First activist judges, now activist senate...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 7 2006, 07:13 PM) [snapback]267542[/snapback]</div>

MS: Actually I see so many dysfunctional and abusive heterosexual relationships on a weekly basis that I would argue that yours is a poor counter-argument.

larkinmj: The way I learned it in school was "it is sometimes necessary for the judicial system to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority." Our form of government is mistakenly referred to as a democracy. The proper term for our form of government is a republic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 7 2006, 03:55 PM) [snapback]267501[/snapback]</div>

You are missing the point that neither your Prius or your dog can intelligently state their desires to be in marriage with you. Two adults CAN state their desire/intent to be married.

I hope you can tell the difference between a man who wants to marry his car versus loving, committed couples who are denied all the state and federal benefits and responsibilities of civil marriage.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jchu @ Jun 7 2006, 07:53 PM) [snapback]267556[/snapback]</div>

Yes, you are correct. I did use the word "rule", but I meant it in the sense of the minority subject to the whims or desires of the majority.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 7 2006, 04:50 PM) [snapback]267449[/snapback]</div>

You're right. He was, after all, a gay man.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jun 7 2006, 05:55 PM) [snapback]267501[/snapback]</div>

That's such a fallacious argument that only proves your stupidity.

The difference is that we're talking two humans who love one another. It's as simple as that. And as a straight person, it is totally unreal to me that other straight people are threatened by this.

You wanna protect the so-called sanctity of marriage? OUTLAW DIVORCE!!! I see no Constitutional Amendment outlawing divorce, and really, doesn't divorce damage the sanctity of marriage a butt-load more than two gay folks who stay together in a loving, respectful relationship for 50+ years?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jun 7 2006, 09:29 PM) [snapback]267613[/snapback]</div>

Livelychick- I am sure that you didn't mean to say "butt-load" and "gay folks" in the same sentence, but perhaps that was not the most judicious choice of words
(I thought that I should point it out before MS or somebody else went hysterical over it)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 7 2006, 09:38 PM) [snapback]267624[/snapback]</div>

Touche. should have said "boatload." Oh well. Let the torrent come.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jun 7 2006, 09:29 PM) [snapback]267613[/snapback]</div>

[attachmentid=3733]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jun 7 2006, 08:29 PM) [snapback]267613[/snapback]</div>

I think maybe "fallacious" in this context might be a little questionable, too. :blink: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 7 2006, 07:13 PM) [snapback]267542[/snapback]</div>

Not sure it's possible to meet the criteria, since demands like this usually come loaded with auto-denials of given facts (facts demoted to opinions, faith-based beliefs given more weight than any observed fact, etc.), but here goes.

As far as I can tell, all societies everywhere have always had a homosexual contigient. "Little Big Man" included a part about gay male Indians hanging around with the women. At it's hight, and yes at its nadir, the Roman Empire had high levels of not-completely-heterosexual leadership. Alexander the Great liked guys, yet managed to lead pretty darn well.

Again, as far as I can tell, societies have moved back and forth over time in open acceptance of homosexuals. Usually, homosexuals get attacked more when leaders need to tighten their control over the populace. It isn't always religious leaders, but it seems as if 'civilian' people would leave other people alone if it wasn't for someone who went to Divinity school trying to maximize their own authority by rousing the masses to crush people who don't comply with their will. Ooops, God's will. Always refer to an old book, and nobody can say you are calling the shots yourself.

So what we end up with is typical of these kinds of discussions: homosexuality either did no harm to a society, or was responsible for its fall. The "Ah, HAH!" syndrome kicks in, where when people who do something 'bad' eventually have something bad happen to them, a cry of "Ah, HAH!" goes up and that 'bad' thing gets the blame. Unless a society dies out due to lack of reproductive sex (like the Shakers) it would be difficult to say homosexuality did the society any harm. Blaming crop failure or hurricanes on open homosexuality is hardly valid, but the "Ah, HAH!" crowd does it all the time.

So if you want to crush all opposition to the will of your religious leader, by all means make life a living hell for homosexuals (and any other targets). Or you can take the example of the Indians and let them help around the campsite as best they can...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 7 2006, 11:34 PM) [snapback]267695[/snapback]</div>

ROLFMAO!!! :lol:

So your at a dinner party and steve from the office walks up to you and your wife, Hii Jim have you met my new wife david? we've been together as partners for a couple of years. But now its official we're married!!
Steve= the husband, David=the wife..

So jim would you like us to come decorate your house too?
Jim & cheryl reply thats wonderful congradulations and hurry off to the bar for another straight shot of whiskey & think yes another stone unturned in the human race. ( as another song plays in the back ground by non-other than the ButtHole Surfers.

The ButtHole Surfers

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 8 2006, 01:15 PM) [snapback]268017[/snapback]</div>

Actually, it's gay-bashing by feminizing one or both gay men. Referring to a man as 'the wife' isn't intended to make him feel better...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 8 2006, 01:15 PM) [snapback]268017[/snapback]</div>

Liberals? Conservatives?

in the grand sceme of things Example: you have a lesbian couple one is more butch shes the male the other is more womanly= the female .

Men the strong mucular type= the male the sissy boi or femminine type= the female. in the hetro way of thinking

Or theres the MP outlook and that both are equally the same? and anything else is Gay Bashing..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jun 8 2006, 01:33 PM) [snapback]268031[/snapback]</div>

Well, now that you're aware of what you are doing, you can take steps to get better...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jun 8 2006, 10:33 AM) [snapback]268031[/snapback]</div>

Wow! Talk about stereotypes.

The inability to see each other first as a human being rather than a label is pretty much the root cause for most of the crap that goes on in the world. The need for power and superiority will never go away. That is why the masses cannot rule themselves but have laws and government.

Because laws and government are designed by humans they can be manipulated. Having judges seperate from legislatures and politicians is critical to the balance of power and the rights of the individual. Auschwitz, Witch Trials, Roman Sacrifice....all examples of one group taking away the rights of others. How far will conservatives go to eliminate the rights of gay families?

 

"If the current administration has its way, it will no longer be legal to quote Oscar Wilde."

"The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about".

Oscar Wilde

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Jun 8 2006, 01:15 PM) [snapback]268017[/snapback]</div>

Because it's TYPICAL, and MOST people consider it NORMAL and NATURAL.

I will likely always expect WIFE to mean there is a HUSBAND, and vice-versa, anything other is an exception. Like all of a sudden I have to change my expectations because of a screaming minorty, encroaching on my way of life? No, absolutley not.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 8 2006, 02:17 PM) [snapback]268077[/snapback]</div>

Can you explain the encroachment without it boiling down to homophobia?

Rather adament there in things not changing around you. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot came up somewhere around here before, but this time it seems to apply. I tend to be a bigot about the US being a good place to live, so on good stuff I embrace the word.

Ummm, I wouldn't embrace it over this issue if I were you...