Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Deicide on November 11, 2008, 05:08:10 PM
-
-
Olbermann looks like he's on the verge of tears.
I cannot for the life of me understand how a group of citizens can propose the removal of rights from another group of American citizens. This is beyond belief, and truly tragic that such a thing can occur let alone stand. :'(
-
Im not familiar with all aspects of prop 8 but does it outlaw civil unions as well? Im not for defining marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman however I do believe that these ppl deserve the same rights as anybody else. Olbierman is a HUGE and i mean HUGE jackass, the fact that he quotes the ignorant 50% divorce rate just affirms my belief of this...ps whoever put this guy on the football pregame show should be drug out into the streets and beat with rubber hoses until his is dead too...sorry just my honest opinion.
-
Oh brother ::) Blatant, egregious demagoguery... I cannot stand this guy's smug, arrogant, sanctimonious attitude for one thing. Nor his narrow frame of reference. WHO is denying gays the opportunity to be "a little less alone in the world?" I mean, really. What a schmaltzy load of BS. I made it through about 1:30 of Olbermann's whiney little diatribe before I'd heard enough.
I mean what's the deal here... is this about denying gays the right to be together with the one they love? Absolutely not. Is it about denying them all the benefits of a legal, civil union? No. What exactly are they being "denied?" Strip away all the emotional doublespeak and this is nothing more than legal posturing, plain and simple.
-
Olbermann's a pussy.
But denying gays and lesbians the right to marry is fascist.
Besides, I want them to marry so they can suffer the marriage penalty and AMT like other heterosexual married couples.
Misery loves company. ;D
-
I thougth they had the same rights basically as a married couple under civil unions???
-
Oh and this video makes me want to stab my eyes out. Obermen it the biggest tool in media. So much better when he was on EPSN
-
Wait I take that back... 2nd biggest tool.
Hannity is #1
-
The very nature of "civil unions" for gays IS a redefinition of marriage for gays and lesbians.
It stinks with that old "separate but equal" BS that existed for years and we all know that was anything but equal. For all the hoopin' & hollerin' in the last week about how far the USA has come in her ability to get past the old ghosts of prejudice & bigotry that has haunted her for so long, ...the fact that people are unable to see this very blatant bigotted attack upon the civil rights of gay & lesbians indicates the USA has not come as far as she thinks she has, ...or at least as far as she needs to be. I find it very sad. :'(
-
The very nature of "civil unions" for gays IS a redefinition of marriage for gays and lesbians.
It stinks with that old "separate but equal" BS that existed for years and we all know that was anything but equal. For all the hoopin' & hollerin' in the last week about how far the USA has come in her ability to get past the old ghosts of prejudice & bigotry that has haunted her for so long, ...the fact that people are unable to see this very blatant bigotted attack upon the civil rights of gay & lesbians indicates the USA has not come as far as she thinks she has, ...or at least as far as she needs to be. I find it very sad. :'(
The US hasnt done shit we elected a half WHITE half black president so the fuck what? the only ppl ranting and raving about this are the same ppl bitching about prop 8. OK so civil unions are the same thing as marriage by law is what your saying? so wtf are ppl complaining about? Im sorry im not sorry my beliefs say marriage is between a MAN AND A WOMAN so I will not vote against prop 8. Im not saying that they shouldnt have the same rights just that it should NOT be defined as marriage. you vote on your beliefs and others vote on theirs but you complain about ppl not being tolerant...I hope you see the irony in that statement
-
P.S. OLBERMAN IS A FREAKING JACKASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! + THE 50% DIVORCE RATE IS SO WRONG THAT ITS RIDICULOUS THE FACT THAT HE SIGHTS THAT IS JUST TESTIMONY TO HIS RETARDATION.
-
The very nature of "civil unions" for gays IS a redefinition of marriage for gays and lesbians.
It stinks with that old "separate but equal" BS that existed for years and we all know that was anything but equal. For all the hoopin' & hollerin' in the last week about how far the USA has come in her ability to get past the old ghosts of prejudice & bigotry that has haunted her for so long, ...the fact that people are unable to see this very blatant bigotted attack upon the civil rights of gay & lesbians indicates the USA has not come as far as she thinks she has, ...or at least as far as she needs to be. I find it very sad. :'(
There is a big major difference between the two types of things you are talking about.
First, prejudice against anyone is wrong, no sain person can argue that with any basis. Now, denying certain civil rights to anyone based on skin color or race is also wrong...obviously, it's not like anyone can control their race or skin color. Now, you probably think you know where I am going with this, and you're partialy right, but that's not the full story.
Yes, I believe homosexuality is a choice, not something that you're born into. I know some can point out studies that say otherwise, but there are more studies that prove this fact that it is choice, not genetic. Our behavior in all aspects of life is largely determined by our environment, who we associate with, how our world view develops, etc. Something I read that I found very interesting a few month ago (sorry can't remember off hand where, I'll try to find it) was that in a survey of homosexual men, most, not all but a strong majority grew up in single family homes where the father was absent. Inevitably these men became products of their enviroment, but it's still amounts to choice.
The main topic at hand: marriage is by no means something that can be argued that is due to all with whom they wish under the constitution. Under our constitution which by way the civil liberties act was born, requires that all people are entitled to their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. Happiness though under the constitution does not mean actual happiness, it refers to property. That's how the actual constitution reads, people have simply substituted property with happieness. What this means is everyone is entitled to their fair share of ability to reach their dreams, and to protect against intrusion on anything that would hinder this ability. People are granted this freedom, but what they do with it is choice in regards to success or failure.
With what I said, some might say that preventing homosexuals from marrying hinders their abilities to these inalienable rights. It is taking away their "liberty" to choose how they live their lives. I simply do not see it this way at all. It obviously goes against the establishment of what marriage is, it is a slap in the face to those who are heterosexual and find themselves married and by what that stands for.
-
I mean what's the deal here... is this about denying gays the right to be together with the one they love? Absolutely not. Is it about denying them all the benefits of a legal, civil union? No. What exactly are they being "denied?"
first, there is the separate but equal argument
but regarding California civil unions, they're 90% of marriage with regards to the state. but you get benefits of marriage from other places besides the state. companies are not required to offer the same benefits (to employees, to customers) to people in civil unions as they do to married couples. if everyone is married, and since same sex marriage was granted due to the equal protection clause, then a company would have to grant a benefit to all married couples, or none.
-
Divorce rates are indeed well over 50%...
-
Divorce rates are indeed well over 50%...
LOL Deicide I have explained this to you more times than I can remember but lets do it again. Do you know how they come up with that ignorant pretty much arbitrary number? I know you do but you still spout it out every chance you get. Well gather round kids b/c ill explain it so everyone wont be taken in by olberman or Deicide...
They take the amount of marriages in a year and divided that by the number of divorces in a year...nevermind the ppl who dont get divorced we wont account for them now will we? will just sweep them under the rug. It doesnt take into account any of the ppl who arent married in THAT YEAR OR TIME OF REFERENCE only those divorced in that year. In reality the divorce rate is much much lower
-
Oh brother ::) Blatant, egregious demagoguery... I cannot stand this guy's smug, arrogant, sanctimonious attitude for one thing. Nor his narrow frame of reference. WHO is denying gays the opportunity to be "a little less alone in the world?" I mean, really. What a schmaltzy load of BS. I made it through about 1:30 of Olbermann's whiney little diatribe before I'd heard enough.
I mean what's the deal here... is this about denying gays the right to be together with the one they love? Absolutely not. Is it about denying them all the benefits of a legal, civil union? No. What exactly are they being "denied?" Strip away all the emotional doublespeak and this is nothing more than legal posturing, plain and simple.
Olbermann is my boy, but I agree with Dan-O completely. :o The first time I could not stomach an Olbermann special comment.
-
Let me make this simple:
people with reason: no on 8
people without reason: yes on 8
Only unreasonable people would see to keep gays from the right to marry.
-
Why people are so hellbent on defending the fallacy known as marriage is beyond me. Whether or not gays marry will not affect heterosexuals ability to marry. ::)
-
Why people are so hellbent on defending the fallacy known as marriage is beyond me. Whether or not gays marry will not affect heterosexuals ability to marry. ::)
Oh really, wow... Gee, I didn't know that... All this time I thought there was just so much marriage to go around and if they got theirs, it might mean I wouldn't get mine. ::)
-
P.S. OLBERMAN IS A FREAKING JACKASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! + THE 50% DIVORCE RATE IS SO WRONG THAT ITS RIDICULOUS THE FACT THAT HE SIGHTS THAT IS JUST TESTIMONY TO HIS RETARDATION.
then what is the divorce rate?
-
then what is the divorce rate?
supposedly around 30something percent...did you read my other post on here l dawg and see how they come up with the 50%?
-
supposedly around 30something percent...did you read my other post on here l dawg and see how they come up with the 50%?
yes I read it but what I don't like is someone saying something is wrong ad ridiculous,but then gives no credible source to back there shit up.so if 30 something percent is your claim where's your sources?
-
yes I read it but what I don't like is someone saying something is wrong ad ridiculous,but then gives no credible source to back there shit up.so if 30 something percent is your claim where's your sources?
hmmm well my social psychology class and books are my references...but here http://www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html LOL again ive explained this many many many times to deicide and he still refuses to understand so i didnt feel the need to repost more sources.
-
Oh really, wow... Gee, I didn't know that... All this time I thought there was just so much marriage to go around and if they got theirs, it might mean I wouldn't get mine. ::)
Well, then the only reason for your adamant opposition of it is either stupidity of the words of book written by men thousands of years ago.
-
The very nature of "civil unions" for gays IS a redefinition of marriage for gays and lesbians.
It stinks with that old "separate but equal" BS that existed for years and we all know that was anything but equal. For all the hoopin' & hollerin' in the last week about how far the USA has come in her ability to get past the old ghosts of prejudice & bigotry that has haunted her for so long, ...the fact that people are unable to see this very blatant bigotted attack upon the civil rights of gay & lesbians indicates the USA has not come as far as she thinks she has, ...or at least as far as she needs to be. I find it very sad. :'(
Gays aren't a separate race, Judi.
-
supposedly around 30something percent...did you read my other post on here l dawg and see how they come up with the 50%?
Whatever the rate is, it's WAY too high. And frivolous, "no-fault" divorces (combined with people's lack of character and committment) play a role in that.
With that said, citing divorce rates doesn't help supporters of gay "marriage" (or those who take issue with marriage amendments) one bit. On one hand, they're downing the institution itself; on the other, they're claiming that it's so great of a thing, that not allowing homosexuals to re-define it is such a travesty of justice.
Again, this virulent reaction we've seen come isn't coming from the mere passage of a marriage amendment, as 29 other states have done that over the past 5 years.
The SHOCK comes from the fact that this occured in CALIFORNIA, after that court legalized it and homosexuals had licenses in hand. Throw in the state attorney general's questionable title on Prop. 8, and many were of the mindset that Prop. 8 would get voted down.
But, it passed. And, the pundits CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!
-
Gays aren't a separate race, Judi.
I never said they were, ...but like times past, they are a group of people for whom equality under the law does not exist. They are also a group of people that other people seek to ensure do not receive equality under the law. How anyone can miss that or even pretend to miss that is beyond me.
-
I never said they were, ...but like times past, they are a group of people for whom equality under the law does not exist. They are also a group of people that other people seek to ensure do not receive equality under the law. How anyone can miss that or even pretend to miss that is beyond me.
You're right, they have been subject to inequality under the law in the past, i.e. jobs, wages, etc. These are all things protected by the constitution, where as the topic at hand is not.
The topic at hand simply has to do with choice, it has nothing to do with anything that is out of any persons control.
-
You're right, they have been subject to inequality under the law in the past, i.e. jobs, wages, etc. These are all things protected by the constitution, where as the topic at hand is not.
The topic at hand simply has to do with choice, it has nothing to do with anything that is out of any persons control.
They do not have the freedom of choice to marry or not like the rest of the population.
...or more accurately, what prop 8 does is to strip them of that ability to marry that the rest of the population enjoys.
-
What are the laws regarding this up in your neck of the woods jag?
-
They do not have the freedom of choice to marry or not like the rest of the population.
...or more accurately, what prop 8 does is to strip them of that ability to marry that the rest of the population enjoys.
"Freedom of Choice" that was the term I was waiting of you to use in the way you did just there.
When it comes to freedom of choice, there is only one law in the U.S. that this applies to so adamantly...abortion. Now it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I am pro life, but I'll use this arguement to back my point.
The idea with freedom of choice when it comes to abortion, the idea here is a woman becomes pregnant, she is now faced with something she cannot control, that baby is in there whether she likes it or not...no matter what she is pregnant. Yes, the arguement can be made and should be made that in most cases she chose to have sex and take that risk, but it was an arguement that was left out of the majority when this law passed.
Now, based on this arguement, things that are out of our control should not be subject to violations of freedom of choice, if you're pregnant you have the right to choose what you do with it. Same as when it come to race, this is something that is out of your control.
Being homosexual, this is deemed purely a choice, all medical evidence points no where else, there is no genetic factor and this is what most have recognized. So in turn, there is no violation of freedom of choice when it comes to gay marriage, they made the choice to be gay.
Now, you could easily argue that there is something in the constitution that protects freedom of choice on something that is a personal choice and not beyond control...religion, this is a fact, it is protected in this manner. However the institution of religion is protected in this manner due to the view of it's importance to society as a whole and functioning society. The right of gay marriage would have no such effect and neither does denying it have the adverse effect.
I'm sure at some point, the gay marriage issue will reach the Supreme Court, when that time comes the constitution may add a new amendment...we'll see. Of course as Justice Sutherland once said, just because a decision was made by the court, does not mean it was the right decision. This phrase has been used by the dissenting minority ever since. (BTW, don't quote me on it being justice Sutherland, I'm almost positive it was he who said it but I may be remembering incorrectly.)
Then of course there is the notion of "The Right to Privacy" something the court held on to when making abortion legal, even though the very idea and wording is unconstitutional in this manner...something that almost every judge since has acknowledged, even ones who support abortion. So using that as an arguement would be a stretch, simply because it was made an exception when it came to abortion and has rarely been used again, actually I can't think of any major cases since.
The Right to Privacy only applies to things such as:
1. making known a plaintiff's identity for the defendant's benefit
2. placing a plaintiff in an damaging or dangerous position in the public eye of perception
3. publicly disclosing private facts about the plaintiff
4. unethically intruding upon the seclusion or solitude of the plaintiff
These were the original measures taken, later to be added would be such issues as health and certain financial matters, communication and the home.
So yes, the right to privacy would protect a homosexuals privacy concerning what they do in their home, but the right to privacy gives no inclination to protect against denying gay marriage. There is no where to fit it in there with what we have now, which is why only a constitutional amendment could change this.
Last thing, be gay, don't be gay, I don't care either way. Do I think it's wrong and immoral? Yes, but it is not up to me to judge others actions, but it doesn't mean someones actions that are a personal choice and by no means thrust upon them, should be thrust on me in a manner that damages things I hold as a sanctity.
-
What are the laws regarding this up in your neck of the woods jag?
Our supreme court determined that it was unconstitutional to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.
As such same sex marriage is legal in Canada with full spousal and survivor benefits etc.
The very idea that a bunch of people could get together and say... "Hey, let's strip gay people of their right to marry", and it is even entertained is beyond belief.
-
"Freedom of Choice" that was the term I was waiting of you to use in the way you did just there.
.....
how about "equal protection". what ever the government provides to one group they have to provide to all groups
-
Last thing, be gay, don't be gay, I don't care either way. Do I think it's wrong and immoral? Yes, but it is not up to me to judge others actions, but it doesn't mean someones actions that are a personal choice and by no means thrust upon them, should be thrust on me in a manner that damages things I hold as a sanctity.
How does Bob & Joe getting married something that "is thrust" upon you?
No one says you have to attend the ceremony.
How does Bob & Joe getting married "damage" anything you hold?
How does it affect YOUR marriage?
The fact is prop 8 is the intellectual equivalent of allowing voters in Texas to decide how much snow should be allowed to fall in New Hampshire. Gay marriage does not affect straight people, ...even if it did, ...we should not be allowed to take away their right to marry. If you want to outlaw marriage period... that's something else, ...but to arbitrarily take it away from a segment of society for no valid reason is beyond bigotry. It leaves people in a very vulnerable and precarious state of existence, without the assurances we all take for granted.
-
how about "equal protection". what ever the government provides to one group they have to provide to all groups
Not only that Tim, ...but gay marriages don't even have to be recognized or accepted as valid.
Can you imagine how gays could now be taken advantage of? Insurance companies can now arbitrarily refuse to pay spousal survival benefits on insurance policies. People can literally steal property away from spouses upon the death of one spouse.
Arnoldjr goes on and on speaking mouthfulls of BS in an attempt to justify the legislated discrimination against a segment of society. It's just plain wrong.
-
how about "equal protection". what ever the government provides to one group they have to provide to all groups
The full term as well as the most important factor you left out is "Equal Protection Under the Law."
From a legal standpoint there is nothing that protects the right to marry, this could change, but as of now it hasn't.
How does Bob & Joe getting married something that "is thrust" upon you?
No one says you have to attend the ceremony.
How does Bob & Joe getting married "damage" anything you hold?
How does it affect YOUR marriage?
The fact is prop 8 is the intellectual equivalent of allowing voters in Texas to decide how much snow should be allowed to fall in New Hampshire. Gay marriage does not affect straight people, ...even if it did, ...we should not be allowed to take away their right to marry. If you want to outlaw marriage period... that's something else, ...but to arbitrarily take it away from a segment of society for no valid reason is beyond bigotry. It leaves people in a very vulnerable and precarious state of existence, without the assurances we all take for granted.
I will freely admit that much of my opinion is based on my own moral conviction. Because of that I see it as something that degrades marriage. The idea of marriage is family based, whether you have children or not. I see it as something that takes away from this value, it causes it to lose some of it's luster.
Forgetting about the moral conviction aspect:
Marriage between a man and a woman is viewed as something viable for society. Gay marriage presents none of this. Happiness alone does not make something viable.
Back to moral conviction, which is the biggest factor IMO.
Most of the U.S. sees gay marriage as a slap in the face to the values they hold. Most as in a strong majority. The values of a society are probably the most important aspect of a society. Whatever these values are, when they are trampled on it causes some major problems.
Do someone's values simply because they hold them make them right? No, of course not, but when it's those values that define a society are taken away or changed that values begin to shift and become meaningless.
If America were to speak as a majority and say "yes, legalize gay marriage" even though it would still be against my own moral values, the majority would have shown that it was in fact part of theirs and this would change the scope of the arguement.
Not only that Tim, ...but gay marriages don't even have to be recognized or accepted as valid.
Can you imagine how gays could now be taken advantage of? Insurance companies can now arbitrarily refuse to pay spousal survival benefits on insurance policies. People can literally steal property away from spouses upon the death of one spouse.
Arnoldjr goes on and on speaking mouthfulls of BS in an attempt to justify the legislated discrimination against a segment of society. It's just plain wrong.
When I am talking about the legislation factor I am not saying that the way such legislation is set up makes it right or wrong. I simply used that to show that there is no legal basis to have to allow gay marriage.
-
The full term as well as the most important factor you left out is "Equal Protection Under the Law."
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (14th Amendment, section 1)
From a legal standpoint there is nothing that protects the right to marry,
the Supreme Courts of California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut disagree
Marriage between a man and a woman is viewed as something viable for society. Gay marriage presents none of this.
gay families exist. couples take care of each other, they take care of children. their children take care of them later on in life. it is in societies best interest to help these families stay together and take care of each other.
Most of the U.S. sees gay marriage as a slap in the face to the values they hold. Most as in a strong majority. The values of a society are probably the most important aspect of a society. Whatever these values are, when they are trampled on it causes some major problems.
1967: Most of the U.S. sees biracial marriage as a slap in the face to the values they hold. Most as in a strong majority. The values of a society are probably the most important aspect of a society. Whatever these values are, when they are trampled on it causes some major problems.
whether overturning miscegenation laws caused major problems at the time, it was the right thing to do
-
The full term as well as the most important factor you left out is "Equal Protection Under the Law."
From a legal standpoint there is nothing that protects the right to marry, this could change, but as of now it hasn't.
I will freely admit that much of my opinion is based on my own moral conviction. Because of that I see it as something that degrades marriage. The idea of marriage is family based, whether you have children or not. I see it as something that takes away from this value, it causes it to lose some of it's luster.
Forgetting about the moral conviction aspect:
Marriage between a man and a woman is viewed as something viable for society. Gay marriage presents none of this. Happiness alone does not make something viable.
Back to moral conviction, which is the biggest factor IMO.
Most of the U.S. sees gay marriage as a slap in the face to the values they hold. Most as in a strong majority. The values of a society are probably the most important aspect of a society. Whatever these values are, when they are trampled on it causes some major problems.
Do someone's values simply because they hold them make them right? No, of course not, but when it's those values that define a society are taken away or changed that values begin to shift and become meaningless.
If America were to speak as a majority and say "yes, legalize gay marriage" even though it would still be against my own moral values, the majority would have shown that it was in fact part of theirs and this would change the scope of the arguement.
When I am talking about the legislation factor I am not saying that the way such legislation is set up makes it right or wrong. I simply used that to show that there is no legal basis to have to allow gay marriage.
::) Oh brother. When every Tom Dick & Harry started sporting BMW's, ...it caused mine to lose a little of it's luster, ...but that doesn't give me the right to tell them they can't own one. Good Grief Man, Listen to yourself! :o
-
Very nice piece by Mr. Olberman. :)
I agree with what he said.
-
Oh and this video makes me want to stab my eyes out. Obermen it the biggest tool in media. So much better when he was on EPSN
Keith Olbermann is the same guy from those ESPN days.
He had the same views then as he does now, just that he does politics for MSNBC for a living.
You just hate him because you didn't know then what you know now.
DIV
-
This discussion is getting boring quick, LOL!
Now anyone who disagrees is a bigoted, religions maniac. What's next, photoshops of black people and the Klan united against gay marriage?
Is an issue that affects whatever percentage of the 10% that are interested in marriage this important and crucial to society? I mean really?!
-
How does Bob & Joe getting married something that "is thrust" upon you?
No one says you have to attend the ceremony.
How does Bob & Joe getting married "damage" anything you hold?
How does it affect YOUR marriage?
The fact is prop 8 is the intellectual equivalent of allowing voters in Texas to decide how much snow should be allowed to fall in New Hampshire. Gay marriage does not affect straight people, ...even if it did, ...we should not be allowed to take away their right to marry. If you want to outlaw marriage period... that's something else, ...but to arbitrarily take it away from a segment of society for no valid reason is beyond bigotry. It leaves people in a very vulnerable and precarious state of existence, without the assurances we all take for granted.
From "Hernandez v. Robles" (New York).
] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude......
Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian", violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings—a white man and a black woman—had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification". It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause". There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination.
The CA court took away the people’s right to define marriage in their state. What Prop. 8 simply did was give that power back to the citizens.
Marriage is provided for all. What’s at stake here is the definition of marriage itself. That definition is a union between one man and one woman. Once again, sexual preference holds no bearing on ability to participate in marriage. The fact that gays don’t want someone of the opposite sex doesn’t mean that they CAN’T participate in the institution of marriage.
The institution isn’t defined as simply two people. If gays want that changed, then (as I’ve said many times) they should start amendments themselves. If so many Californians are so up in arms about the issue, then homosexuals should have little trouble gleaning 695,000 signatures and getting an amendment put on the ballot.
The citizens did what was well within their right to do.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (14th Amendment, section 1)
Once again, Baker v. Nelson stated that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union DOES NOT run afoul of the 14th amendment.
Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage......
Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)
And, from the Loving v. Virginia case,
The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race.
In short, the 14th amendment addressed SPECIFICALLY racial discrimination. 1M-1W laws and amendments don’t run afoul of that.
the Supreme Courts of California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut disagree
gay families exist. couples take care of each other, they take care of children. their children take care of them later on in life. it is in societies best interest to help these families stay together and take care of each other.
Society seems to think differently about that "best interest" stuff, as shown by the citizens who have voted to amend their constitutions in their states to clearly define marriage as a 1M-1W union. If Prop. 8 violated the 14th amendment, it wouldn't have been on the ballot, in the first place. And, neither would Amendment 2 (Florida) or any of the 28 other state marriage amendments passed in the last 5 years.
1967: Most of the U.S. sees biracial marriage as a slap in the face to the values they hold. Most as in a strong majority. The values of a society are probably the most important aspect of a society. Whatever these values are, when they are trampled on it causes some major problems.
whether overturning miscegenation laws caused major problems at the time, it was the right thing to do.
Correction: U.S. sees biracial marriage as a slap in the face, ONLY when one of those races is white. None of these folks fought to keep the black race pure (Quite the opposite, white men had been raping black women left and right). In fact, the Loving v. Virginia case pointed out that, "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. "
A footnote to the case reads something like this:
Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention, because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.
Virginia wasn't even abiding by its own rules, as it gave full recognition to interacial couples (provided that neither party was white).
And, lost in all this is the fact that, before Loving v. Virgina or Perez v. Sharp, marriage was a 1M-1W union. After both those cases, it still is a 1M-1W union. That didn't change with the issue of race.
From the Wikipedia blurb:
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".
And, from "Murphy v. Ramsey",
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement
-
Im not familiar with all aspects of prop 8 but does it outlaw civil unions as well? Im not for defining marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman however I do believe that these ppl deserve the same rights as anybody else. Olbierman is a HUGE and i mean HUGE jackass, the fact that he quotes the ignorant 50% divorce rate just affirms my belief of this...ps whoever put this guy on the football pregame show should be drug out into the streets and beat with rubber hoses until his is dead too...sorry just my honest opinion.
Civil Unions are still good. So they get the same tax inplecations. But its still wrong. LEt them marry.
My family is so divided on this. My father who is a Puerto Rican Catholic voted no on 8. Mother who is a black baptist (i guess, its one of those churches thats like 2 hours long) voted yes on 8. Me and sis voted No...
-
From "Hernandez v. Robles" (New York).
] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude......
Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v. Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced. In Loving, an interracial couple argued that Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, which precluded "any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian", violated the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. The statute made intermarriage in violation of its terms a felony carrying a potential jail sentence of one to five years. The Lovings—a white man and a black woman—had married in violation of the law and been convicted, prompting them to challenge the validity of the Virginia law. The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification". It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause". There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination.
The CA court took away the people’s right to define marriage in their state. What Prop. 8 simply did was give that power back to the citizens.
Marriage is provided for all. What’s at stake here is the definition of marriage itself. That definition is a union between one man and one woman. Once again, sexual preference holds no bearing on ability to participate in marriage. The fact that gays don’t want someone of the opposite sex doesn’t mean that they CAN’T participate in the institution of marriage.
The institution isn’t defined as simply two people. If gays want that changed, then (as I’ve said many times) they should start amendments themselves. If so many Californians are so up in arms about the issue, then homosexuals should have little trouble gleaning 695,000 signatures and getting an amendment put on the ballot.
The citizens did what was well within their right to do.
Once again, Baker v. Nelson stated that defining marriage as a 1M-1W union DOES NOT run afoul of the 14th amendment.
Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question". That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the issue of same-sex marriage......
Baker is binding precedent and unless overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way. As such Baker establishes that a State's decision to prohibit same-sex marriage does not offend the United States Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)
And, from the Loving v. Virginia case,
The clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States. There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race.
In short, the 14th amendment addressed SPECIFICALLY racial discrimination. 1M-1W laws and amendments don’t run afoul of that.
Society seems to think differently about that "best interest" stuff, as shown by the citizens who have voted to amend their constitutions in their states to clearly define marriage as a 1M-1W union. If Prop. 8 violated the 14th amendment, it wouldn't have been on the ballot, in the first place. And, neither would Amendment 2 (Florida) or any of the 28 other state marriage amendments passed in the last 5 years.
Correction: U.S. sees biracial marriage as a slap in the face, ONLY when one of those races is white. None of these folks fought to keep the black race pure (Quite the opposite, white men had been raping black women left and right). In fact, the Loving v. Virginia case pointed out that, "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. "
A footnote to the case reads something like this:
Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention, because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.
Virginia wasn't even abiding by its own rules, as it gave full recognition to interacial couples (provided that neither party was white).
And, lost in all this is the fact that, before Loving v. Virgina or Perez v. Sharp, marriage was a 1M-1W union. After both those cases, it still is a 1M-1W union. That didn't change with the issue of race.
From the Wikipedia blurb:
The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)—in which the Court ruled that a statute probiting interracial marriages was unconstitutional—was not applicable to the Baker case. The Minnesota Supreme Court acknowledged the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits some state restrictions upon the right to marry, but that "in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".
And, from "Murphy v. Ramsey",
For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate States of the Union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement
Perfect
-
Justify it all you want til the cows come home, ...it's still wrong. >:(
-
Justify it all you want til the cows come home, ...it's still wrong. >:(
OK, I next question. I am not trying to be a smart ass with this one so don't take it that way.
If there was a man who wanted to marry his mother, or any other incestuous relationship you can think of, should a state recognize this as a legitimate marriage? Should they be given the same rights as a normal heterosexual couple? Would denying this be some sort of violation of their rights?
-
If there was a man who wanted to marry his mother, or any other incestuous relationship you can think of, should a state recognize this as a legitimate marriage? Should they be given the same rights as a normal heterosexual couple? Would denying this be some sort of violation of their rights?
BUMP for the supporters of homo "marriage". Why can't a man marry his sister if they really love each other? Or a father and his daughter?
-
OK, I next question. I am not trying to be a smart ass with this one so don't take it that way.
If there was a man who wanted to marry his mother, or any other incestuous relationship you can think of, should a state recognize this as a legitimate marriage? Should they be given the same rights as a normal heterosexual couple? Would denying this be some sort of violation of their rights?
Incest is against the law, homosexuality isn't.
-
Incest is against the law, homosexuality isn't.
well, not exactly. while any form of adultery was illegal in some states at one time, today it is not illegal for two consenting adults to have sex, even if they are related. and if there were hundreds or thousands of related adults wanting the protection afforded by marriage, we might have to consider it. but there aren't any significant number of related adults in such relationships, while there are millions of same sex couples already in committed long term relationships. also, people who are related already have some of the protections of marriage, such as visitation rights, automatic inheritance, some social security benefits, etc.
-
BUMP for the supporters of homo "marriage". Why can't a man marry his sister if they really love each other? Or a father and his daughter?
Some moral values should always be protected. Yes we live in a free society, but we do not live in a society that permits us to do whatever we want because we love it or enjoy it or want to do it.
Incest is against the law, homosexuality isn't.
For the sake of this arguement, forget the legal aspect about incest being against the law. Which Tim suggest it isn't against the law, he may be right, I don't know.
With what you said you kind of contradicted yourself. You said, incest is against the law. Well, homosexual marriage is against the law too in most places.
The question was, should incestuous relationships be granted the right to marry if it makes them happy?
-
The question was, should incestuous relationships be granted the right to marry if it makes them happy?
They already have it. Have you looked at the Royal family lately?... any royal family?
...not to mention all the residents of Arkansas and Appalachia? ;D
-
Some moral values should always be protected. Yes we live in a free society, but we do not live in a society that permits us to do whatever we want because we love it or enjoy it or want to do it.
Of course. Which is precisely my point.Why is should incest be illegal and sodomy be legal?
The supporters of the travesty of homo "marriage" should also agree that a woman should be able to marry her brother if they love each other and are consenting adults, no?
-
They already have it. Have you looked at the Royal family lately?... any royal family?
...not to mention all the residents of Arkansas and Appalachia? ;D
Ha ha, that was kind of funny ;D
But my question still remains the same. Supporters want gays to be afforded the right to marry, basically because it makes them happy as it does a straight couple. By that thinking, anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want...which is obviously ridiculous.
If my neighbor a 38 year old man was in love with a 15 year old girl and she was equally in love with him. Even though underage marriage is illegal without parental consent, should they be allowed to marry anyway?
If my other neighbor is practicing incest with his sister, and wants to legaly marry her, should he be allowed to?
From the sound of the pro gay marriage crowed, arguing that either one of the instances above shouldn't be allowed to marry makes no sense. But I can pretty much guarantee you that if there were topics like this on a ballot for allowing the two examples above the legal right to marry, almost everyone would be against it, even homosexuals. Why, because it's wrong, and some things in life are simply wrong.
Right is right, wrong is wrong. No matter how you look at it, no matter how you justify it, wrong is always and will always be wrong.
-
Ha ha, that was kind of funny ;D
But my question still remains the same. Supporters want gays to be afforded the right to marry, basically because it makes them happy as it does a straight couple. By that thinking, anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want...which is obviously ridiculous.
If my neighbor a 38 year old man was in love with a 15 year old girl and she was equally in love with him. Even though underage marriage is illegal without parental consent, should they be allowed to marry anyway?
If my other neighbor is practicing incest with his sister, and wants to legaly marry her, should he be allowed to?
From the sound of the pro gay marriage crowed, arguing that either one of the instances above shouldn't be allowed to marry makes no sense. But I can pretty much guarantee you that if there were topics like this on a ballot for allowing the two examples above the legal right to marry, almost everyone would be against it, even homosexuals. Why, because it's wrong, and some things in life are simply wrong.
Right is right, wrong is wrong. No matter how you look at it, no matter how you justify it, wrong is always and will always be wrong.
Agreed! And discrimination against gays & lesbians is just plain wrong! :)
-
Ha ha, that was kind of funny ;D
But my question still remains the same. Supporters want gays to be afforded the right to marry, basically because it makes them happy as it does a straight couple. By that thinking, anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want...which is obviously ridiculous.
If my neighbor a 38 year old man was in love with a 15 year old girl and she was equally in love with him. Even though underage marriage is illegal without parental consent, should they be allowed to marry anyway?
If my other neighbor is practicing incest with his sister, and wants to legaly marry her, should he be allowed to?
From the sound of the pro gay marriage crowed, arguing that either one of the instances above shouldn't be allowed to marry makes no sense. But I can pretty much guarantee you that if there were topics like this on a ballot for allowing the two examples above the legal right to marry, almost everyone would be against it, even homosexuals. Why, because it's wrong, and some things in life are simply wrong.
Right is right, wrong is wrong. No matter how you look at it, no matter how you justify it, wrong is always and will always be wrong.
AJ,
Nothing is ever wrong in America.
-
Keith is brilliant. You just have to sit there and stare in amazement at how easily his thoughts come out.
Brilliant!
-
AJ,
Nothing is ever wrong in America.
Wanna know something? Movements like Prop 8 would NEVER even be hinted to be given a chance of any air time were we not in one of the worst economic slumps in the history of the country and the religious groups were now on the way out of the White House. This was planned yeeeeears ago.
-
I HATE GOD.
FUCK HIM.
-
Justify it all you want til the cows come home, ...it's still wrong. >:(
No, it ain't. Per the Supreme Court's ruling 35 years ago, 1M-1W marriage laws DO NOT RUN AFOUL of the U.S. Constitution (make all the frownie faces you want; it doesn't change that fact).
Wanna know something? Movements like Prop 8 would NEVER even be hinted to be given a chance of any air time were we not in one of the worst economic slumps in the history of the country and the religious groups were now on the way out of the White House. This was planned yeeeeears ago.
The reason Prop. 8 is getting all the air times is because gay activists are acting a fool, due to its passage. Florida and Arizona passed their respective amendments. But, it's not getting the same coverage. Then again, those measure wer proactive. They were passed to keep what happened in California, six months ago, from happening there.
well, not exactly. while any form of adultery was illegal in some states at one time, today it is not illegal for two consenting adults to have sex, even if they are related. and if there were hundreds or thousands of related adults wanting the protection afforded by marriage, we might have to consider it. but there aren't any significant number of related adults in such relationships, while there are millions of same sex couples already in committed long term relationships. also, people who are related already have some of the protections of marriage, such as visitation rights, automatic inheritance, some social security benefits, etc.
That's not exactly true, Tim. You can legally marry your first or second cousin in many states. But that's as close as it gets.
Ha ha, that was kind of funny ;D
But my question still remains the same. Supporters want gays to be afforded the right to marry, basically because it makes them happy as it does a straight couple. By that thinking, anyone should be allowed to marry anyone they want...which is obviously ridiculous.
If my neighbor a 38 year old man was in love with a 15 year old girl and she was equally in love with him. Even though underage marriage is illegal without parental consent, should they be allowed to marry anyway?
If my other neighbor is practicing incest with his sister, and wants to legaly marry her, should he be allowed to?
From the sound of the pro gay marriage crowed, arguing that either one of the instances above shouldn't be allowed to marry makes no sense. But I can pretty much guarantee you that if there were topics like this on a ballot for allowing the two examples above the legal right to marry, almost everyone would be against it, even homosexuals. Why, because it's wrong, and some things in life are simply wrong.
Right is right, wrong is wrong. No matter how you look at it, no matter how you justify it, wrong is always and will always be wrong.
You're exactly right. In fact, that's the argument that polygamists make. If gays can change the gender rule, why can't they change the numbers rule? By their logic, gay activists who are against polygamy are just as "bigoted" and "hateful" as they claim heteros (who believe marriage is a 1M-1W union) are against them.
Furthermore, antagonists of marriage amendments, when confronted with the issue or marriage being about procreation, love to talk about how hetero couple who can't or won't have kids should be banned from getting hitched. But, incestuous couples can have kids (although, there's a HUGE risk of those kids being deformed).
But, aren't these gay "marriage" supporters being "bigoted" and "hateful" by denying incestous couples the right to be married and have retarded kids? After all, they're in a "loving, committed relationship". Same goes for those pedophile types. How dare these gay activists and their supporters deny them the "right" to love underage children!!!!
-
Agreed! And discrimination against gays & lesbians is just plain wrong! :)
What about hillibillys and pedophiles?
Nobody can really argue Benny's points because if the logic is that two gays are consenting people, why should any other relationship be different?
-
Wanna know something? Movements like Prop 8 would NEVER even be hinted to be given a chance of any air time were we not in one of the worst economic slumps in the history of the country and the religious groups were now on the way out of the White House. This was planned yeeeeears ago.
It's worst than that. We're all hypocrites and have literally memorized two verses from the bible "judge not, lest ye be judges" and the one about 'whosoever among you without sin cast the first stone' and used them to excuse any bad behavior. Now nothing's wrong, even being a child molester isn't wrong in some circles.
Personally, I have no clue if being a homosexual is morally wrong. Beyond any doubt, it must have been 'wrong' in biblical times much the same as pulling out was. Not having children (being fruitful) when the Jews were so outnumbered couldn't have been seen as anything but wrong and considered thwarting the will of God. Having children was so important that multiple wives made sense and even in cases where God said 'wait until I'm ready for you to have kids' people wouldn't listen (e.g. Sarah).
Considering how overpopulated the world is now and the extent to which society has changed regarding having children (except retards like the Duggars) it's a very backwards to interpret the Bible in a very literal manner and ignore the context in which the original text was written. People who are married generally end up having children but children aren't the principle reason for marriage in today's society. In biblical times people generally didn't marry for love.
IMO, the shift towards fundamentalism reflects a rejection of the modern world because people can't make sense of their spiritual place in it. In some ways, our own fundamentalists are about 50 years behind the suicide bombers who would do anything to impose Koranic rule upon the world so it would make sense to them.
-
It's worst than that. We're all hypocrites and have literally memorized two verses from the bible "judge not, lest ye be judges" and the one about 'whosoever among you without sin cast the first stone' and used them to excuse any bad behavior. Now nothing's wrong, even being a child molester isn't wrong in some circles.
Personally, I have no clue if being a homosexual is morally wrong. Beyond any doubt, it must have been 'wrong' in biblical times much the same as pulling out was. Not having children (being fruitful) when the Jews were so outnumbered couldn't have been seen as anything but wrong and considered thwarting the will of God. Having children was so important that multiple wives made sense and even in cases where God said 'wait until I'm ready for you to have kids' people wouldn't listen (e.g. Sarah).
Considering how overpopulated the world is now and the extent to which society has changed regarding having children (except retards like the Duggars) it's a very backwards to interpret the Bible in a very literal manner and ignore the context in which the original text was written. People who are married generally end up having children but children aren't the principle reason for marriage in today's society. In biblical times people generally didn't marry for love.
IMO, the shift towards fundamentalism reflects a rejection of the modern world because people can't make sense of their spiritual place in it. In some ways, our own fundamentalists are about 50 years behind the suicide bombers who would do anything to impose Koranic rule upon the world so it would make sense to them.
You make great points.
People married for love. However, as an old song says "Your love give me such a thrill; but your love don't pay my bills!!!". Material care was TOP priority in marriage (food, shelter, clothes, gainful employment, etc). Remember that Jacob loved Rachel so much, he worked 7 years to pay the dowry for her. I don't doubt that, if guy and a gal loved each other, they politicked with their parents to seal the deal.
You mentioned "pulling out". That corresponds to the story of Judah and Tamar. Judah's eldest son, Er, married Tamar. Er died without having any kids. By Jewish law, if a man died without having kids, the Redeemer clause kicked into gear. The oldest non-married male relative (usually the brother of the deceased) married the widow and had children. That firstborn son (or daughter if there were no sons) was regarded at that of the dead brother, to keep his name alive.
Onan, Er's younger brother, was tasked with redeeming Tamar, which he agreed to do. But, while he kept screwing her, he wouldn't impregnate her. Why? GREED AND SELFISHNESS. Onan controlled Er's property, as long as there was no heir. But, once he produced a child with Tamar (and that child turned 20), the property goes to the new descendant. And if Judah died before that goes down, Judah's property went to Onan's younger brother, potentially leaving Onan out in the cold. Onan's actions were tantamount to abuse, in the ancient world. To deny children to a grieving widow, after agreeing to redeem her was deplorable (which might explain why Onan ended up DEAD!!).
I don't there is a rejection of the modern world. But, there is, in many circles, a rejection of the modern morals (or lack thereof) in the world, as such has lead to unspeakable horrors, which were unthinkable just a few decades ago.
BTW, what's with the blast on the Duggar family? The way I see it, as long as you're married can provide for them, have all the babies you want. Forget Viagra, Enzyte, and all that other mess. Guys who need "male enhancement" need to take whatever Jim Duggar's consuming. At last count, the Duggars were up to 18 kids (although, at least two of them are grown by now)?
As for homosexuality, it's safe to say that the idea of it being immoral and perverse transcends race, creed, political parties, religions, and historical time periods. Based on that, the burden falls on the gay community to show that such is not only morally sound but a benefit for society at large, overall. That's one tough nut to crack.
-
Burdening the older children with childcare makes no sense, to me. Also, I find it pretty hard to believe he is supporting them on a single income without all the whoring the family out on television and so on.
Ultimately, I'd argue that society itself has already redefined marriage.
-
Agreed! And discrimination against gays & lesbians is just plain wrong! :)
You're still completely ignoring my question. I'm not trying to be difficult, but you keep skirting around my question. And it's a question that should be relatively easy to answer if your views are as you say they are.
-
Keith is brilliant. You just have to sit there and stare in amazement at how easily his thoughts come out.
Brilliant!
snore
But seriously--his thoughts come out so easily because there's no freakin filter between his addled brain, his bleeding heart and his big mouth. What's so amazing about that?
-
snore
But seriously--his thoughts come out so easily because there's no freakin filter between his addled brain, his bleeding heart and his big mouth. What's so amazing about that?
That is your opinion and nothing more.
And if you are inquiring as to what I think makes his speeches so good is because he makes understanding the central point.
As opposed to the Mick crowd (O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh) preaching hate and to be fearful of everything that is not like them.
-
That is your opinion and nothing more.
And if you are inquiring as to what I think makes his speeches so good is because he makes understanding the central point.
As opposed to the Mick crowd (O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh) preaching hate and to be fearful of everything that is not like them.
It's also my opinion that Olbermann's an arrogant, condescending prick. Let me just throw that in for the record. :)
I understood him just fine, I will grant you that, he was very understandable. It's just that his little demagogic rant was so schmaltzy and maudlin and really nothing more than thinly veiled political posturing, as I stated earlier in this thread. Quite frankly it's an insult to the intelligence of anyone listening to it.
-
If gay activists want to yap about hypocrisy, bigotry, and hatred, some of them may want to find the nearest mirror, particularly the white ones. Many black homos and lesbians will be the first to tell you that racism is ALIVE AND WELL among white gays.
WARNING!!!!! The following article uses language that some may deem "homophobic" and/or "racist". This is not meant to insult, but to reflect the words, quoted by the people in question.
Anti-Prop. 8 Activists Aim Racial Slurs at California African-Americans - Both Homosexual and Straight[/b]
SACRAMENTO, California, November 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Amid the rampant homosexualist protests in California, following the victory of Proposition 8, reports are pouring into homosexual blogs of same-sex "marriage" supporters directing their bile against the African-American community, aiming racist and threatening remarks even against blacks who are themselves homosexual.
Exit polls showed that African-Americans supported Proposition 8, the true marriage ballot measure, 70% to 30%.
One reader of Rod 2.0, a leading gay blog by an African-American, reported that when he joined the large homosexual protest outside Westwood's Mormon Temple, protesters called him a "n*&#@&" at least twice.
"It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks," wrote the commenter.
"YOU black, one man shouted at men (sic). If your people want to call me a F(@*#&, I will call you a n(*@&!. Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple ... me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the blacks better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them."
Another African-American reader from Los Angeles reports that he and his boyfriend, also black, were harassed about their race despite their prominently carrying "No on 8" signs.
"Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, 'Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!'" he relates.
When the man pointed out the sign he carried, "One of the older men said it didn't matter because 'most black people hated gays' and he was 'wrong' to think we had compassion,'" he says. "I guess he never thought we were gay."
Jasmyne Cannick, another popular African-American homosexual blogger, said last week that within three days of Proposition 8's victory she received several calls from homosexual and straight blacks who described being called “n*@&(!” and "being accosted in their cars and told that it was because of 'you people gays don’t have equal rights and you better watch your back.'"......
In response, Dr. Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., told LifeSiteNews.com that "it is absolutely no secret that African Americans support the sanctity of life and marriage," adding that this fact is "something that America needs to know."
Blacks support the true definition of marriage rather than "equal rights" for homosexual unions, King said, because homosexual "marriage" is not a legitimate civil rights issue - contrary to some who say blacks have hypocritically abandoned the fight for equal protection under law.
"Certainly and obviously procreative marriage - between one man and woman - is God's best plan for raising children," said King. "We as African Americans cannot possibly be missing the boat by understanding that the sanctity of marriage is the best way to be sure that the human race thrives."
Anti-marriage protesters have also attracted media attention for targeting individual supporters of Proposition 8.
Scott Eckern of the California Musical Theatre, a true marriage supporter, resigned from his position as artistic director when homosexual "marriage" advocates began attacking Eckern and boycotting the theater. Eckhern had privately donated $1000 to the "Yes on 8" campaign.[/i]
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111212.html (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111212.html)
-
Burdening the older children with childcare makes no sense, to me. Also, I find it pretty hard to believe he is supporting them on a single income without all the whoring the family out on television and so on.
Ultimately, I'd argue that society itself has already redefined marriage.
That happens all the time, in famlies with mutiple kids. The older ones help take care of the younger ones. Ask anyone here who has younger brothers or sisters (by at least 5 years), and they'll tell you the same thing.
As for Jim Duggar's income, if I'm not mistaken, he's a self-made millionaire and former state Congressman. He's had plenty of money, prior to that TV show, chronicling their life.
Have you seen the size of their house? It's HUGE!!!! Their laundry room looks like a public laundromat.
-
That is your opinion and nothing more.
And if you are inquiring as to what I think makes his speeches so good is because he makes understanding the central point.
As opposed to the Mick crowd (O'Reilly, Hannity and Limbaugh) preaching hate and to be fearful of everything that is not like them.
Preaching hate? You mean like the "hate", described in the article I protested earlier?
-
Im not familiar with all aspects of prop 8 but does it outlaw civil unions as well? Im not for defining marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman however I do believe that these ppl deserve the same rights as anybody else. Olbierman is a HUGE and i mean HUGE jackass, the fact that he quotes the ignorant 50% divorce rate just affirms my belief of this...ps whoever put this guy on the football pregame show should be drug out into the streets and beat with rubber hoses until his is dead too...sorry just my honest opinion.
No, all Prop 8 does is define the word "Marriage".
The gay lobby in Cali tries to make it into issues other than what it really is.
-
Of course. Which is precisely my point.Why is should incest be illegal and sodomy be legal?
The supporters of the travesty of homo "marriage" should also agree that a woman should be able to marry her brother if they love each other and are consenting adults, no?
You are a bizarre creature; a hardcore Obama guy and a vitriolic homophobe; I have to admit, it is a unique combination. ::)
Siblings should be able to marry each other and in France they can for example. None of my business.
-
You are a bizarre creature; a hardcore Obama guy and a vitriolic homophobe; I have to admit, it is a unique combination. ::)
You probably know a lot about hugging nuts, kid. ::) Especially since no Asian woman wants you.
What is the contradiction in not supporting homo marriage as a supporter of Barack Obama? Obama does not support marriage between homos either.
Siblings should be able to marry each other and in France they can for example. None of my business.
Fine. Then put that on the ballot in the same proposition as gay marriage and let the people vote on it.
-
You probably know a lot about hugging nuts, kid. ::) Especially since no Asian woman wants you.
What is the contradiction in not supporting homo marriage as a supporter of Barack Obama? Obama does not support marriage between homos either.
Fine. Then put that on the ballot in the same proposition as gay marriage and let the people vote on it.
You are a disgusting 'kid' (I am older than you). You scream about racism as a black man and join in with the hate against gay people. Laughable. Did some gay guy hit on you once to piss you off? ::)
-
You are a disgusting 'kid' (I am older than you). You scream about racism as a black man and join in with the hate against gay people. Laughable. Did some gay guy hit on you once to piss you off? ::)
Gays are not a separate race.
-
Gays are not a separate race.
No, but they are people like everyone else...
-
You are a disgusting 'kid' (I am older than you).
No, you're not.
You scream about racism as a black man and join in with the hate against gay people. Laughable. Did some gay guy hit on you once to piss you off? ::)
I've never screamed about anything in my life. This isn't about "hating" anyone, this is about the redefinition of marriage.
Did some homo violate your rectum and permanently turn you out? ::)
-
No, you're not.
I've never screamed about anything in my life. This isn't about "hating" anyone, this is about the redefinition of marriage.
Did some homo violate your rectum and permanently turn you out? ::)
I simply don't understand dogmatic homophobia. It is irrational and it is stupid.
-
No, but they are people like everyone else...
Then call it People-ism, homophobia, common sense or just plain stupid. Either way, stop making the ridiculous comparisons between blacks and gays. They might not like it but gays can simply choose to live as straight people and escape all of the bigotry, that's not a choice actual minority ethnic groups have. The idea that a gay guy/gal honestly thinks they know what it's like to be black/chinese/indian/etc is arrogant beyond belief. Only in America would a group try standing on the bodies of dead slaves, Jim Crow and generations of suffering and yell "I'm just like you!" to advance their cause, LOL!
-
Then call it People-ism, homophobia, common sense or just plain stupid. Either way, stop making the ridiculous comparisons between blacks and gays. They might not like it but gays can simply choose to live as straight people and escape all of the bigotry, that's not a choice actual minority ethnic groups have. The idea that a gay guy/gal honestly thinks they know what it's like to be black/chinese/indian/etc is arrogant beyond belief. Only in America would a group try standing on the bodies of dead slaves, Jim Crow and generations of suffering and yell "I'm just like you!" to advance their cause, LOL!
You mean sham relationships/marriages? Lots of those and very healthy as well...for everyone involved.
-
This discussion is getting boring quick, LOL!
Now anyone who disagrees is a bigoted, religions maniac. What's next, photoshops of black people and the Klan united against gay marriage?
Is an issue that affects whatever percentage of the 10% that are interested in marriage this important and crucial to society? I mean really?!
Jake,
Since when have you been a political spinster?
I've never seen this side of you. ???
DIV
-
Jake,
Since when have you been a political spinster?
I've never seen this side of you. ???
DIV
I came back to see some of the racism before the election, LOL!
It's a diversion from all the bad porn being posted and calling each other gay on the Y board. It's course is almost run as the election is over and the gay marriage thing is boring without better arguments.