensure that implied contract is honored.
what contractual part involving kids are you talking about ?

[fj1200]

everyone is allowed to be married.

Only to the gender that you feel is appropriate.


what contractual part involving kids are you talking about ?

You create kids, you've created an implied contract. Welcome to the next 18 years of your life.

[cadet]

"Why don't we just let them get married so they can be miserably like the rest of us?"
-family guy

[ConHog]

except the part about the kids.
Contracts can be broken, but regarding the kids, our society, as well as others, wants as much assurance as possible for the kids to have a good enviorment, the best possible enviorment, and going above and beyond the standard contract rituals, we have, as a society, had our couples make an even higher commitment, to God and to themselves, an oath, a promise, AND THE ONLY REASON THAT OATH AND PROMISE IS SO IMPORTANT IS BECAUSE OF THE KIDS.
If adults are together and split up, no big deal to anyone, but if they have kids, then split up, the kids suffer. U have doubts about how the kids suffer,

just correlate the charts of divorce rates with the rise in childhood obesity, diabetes, adhd, violence, gun usage, drug usage, drop out rates, etc etc

And marriages can't be broken?


Oh, and no one doubts how much children suffer when their parents divorce.

[LuvRPgrl]

Only to the gender that you feel is appropriate.



You create kids, you've created an implied contract. Welcome to the next 18 years of your life.

EVERYONE is entitled to marry someone of the same gender,
EVERYONE is EQUALLY prohibited from marrying those of the same gender, dogs, horses, their pet fish...
That they may be attracted to another person who is of the same gender doesnt suddenly make the law one that deprives them of any right.

the implied contract regarding a kid is broken when a couple divorce, but not completely abandonded, but it is modified.
It is modified to the point that laws governing the relationships and their responsabilities dictate what the new responsabilities are.

[Noir]

Let us know when that happens, ok? Because just looking around doesn't give me much hope for a mature society.I'm an optimist ^,^

[fj1200]

EVERYONE is entitled to marry someone of the same gender,
EVERYONE is EQUALLY prohibited from marrying those of the same gender, dogs, horses, their pet fish...
That they may be attracted to another person who is of the same gender doesnt suddenly make the law one that deprives them of any right.

:confused:


the implied contract regarding a kid is broken when a couple divorce, but not completely abandonded, but it is modified.
It is modified to the point that laws governing the relationships and their responsabilities dictate what the new responsabilities are.

No it isn't.

[ConHog]

I just for the life of me can't understand why anyone would care who someone else marries.

Oh, Bob wants to marry Steve. So what? I think it's gross when dudes marry fat women. I don't think it should be made illegal though.

[LuvRPgrl]

:confused:



No it isn't.

then we would need to clarify what those implied contracts are, in detail.

[fj1200]

then we would need to clarify what those implied contracts are, in detail.

That's the beauty of "implied," no detail. :poke:

The responsibility is 18 years of financial support to your kids.

[ConHog]

That's the beauty of "implied," no detail. :poke:

The responsibility is 18 years of financial support to your kids.

or more.

[LuvRPgrl]

That's the beauty of "implied," no detail. :poke:

The responsibility is 18 years of financial support to your kids.

the financial responsability is not implied, it is already law.

[fj1200]

the financial responsability is not implied, it is already law.

OK, not sure how that affects the central point however.

[LuvRPgrl]

I just for the life of me can't understand why anyone would care who someone else marries.

Oh, Bob wants to marry Steve. So what? I think it's gross when dudes marry fat women. I don't think it should be made illegal though.

Its part of their agenda of lies and deceptions, to declare homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality, and is normal.

[LuvRPgrl]

And marriages can't be broken?


Oh, and no one doubts how much children suffer when their parents divorce.

there are parts of the marriage contract that one cannot back out of

[LuvRPgrl]

OK, not sure how that affects the central point however.

me neither

[ConHog]

Its part of their agenda of lies and deceptions, to declare homosexuality is on par with heterosexuality, and is normal.

See, that's why I advocate getting the government OUT of marriage and then your religeon of choice can marry whomever they like and if the church YOU go to (assuming you do) doesn't have to marry gays, or accept their marriage as equal to your heterosexual marriage. You are right, SOME gays want more than that, they want to force the rest of us to acknowledge their gay marriage as the same as ours. By the same token some straights wouldn't be happy with that solution either b/c they want to force THEIR way on everyone. Neither extreme is better than the other.

This situation is a perfect example of where some compromise has to happen or no solution will ever be found.