Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 93
  1.    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I don't believe anyone here is asking for a quota of married hoosexuals.
    Agreed
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Now, if by "affirmative action" you're referring to civil rights, yes, that does relate to equal protection under the law.
    This is what I wanted to get to.

    Would you agree that such programs specifically single out certain segments of the citizenry for preferential treatment?

    If so, why is it ok in such cases to deny those benefits to the rest of the population?

    If not, how would you characterize the application of such programs and practices?
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Agreed

    This is what I wanted to get to.

    Would you agree that such programs specifically single out certain segments of the citizenry for preferential treatment?

    If so, why is it ok in such cases to deny those benefits to the rest of the population?

    If not, how would you characterize the application of such programs and practices?
    No no no no no. I sepecifed civil rights not affirmative action. No one here is arguing for or against affirmative action.
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Au contraire mon frere! (yea I know I butchered that spelling). There are legal rights and benefits afforded legally married loved ones. You require a legal document and legal ceremony to obtain those rights. You cannot refure the same to any two adults willing to make that legal binding based on same sex. The courts will bear this out.
    What prevents a civil union from providing the same legal benefits. Nothing. Marriage might not mean anything to you, but it does to many.

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    It's not to suit a minority, it's to INCLUDE the minority with the rest of the married folk. Uniting, not dividing. I think the more important question is why someone would be opposed to it, logically speaking.
    Logically speaking, you're blowing smoke. If you wish to speak logically you would have to say, "What harm could this do?" and "What benefits might be derived?" before you make any law. You have yet to prove that same-sex marriages would provide anything that a civil union couldn't also provide.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  4. #44  
    Hi! I want to marry my bookshelf. I really love it. Can I please take your tax money, get cheaper insurance rates, let it inherit me when I die, because I love it? I know its not so accepted morally, but we have a great time in bed together and have this really emotional attachment. I wonder why G-d didnt make everyone have this natural affinity toward their sexy little bookshelves? Maybe cuz its a sick perversion of nature? Oh no, that cant be. We're an open minded society, and everything is accepted. Lets start "bookshelf bars", "bookshelf restaurants", and "bookshelf open sex do-whatever-the-hell-you-want-to-me communities".

    (just remember people, 75 years ago, NOBODY wouldve imagined how openly people would flaunt their homosexual perversions. It just goes to prove how low our moral standards have dropped. I guarantee you in 75 years from now, people will be demanding constitutional acceptance of their marriage to their goats, their daughters, and themselves, just because they figured out how to make love to themselves and they really enjoy it. Watch out!! Remember, if you think Im wrong, go back to the editorials from the early part of the century.
    By the way, what people do in their own bedroom is none of my business, and as a religious person, though i think homosexuality is wrong, I will respect every human being and not treat them differently or discriminate against them. My only problem is the request for it to be given equal consideration as regular marriages, thus degrading the sanctity of the most beautiful natural thing on earth, (no not sex as you all think, but) the miracle of life, procreation, sanctity of marriage, stable home environment, and the natural benefits G-d gave a child to reap from both a mother and a father (they need some of both- no child can naturally be complete without both). Also, dont ask for public recognition, as thats not a natural form of marriage. Just accept that! Accept you are different! You have a right to be treated fairly, but what does your bedroom life have to do with the demand that we treat your perversion like our sainted marriages? And this is besides the fact that I believe its an abomination (I forgot who described it as that, i think it might have been someone famous.... Oh right, it was G-d! (in Leviticus 20:13) And i think over there He calls for the death penalty for homosexuality too! I wonder if He is for Gay Rights? I wonder if He dicriminates against gays? Hmmm.... Can He do that? Isnt that closed-minded and unaccepting? Its not like its His world or anything like that!!)
    Bottom line- do what you want in your bedroom, just dont ask me to accept it. And dont even TELL me about it! FOr some reason you dont see stragith people running around telling people what they do in their beds. Its none of our business! DO what you want! Just a little modesty and secrecy is in order. Aren't you embarrassed? I dont mean cuz of your gayness, but cuz of your blatant pulicizing what you do with your "partner" (in crime )? And if you want us to accept you as normal, whats with all those earings, tight shirts, hand waving when you talk, and squeaky voices? I cant wait to see the replies on this one!!!!! Let me see soem people for it and against!
  5. #45  
    Shopharim, you have been evading my question once more, so I ask again:

    I am sure you agree that the basis of our societies is "all men/women are equal". So if you want to deviate from that, you need to have good reasons. The burden of proof is on YOU, not on those who want to stick to equal rights also for homosexual people. They are men/women, too, no? So they have equal rights, too, or not?

    According to you, a man who loves a man or a woman who loves a woman should not be allowed to form a union protected by certain rights. Why is that so? Because gays are dirty, immoral, unchristian - what is your reason?

    You mentioned as one reason that homosexual people cannot procreate and should therefore not be allowed to form a legal union. That's a pretty weird explanation, because lots of couples are married although they don't want to have children, and they still enjoy the same rights as couples who do.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  6.    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No no no no no. I sepecifed civil rights not affirmative action. No one here is arguing for or against affirmative action.
    Pardon me. I thought you were answering the question I posed.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    Make up your own mind what it says.
    Taken from the New American Standard Bible Key Word Study Bible (translated from the original Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek).

    Leviticus 20:13
    "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have commited a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death...."
    That's an impressive quote. And since the bible is literally true, shouldn't you start putting homosexuals to death?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8.    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Shopharim, you have been evading my question once more, so I ask again:

    I am sure you agree that the basis of our societies is "all men/women are equal". So if you want to deviate from that, you need to have good reasons. The burden of proof is on YOU, not on those who want to stick to equal rights also for homosexual people. They are men/women, too, no? So they have equal rights, too, or not?

    According to you, a man who loves a man or a woman who loves a woman should not be allowed to form a union protected by certain rights. Why is that so? Because gays are dirty, immoral, unchristian - what is your reason?

    You mentioned as one reason that homosexual people cannot procreate and should therefore not be allowed to form a legal union. That's a pretty weird explanation, because lots of couples are married although they don't want to have children, and they still enjoy the same rights as couples who do.
    Not evading. Asked and Answered
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Pardon me. I thought you were answering the question I posed.
    That question is irrelevent and will only cloud the issue. Unless that's what you were looking for?
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    Explain “So you're able to be ‘married’ to anything or anyone in the privacy of your own home.” And BTW, you can smoke anywhere where there isn’t a sign prohibiting you from doing that. You mean to tell me that gay/lesbians can be married anywhere there isn’t a sign “prohibiting” them from being married? Furthermore, prohibiting smokers from smoking is very localized (states, cities or buildings).
    Interestingly enough, I hear from Republicans how much they wish that the government would stay off their back and not micromanage their lives. Fair enough: Do the same with gay/lesbian marriages.
    Anyone can call themselves anything they want. It's a free country. Expecting others to acknowledge it is a different matter.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's an impressive quote. And since the bible is literally true, shouldn't you start putting homosexuals to death?
    Well, if I wasn't Christian I suppose so. That's so lame clulup. I expect more of you. I can believe in sin without extending judgement. That's why Christ came. Maybe you should take a beginner's course on Christianity.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  12.    #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Shopharim, you have been evading my question once more, so I ask again:

    I am sure you agree that the basis of our societies is "all men/women are equal".
    Well, actually, no I do not agree that all men/women are equal. I believe that all are created equal
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So if you want to deviate from that, you need to have good reasons. The burden of proof is on YOU, not on those who want to stick to equal rights also for homosexual people. They are men/women, too, no? So they have equal rights, too, or not?

    According to you, a man who loves a man or a woman who loves a woman should not be allowed to form a union protected by certain rights. Why is that so? Because gays are dirty, immoral, unchristian - what is your reason?
    Actually, I don't see why such privileges should be established solely on those basis
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    You mentioned as one reason that homosexual people cannot procreate and should therefore not be allowed to form a legal union.
    Actually I mentioned that while one can identifiy commonality between homosexuality and heterosexuality, procreation is an area of distinction between the two. I later asked if technological progress made that distinction of no effect.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    That's a pretty weird explanation, because lots of couples are married although they don't want to have children, and they still enjoy the same rights as couples who do.
    What you call rights, I recognize as priviliges. And I can see how marriage, like home-ownership, provides a benefit to the common good such that it is reasonable to incentivize it with such privileges. And, were the privilieges rescinded, I would have no basis to seek restitution.
  13.    #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    That question is irrelevent and will only cloud the issue. Unless that's what you were looking for?
    lol

    Were we in a TV court, and you objected on the basis of relevence, I would argue:

    Your Honor, this line of questioning is intended to show that though with the best of intentions, i.e. rectifying past inequities, legislatures, by virtue of affirmative action programs, provide unequal, even preferential, treatment under the law to citizens based on race, color, sex....... Further, Your Honor, counsel believes that the intent of such programs which benefit a few citizens is to ultimately foster that which is deemed beneficial to the common good of all citizens. And for that purpose, this unequal treatment is allowed.
  14. #54  
    Fuel for the fire.... The End Of Marriage in Scandinavia
    I suppose you can argue with facts, but what does that prove?

    If you don't see marriage as a worthwhile venture, merely as a legal instrument, than this article won't bother you. Out of wedlock births, etc. will simply be words. If you look beyond those words to what the results have been (not what might be) then you will be alarmed. Most particularly the reference to the Stockholm study that charted (since 1953) the lives of children born out of wedlock.
    It appears to be the result of short-sided social experimentation.

    Ideals are great in the mind, but when they come to earth they seem so often to either die quickly, or kill indiscriminately.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    Since, in the same time frame as the Sweden study, Sweden as a whole has seen a dramatic lowering of marriages (replaced by co-inhabiting) and a dramatic rise in children being born out of wedlock, I ask you again, what benefit does this privilege give to society as a whole?
    That's the question you have to answer, since it seems that same-sex unions don't seem to provide any benefits to anyone except short term monetary ones dealing with health benefits, et al. The inclusion of the word "marriage" into the partnership does nothing positive, it only further dilutes the solidity of the marriage vow.
    The idea that society must change for the desires of a small minority, is conterproductive and anti-democratic.
    Laws are not primarily made to "give to society as a whole", but to protect the individual, e.g. the weak from the stonger ones.

    There are many fields where it is simply unfair to discriminate against somebody just because he is gay. For instance, a friend of mine, who is gay, had a boyfriend he had met while living abroad. Although they had been living together for years (abroad), after the return to Switzerland, his boyfriend was not allowed to live here due to immigration rules. If he had been heterosexual, they could have married and his partner could have stayed with him. Luckily, the law was changed, there are civil unions now for homosexuals, and they still live together happily. Why would anybody (you?) be against that?

    It has happened quite frequently that one part of long-time homosexual couples got ill and had to go into intensive care. There, only close relatives are allowed to visit according to the law. Do you find it fair that the partner of somebody is not allowed to visit, or to be consulted in case the other partner cannot decide any more?

    There are many other examples of that kind...

    I don't care if it is called marriage or civil union. In Switzerland, it is called civil union, and very few people have a problem with it. I also have to say I have never heard of a Swiss homosexual who insisted on it being called marriage. Who cares? What matters is what it means legally.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    lol

    Were we in a TV court, and you objected on the basis of relevence, I would argue:

    Your Honor, this line of questioning is intended to show that though with the best of intentions, i.e. rectifying past inequities, legislatures, by virtue of affirmative action programs, provide unequal, even preferential, treatment under the law to citizens based on race, color, sex....... Further, Your Honor, counsel believes that the intent of such programs which benefit a few citizens is to ultimately foster that which is deemed beneficial to the common good of all citizens. And for that purpose, this unequal treatment is allowed.
    Would be a great arguement if it were applicable.
    ;>

    We're talking about making things equal, not exceeding to make of for past inequities.
  17.    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Would be a great arguement if it were applicable.
    ;>

    We're talking about making things equal, not exceeding to make of for past inequities.
    And, all I asked up front was what benefit does homosexual union provide the nation? The implied question is, are those benefits "equal" to the benefits of afforded by heterosexual union, such as to justify offering privileges to incentivize the behavior?
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    And, all I asked up front was what benefit does homosexual union provide the nation? The implied question is, are those benefits "equal" to the benefits of afforded by heterosexual union, such as to justify offering privileges to incentivize the behavior?
    The benefit to our nation is we have managed to treat a portion of the population fairly and equally.
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by BobbyMike
    Well, if I wasn't Christian I suppose so. That's so lame clulup. I expect more of you. I can believe in sin without extending judgement. That's why Christ came. Maybe you should take a beginner's course on Christianity.
    Hey, I was a Christian for 20 years (longer than I wasn't one - that means I am younger than how old? ). I was even quite an active member for a while (for Swiss standards at least )!

    Ok, so Leviticus 20:13 says:
    "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have commited a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death...."

    "Shall be put to death" means the same as "shall be killed" - that's quite a clear statement. But now you say this does not mean homosexuals shall be killed according to the bible - I am glad you say that. After all, the bible also says it is not allowed to kill. So from that I have to deduce that you do not think that all parts of the bible are literally true necessarily?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Chick-Dance
    what benefits do smokers provide?
    They pay a $hit load of taxes
    Well behaved women rarely make history
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions