Grounds to strike down Prop 8

Solitary said:
Your comparisons are ridiculous, and even you know it. The reasons for not selling shit in ice cream have nothing to do with selling ice cream, but to do with health regulations.

To have the state offer benefits to couple that are male & female but not offering the same benefits to couple that are male & male is denying equal rights based SOLELY on gender.
Click to expand...

Correct, and I stated in my analogy, this is why you can't sell shit in ice cream.... it's a health issue! It doesn't matter that some people may like it or prefer it, or even advocate for it to be made legal! The argument is the same for "Gay Marriage" it is putting shit in the ice cream! Marriage is the (largely religious) matrimonial union between a MAN and WOMAN. Just as Ice Cream is Ice Cream! You can't 'redefine' marriage any more than you can 'redefine' ice cream!

As far as "state benefits" I have already said, I am totally in favor of universal civil unions legislation. This would cover ANY state benefit. Apparently, that is not what this is about at all, if it were, you could accept that and the problem would have been resolved already. This is about destroying religious sanctity of marriage. It's about slapping religious faith and forcing your immorality down my throat. Sorry, I don't go for that.
 
Dixie said:
Then why not drop the extremist radical 'argument' seeking to redefine marriage based on sexual behavior, and undermine religious sanctity, and adopt benign 'civil unions' legislation? I actually think that might have a shot at passing and being accepted by a majority of people in America. I would vote for it. I'm just opposed to redefining marriage, and basing it on sexual preferences. I think it sets a dangerous precedent, and opens a can of worms our society doesn't really want to open.... bestiality...polygamy...necrophilia... etc. Rather than open that can of worms, why not remove the 'sexuality' factor completely, and adopt a universal 'civil unions' solution?

It seems to me, this would accomplish the same ends, and it would not compromise religious principles, sanctity of marriage, or redefine marriage based on sexual behavior. Civil Unions would not be confined to "gay couples" or any particular group of people, it would be open as an option to any two consenting adults, and non-sexual in nature. It could be used by an elderly mother and her son, two spinster sisters, gay couples, straight couples, platonic friends, or any two people who wanted to enter into such a contract.
Click to expand...

They already allow beastiality, Tammy Faye got married...
 
Dixie said:
Correct, and I stated in my analogy, this is why you can't sell shit in ice cream.... it's a health issue! It doesn't matter that some people may like it or prefer it, or even advocate for it to be made legal! The argument is the same for "Gay Marriage" it is putting shit in the ice cream! Marriage is the (largely religious) matrimonial union between a MAN and WOMAN. Just as Ice Cream is Ice Cream! You can't 'redefine' marriage any more than you can 'redefine' ice cream!

As far as "state benefits" I have already said, I am totally in favor of universal civil unions legislation. This would cover ANY state benefit. Apparently, that is not what this is about at all, if it were, you could accept that and the problem would have been resolved already. This is about destroying religious sanctity of marriage. It's about slapping religious faith and forcing your immorality down my throat. Sorry, I don't go for that.
Click to expand...


Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion and can be defined however the state sees fit so long as the definition is not unconstitutional.
 
Dixie said:
Correct, and I stated in my analogy, this is why you can't sell shit in ice cream.... it's a health issue! It doesn't matter that some people may like it or prefer it, or even advocate for it to be made legal! The argument is the same for "Gay Marriage" it is putting shit in the ice cream! Marriage is the (largely religious) matrimonial union between a MAN and WOMAN. Just as Ice Cream is Ice Cream! You can't 'redefine' marriage any more than you can 'redefine' ice cream!

As far as "state benefits" I have already said, I am totally in favor of universal civil unions legislation. This would cover ANY state benefit. Apparently, that is not what this is about at all, if it were, you could accept that and the problem would have been resolved already. This is about destroying religious sanctity of marriage. It's about slapping religious faith and forcing your immorality down my throat. Sorry, I don't go for that.
Click to expand...


The ice cream analogy is still ridiculous. Feces in ice cream represents a HAZARD to the public. Gay marriages does not change anything in your life.

The thing you ignore is that this is not going to make more people gay. It is not going to make gay people more visible. It is just going to give them the benefits that married couples enjoy.
 
I agree that there should be no state interference in marriage or civil unions. Get the government out of relationships totally.
 
Dixie said:
Then why not drop the extremist radical 'argument' seeking to redefine marriage based on sexual behavior, and undermine religious sanctity, and adopt benign 'civil unions' legislation? I actually think that might have a shot at passing and being accepted by a majority of people in America. I would vote for it. I'm just opposed to redefining marriage, and basing it on sexual preferences. I think it sets a dangerous precedent, and opens a can of worms our society doesn't really want to open.... bestiality...polygamy...necrophilia... etc. Rather than open that can of worms, why not remove the 'sexuality' factor completely, and adopt a universal 'civil unions' solution?

It seems to me, this would accomplish the same ends, and it would not compromise religious principles, sanctity of marriage, or redefine marriage based on sexual behavior. Civil Unions would not be confined to "gay couples" or any particular group of people, it would be open as an option to any two consenting adults, and non-sexual in nature. It could be used by an elderly mother and her son, two spinster sisters, gay couples, straight couples, platonic friends, or any two people who wanted to enter into such a contract.
Click to expand...

You are such a dweeb.


By changing one word to another it changes nothing but the connotation you feel when the word is used in religion.

This is a government law not a church law and you have just shown how shallow your arguements are in the area of law.
 
That ice cream analogy is so bad & wildly off base that it's surreal.

Dixie is going for some sort of weird record or distinction these past couple of days. How does he keep topping himself like this? He's absolutely setting his own bar...
 
Solitary said:
The ice cream analogy is still ridiculous. Feces in ice cream represents a HAZARD to the public. Gay marriages does not change anything in your life.

The thing you ignore is that this is not going to make more people gay. It is not going to make gay people more visible. It is just going to give them the benefits that married couples enjoy.
Click to expand...

Feces in ice cream wouldn't effect me one bit. People who liked it, could eat it! Who am I to deny them this "right?" I can enjoy my chunky chocolate chip just the same, it doesn't effect me at all. Homosexual relations is the leading cause of AIDS, a 'health risk', so what is the difference?

I'm not ignoring anything, I have never argued that gay marriage would make more people gay or more visible. Putting shit in the ice cream, wouldn't make shit eaters more visible either! I have also offered a viable solution to the benefits problem, but that seems to be what you wish to ignore here.
 
Dixie said:
Feces in ice cream wouldn't effect me one bit. People who liked it, could eat it! Who am I to deny them this "right?" I can enjoy my chunky chocolate chip just the same, it doesn't effect me at all. Homosexual relations is the leading cause of AIDS, a 'health risk', so what is the difference?

I'm not ignoring anything, I have never argued that gay marriage would make more people gay or more visible. Putting shit in the ice cream, wouldn't make shit eaters more visible either! I have also offered a viable solution to the benefits problem, but that seems to be what you wish to ignore here.
Click to expand...

dude, you are so far wrong you'll never be right. IV needle usage has been the primary cause of HIV leading to aids.
 
Desh said:
You are such a dweeb.


By changing one word to another it changes nothing but the connotation you feel when the word is used in religion.

This is a government law not a church law and you have just shown how shallow your arguements are in the area of law.
Click to expand...

I don't get it Desh, we seem to agree on the end results. We both want gay couples to have the same benefits as traditional married couples. We both expressed a desire for Civil Unions legislation. The only thing we are hung up on, is the definition of a word. Why is that so important to you?

The First Amendment states that government can't abridge our rights to religious freedom or expression thereof. By redefining a religious institution (marriage), you are doing precisely that. I don't agree with this 'redefining' of marriage, because it is a religiously sanctioned institution, important to the church, and fundamental in most religious beliefs. Although I am not Christian, I do believe in protecting their religious freedoms. Redefining 'marriage' is an assault on those freedoms and expressions, and is not necessary to obtain the benefits desired. Take government out of the "marriage license" business completely, I am fine with that... Adopt "civil unions" legislation, I'll go for that... but stop trying to tear down and destroy religious sanctity of marriage, and hiding it behind the false claims of 'equality' in the process.
 
Dixie said:
So homosexual relations doesn't cause AIDS, and is no risk to health? Is that your Public Service Announcement of the day?
Click to expand...

Heterosexual sex causes AIDS also. You said homosexual sex was the "leading" cause.

Regardless, it's a really stupid rationalization, then spin, for a really stupid analogy.
 
Desh said:
This is why the government needs to be out of the marriage game.

Civil unions should be offered to ANY two people for whatever reason they deem.

Marraige should be left to the churches
Click to expand...
Any two adults. Please, let's be reasonable.
 
Dixie said:
So homosexual relations doesn't cause AIDS, and is no risk to health? Is that your Public Service Announcement of the day?
Click to expand...

You make the statement that homosexual relations is the leading cause of AIDs. STY correct you by pointing out that IV needle sharing is the leading cause of the spread of AIDS.

And you come back with this "So homosexual relations doesn't cause AIDS, and is no risk to health?"???

Surely you are not THAT stupid. He didn't say anything even CLOSE to saying homosexual relations do not cause aids.
 
Dixie said:
So homosexual relations doesn't cause AIDS, and is no risk to health? Is that your Public Service Announcement of the day?
Click to expand...

ANY bodily fluid transfer can transmit the virus, even you kissing your girlfriend or drinking out of the same coke bottle. It's totally ludicrous to say that homosexual relations is the leading cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top