Activist Judges

[jimnyc]

And I'm not trying to oppress them. I just don't want them to have "marriages". Give them civil unions with all the rights they desire. What would the problem be with that?

 

[OCA]

Oppression can only be used toward a minority. Queers chose their lot in life therefore they are only oppressing themselves and can end the oppression any time they feel.

 

[Reilly]

I am not saying that you don't have the right to call homosexuals whatever you like. I am saying that is impolite, to some people, offensive, and unnecessary.

 

[OCA]

You see i'm against the civil union also because they have access to all the rights that you and I if we marry will ever have they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. In other words DO THE RIGHT THING!

 

[OCA]

I don't buy into the offensive argument. If I call myself white trash you have every right to call me white trash also, its a double standard to say otherwise.

 

[Reilly]

Why do you care if they civil unions or the right to marry? How does it effect you at all?

 

[LoneVoice]

Have you looked up the definition of marriage - www.m-w.com

--- (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage.

--- an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry


So, if you took your personal religious beliefs out of the issue.

In essence it's a consensual and contractual relationship.

You manage that based on your morality when you enter into a relationship. Allow others to enter into that based on their morality.

Even if you base it on Christian philosophy, there is only one ultimate judge who each of us will have to confront. Until then, you live your life based on your morality and let others live theirs. I'm sure the ultimate judge will be able to sort it all out in the end.

 

[OCA]

Simple matter of right vs wrong. People engaging in obviously wrong behaviors and actions should not be rewarded.

 

[Reilly]

You don't see the difference? If I call you "white trash," I am insulting you, just as much as if I called you "stupid" or "boorish." It is similary with words that have derogatory connotations based on race or sexual orientation. Even if you don't mind, recognize that most people do object when they are being insulted or vilified or demeaned.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Have you looked up the definition of marriage - www.m-w.com

--- (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

The first definition is the proper definition, the rest are alternate meanings.

Now go to a search engine and do a search on the origin of marriage. IT'S BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.

The ultimate judge WILL sort this out and his name is Congress and I'm more than confident that he'll sort it with a constitutional amendment.

 

[OCA]

Bring on the constitutional amendment boys! Lets end this charade once and for all. I see where the marriage clause in the Calif. Constit. was passed with 61% of the vote and this is liberal California! Is there anybody who is willing to argue that this won't be ratified by 2/3 of the states? GOD BLESS AMERICA!

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
You don't see the difference? If I call you "white trash," I am insulting you, just as much as if I called you "stupid" or "boorish." It is similary with words that have derogatory connotations based on race or sexual orientation. Even if you don't mind, recognize that most people do object when they are being insulted or vilified or demeaned.

If I march down the road carrying a sign stating "I'm white trash" and then you refer to me as "white trash" I don't see the problem. They shouldn't profit in TV programs calling themselves that either.

 

[Reilly]

You believe it is wrong. Many people do not.

Issues of right and wrong are rarely that simple. Many people in the last century thought it was "wrong" to mix races, but what we view as right and wrong is constantly changing and evolving. Who are you to be the arbiter?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
You believe it is wrong. Many people do not.

Issues of right and wrong are rarely that simple. Many people in the last century thought it was "wrong" to mix races, but what we view as right and wrong is constantly changing and evolving. Who are you to be the arbiter?

"We" aren't, the citizens of the USA will decide. MANY more people are opposed than are for. The amendment will go through easily.

 

[OCA]

I'm a member of the populace and whether you like it or not this is going to be decided here in America as well as before god. Limits, we must have limits as a society not social anarchy.

 

[Reilly]

Time will tell. The constitutional amendment may pass, although if it does, it will not be easy. In any event, I suspect in twenty-five years social attitudes will change enough that what happens now will not be the end of the question.

My question to you is why you personally feel you have such a stake in this? Gay marriage doesn't appear to have any connection to straight marriage or straight people at all. Why do you care so much? Let them be.

 

[jimnyc]

Bush has spoken!

"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization," the president said in urging Congress to approve such an amendment. "Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity."

Marriage cannot be severed from its "cultural, religious and natural" roots, Bush said in the White House's Roosevelt Room.

"Unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials — all of which adds to uncertainty,"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20040224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Reilly
My question to you is why you personally feel you have such a stake in this? Gay marriage doesn't appear to have any connection to straight marriage or straight people at all. Why do you care so much? Let them be.

I want to protect the sanctity of marriage. It means more than rights to someone's wealth or property, some of us take it for more than a monetary contract. It's values that have been around as long as time.

Give 'em their civil unions and let them disappear.

 

[Reilly]

What does "sanctity of marriage" mean?

I agree that marriage is more than a contract for property, it is a union and testament of love. That is why gay people aren't satisfied with merely civil unions. They want to be able to make this testament to their love for one another just like any straight couple should.

 

[Reilly]

Whatever "sactity of marriage" means, it seems that a far graver danger to it is the practice of divorce? Wouldn't you efforts be better served seeking laws or constitutional amendments prohibiting divorce and criminalizing adultery. I, and most people, wouldn't agree with this, but it seems a better way of protecting the "sanctity." I think letting two people with professed and demonstrated love for one another marry is a wonderful way of promoting the sanctity of marriage.

Once again though, provided your own marriage is strong, why should you even care about the sanctity of the general practice?