Homosexual marriage very unethical.

[Bass v 2.0]

You're starting to sound a little angry.. Tsktsk.

The Bass is cooler than a polar bear at Baskin Robins eating ice cream, the Bass isn't mad, lol.

 

[52ndStreet]

You don't understand, homosexuality is a threat, that like racism, must be stopped at all costs. Two men injecting semen in each others anuses is not only morally wrong, bt ethically, spiritually, mentally and health-wise wrong.

This is my point also.The Homosexual act in and of itself is unhygenic,and the
discharging of male seaman,without impregnating a female, is highly unethical.
Or two lesbian swaping menestration blood,this is another highly unhygenic act.

The whole homo process,weather lesbian,homo or male homo, is abnormal,and wrong.Very perverted, and many of these people are infact mentally deranged.

 

[jillian]

The Bass is cooler than a polar bear at Baskin Robins eating ice cream, the Bass isn't mad, lol.

"The Bass" (who for no reason anyone can comprehend STILL insists on speaking of himself in the third person) is fruitier than fruit loops.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I think it's unethical to tell a religion what to do. But it's also unethical to legislate religious ideals, so both stances on the issue are wrong to a degree.

 

[jillian]

If a religious group doesn't want to recognize homosexuals, that's pretty much their right (regardless of what one agrees with).

But government? It certainly shouldn't discriminate based on religious dogma.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

If a religious group doesn't want to recognize homosexuals, that's pretty much their right (regardless of what one agrees with).

But government? It certainly shouldn't discriminate based on religious dogma.

Why should government support a sexual behavior of two men spraying fecal matter and seminal fluid on each other?

 

[Dr Grump]

Why should government support a sexual behavior of two men spraying fecal matter and seminal fluid on each other?

Why does it even need govt approval?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Why does it even need govt approval?

The Bass wasn't speaking on the disgusting sex acts of the sodomites, the Bass was speaking about gay marriage.

 

[Shattered]

The Bass wasn't speaking on the disgusting sex acts of the sodomites, the Bass was speaking about gay marriage.

I'm seriously starting to think YOU'RE gay, and you're just not happy with YOURSELF.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I'm seriously starting to think YOU'RE gay, and you're just not happy with YOURSELF.

The Bass could never be gay, this butt is God protected from sodomites and the Bass has never and will never put his penis in another man, you're living in a fantasy world.

 

[Shattered]

The Bass could never be gay, this butt is God protected from sodomites and the Bass has never and will never put his penis in another man, you're living in a fantasy world.

Obviously not, given you display all the tendencies of a closet gay with your every post.

 

[Zeddicus]

so bass because you seem to not like gays,(or maybe likes gays TO much ) that millions of human beings should lose there freedom to pursue happiness, a right promised in the constitution? This is whats wrong with the country, people like bass belive in the constitution all the way up to when it comes to other people's rights.

 

[Gunny]

so bass because you seem to not like gays,(or maybe likes gays TO much ) that millions of human beings should lose there freedom to pursue happiness, a right promised in the constitution? This is whats wrong with the country, people like bass belive in the constitution all the way up to when it comes to other people's rights.

The issue of the Consitutional Right to the pursuit of happiness is not so simplistic as you would try to make it sound, klaatu.

Your right to pursue happiness ends where mine begins, and one always has a corresponding opposite/antagonist.

Then you have to factor in that we are a society of people. When our common bond -- basic beliefs held by the majority of society -- disappears, so too does the society itself.

I'm sure you will find that in one way or another, EVERYONE falls into the category you present in your last sentence. It all depends on what your favorite flavor is.

 

[Zeddicus]

The issue of the Consitutional Right to the pursuit of happiness is not so simplistic as you would try to make it sound, klaatu.

Your right to pursue happiness ends where mine begins, and one always has a corresponding opposite/antagonist.

Then you have to factor in that we are a society of people. When our common bond -- basic beliefs held by the majority of society -- disappears, so too does the society itself.

I'm sure you will find that in one way or another, EVERYONE falls into the category you present in your last sentence. It all depends on what your favorite flavor is.

I mean also this is very much like the cival rights movement of the 60's. One group of people is asking for the rights given to all other citizens who are differnt in some small way, and another group denying them because they do not belive its right. i get people find it un-ethical but come on these are people who deserve happiness. And i don't think socity would fall if gays were aloud to get married. I mean christianity and most other religons teach of tolernce and forgivness. not denying peoples rights.

 

[Gunny]

I mean also this is very much like the cival rights movement of the 60's. One group of people is asking for the rights given to all other citizens who are differnt in some small way, and another group denying them because they do not belive its right. i get people find it un-ethical but come on these are people who deserve happiness. And i don't think socity would fall if gays were aloud to get married. I mean christianity and most other religons teach of tolernce and forgivness. not denying peoples rights.

I disagree. The Civil Rights movement was based on race -- genetics. That is not a choice. Homosexuality is factually based on nothing but the behavior it manifests itself as. Voluntarily engaging in behavior is a choice.

Homosexuals currently have every right under the law that heterosexuals do. Creating a law that is exclusive to homosexual behavior is discrimination. Forcing that law on the majority that has clearly voiced their opinion on the matter via voting is tyranny of the minority, and the judiciary usurping the will of the society.

 

[Zeddicus]

I disagree. The Civil Rights movement was based on race -- genetics. That is not a choice. Homosexuality is factually based on nothing but the behavior it manifests itself as. Voluntarily engaging in behavior is a choice.

Homosexuals currently have every right under the law that heterosexuals do. Creating a law that is exclusive to homosexual behavior is discrimination. Forcing that law on the majority that has clearly voiced their opinion on the matter via voting is tyranny of the minority, and the judiciary usurping the will of the society.

Actually gay married couples get about a quarter what hetrosexual couples get. As for the 'gay is a choice' thing, even if this is so which i don't really agree with then they made the choice to be with a same sex partner why can't they choose if they want to marry that person? And i don't see it as a creating a law but merly to extend the current law to include ANYONE who wants to be married to whomever they choose. marrige is not between a man and a women, its between 2 people who care deeply for eachother, or a gold digger. And when the majority of the people wish to pass a law that would strip millions of a right they deserve that is tyranny. And i don't belive i have heard of people voting out gay marrige. is it possible for a link?

 

[Gunny]

Actually gay married couples get about a quarter what hetrosexual couples get. As for the 'gay is a choice' thing, even if this is so which i don't really agree with then they made the choice to be with a same sex partner why can't they choose if they want to marry that person? And i don't see it as a creating a law but merly to extend the current law to include ANYONE who wants to be married to whomever they choose. marrige is not between a man and a women, its between 2 people who care deeply for eachother, or a gold digger. And when the majority of the people wish to pass a law that would strip millions of a right they deserve that is tyranny. And i don't belive i have heard of people voting out gay marrige. is it possible for a link?

Wrong. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and whether or not they care about each other is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

Look back to the beginning of this thread for a link. The people of California voted against gay marriage via referendum vote, and it was written into the law. The judiciary overruled that law.

The perception of tyranny of the majority does not in any way detract from the fact that the judicial ruling is allowing a tyranny by the minority. If one has to choose, living in a representative Republic or democracy -- whichever you prefer -- the will of the majority of society should supercede the will of the minority. Otherwise, that our laws reflect the society in which we live is just a sham.

 

[Zeddicus]

hey all i am saying is listing to your anti-gay points i can honestly say that people don't think. ok so marrige is between a man and a women welll from a legal standpoint, men and women have equal rights, so to tell them they can't marry someone they care about is both idiodic and fuckin mean. because you don't aprove millions can't pursue THEIR life the way THEY want. and no gay couples even in states that do allow gay marrige do not get all the tax cuts that straight couples get.

 

[editec]

I thought men and women both had the same rights.

Does anyone disagree with that premise?

No?

Well then, if a man can marry a woman, why can't a woman marry a woman?

 

[jillian]

Wrong. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and whether or not they care about each other is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

Look back to the beginning of this thread for a link. The people of California voted against gay marriage via referendum vote, and it was written into the law. The judiciary overruled that law.

The perception of tyranny of the majority does not in any way detract from the fact that the judicial ruling is allowing a tyranny by the minority. If one has to choose, living in a representative Republic or democracy -- whichever you prefer -- the will of the majority of society should supercede the will of the minority. Otherwise, that our laws reflect the society in which we live is just a sham.

Marriage used to be defined as marriage between a man and a woman of the same RACE. I think we went past that with Loving v Virginia. Amazingly, that was in the 1970's.

Marriage is defined however WE define it and if we realize the definiation was wrong, as that before Loving, then it needs to be re-evaluated so we don't discriminate against people.

Sometimes the laws have to go ahead of "society", like they did in the '70's... and in the '50's when the Court struck down Separate but Equal.

"society" would have voted to keep that little paradigm, too.