Printable View
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Reason, as long as you and yours keep the kids and animals out of it, I'm on your side.Quote:
If gay and lesbian couples are allowed to marry, Smith added, he believes it eventually will lead to granting legal protection to marriages involving more than two people, and to such sexual behaviors as child molestation or bestiality.
The most extreme view is that Gay marraige does indeed do just that, ends procreation. (this is not my view, just one I have heard I personally dont realy care at all about gay marraige)
This view extends to homosexuality being the end of mankind altogther as procreation ends the species ends. This of course would only be true if everyone on earth was gay, but it can result in the end of family bloodlines in some cases.
Again, this is an extreme viewpoint, and not my viewpoint at all.
As stated before, I don't care. I am neither for or against gay marraige because the issue means nothing to me.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Reason, as long as you and yours keep the kids and animals out of it, I'm on your side.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">gae...kids and bestiality aren't even part of the discussion. That's the point. But the bigots insist on making it part of the discussion.Quote:
Originally posted by gae:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If gay and lesbian couples are allowed to marry, Smith added, he believes it eventually will lead to granting legal protection to marriages involving more than two people, and to such sexual behaviors as child molestation or bestiality.
I railed against Lew for appearing to make the association. I did the same against gunslinger. And now I'm doing against the idiots mentioned in the article.
It's an ongoing thing...
Go figure...a "minister of God" adminstering hate. That's exactly what he's doing.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's why I haven't willingly stepped foot inside a church in 35 years.Quote:
Go figure...a "minister of God" adminstering hate. That's exactly what he's doing.
When I was in grade school, 8th grade, once a week we were treated to THE PRIEST!!! coming in for religious lessons.
I'd started reading some philosphy and folks like Ibsen by that time (and understood less than a little of it -- I was 12) and wanted discussion. Debate. Something more than rote.
One day THE PRIEST!!! called on me and asked me what hell was. I knew he wanted to hear the whole fire and brimstone thing, but I was at the cusp of understanding that I didn't understand, so I answered "No one knows."
Needless to say, they were happy when I left. Of course, I was summarily damned to hell, but I figure it's like Voodoo. It only works if the person on the receiving end believes it.
For those of you who believe and attend Church regularly, I mean no offense. I'm not cracking on religion. I'm cracking on hypocrites.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If procreation is the issue, then we need to get cracking on all those heterosexuals who marry and don't reproduce, not the gays. Because gay marriage or not, gays tend not to reproduce.Quote:
Originally posted by cincygreg:
The most extreme view is that Gay marraige does indeed do just that, ends procreation. (this is not my view, just one I have heard I personally dont realy care at all about gay marraige)
This view extends to homosexuality being the end of mankind altogther as procreation ends the species ends. This of course would only be true if everyone on earth was gay, but it can result in the end of family bloodlines in some cases.
Again, this is an extreme viewpoint, and not my viewpoint at all.
As stated before, I don't care. I am neither for or against gay marraige because the issue means nothing to me.
greg - regardless of whether gays can marry or not, they are still going to couple up. This hasn't stopped the population growth. So you statement that gay marriage ends procreation is well...worthy of yet another...
HUH?
Wasn't there something about Melissa Etheridge awhile back?
Hmmmmmmmm?
(btw, Miss Etheridge was diagnosed with early stage breast cancer on Saturday, the news release said that following surgery she would be "recuperating at home with her wife and children". Seems odd to see the words "her wife".)
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Would anyone out there like to bear my child?Quote:
Originally posted by G L:
The nicest benefit for allowing reason to enter into a gay marriage is that he will never reproduce. And for that we should all be grateful.
You know, over 200 years ago the Framers understand the crap that's associated with direct democracy, that's why they wisely instituted a republic. This business over Issue 3 (and others) exemplifies this to a T.
With all due respect, John Q. Public has no idea what the ramifications of this law are, one way or another. I don't mean that in an arrogant way. But it's not like the public would vote on how doctors are to perform surgeries. It's not like the public votes on how to design and build bridges. Why is the public suddenly qualified to pass/repeal/enact/withdraw/rescind/supercede a law that affects or may affect someone's constitutional rights?
Reason, I've said it before and I stand by it- no court has the right to arbitrarily make a law out of thin air. That's what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did, and that's why the Ohio General Assembly passed its Defense of Marriage Act. I applaud the General Assembly for so doing. But my reasoning is grounded not in Phil Burress as it is Thomas Jefferson.
But that said...allowing issues like this on the ballot...it's almost as bad, if not worse, than the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly declaring gay marriage constitutional. We elect representatives and they pass the laws. I don't care if XYZ School District wants a levy, fine (I don't like that, either, but it doesn't necessarily entail a constitutional right).
But Issue 3 is confusing and the public has no idea what it's voting on and perhaps the day will come when the General Assembly steps in and drops the hammer on it.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Issue three was created by Phil Burress and Citizens for Community Values, and he made it intentionally confusing. We are trying to repeal it.Quote:
Originally posted by Lew:
You know, over 200 years ago the Framers understand the crap that's associated with direct democracy, that's why they wisely instituted a republic. This business over Issue 3 (and others) exemplifies this to a T.
With all due respect, John Q. Public has no idea what the ramifications of this law are, one way or another. I don't mean that in an arrogant way. But it's not like the public would vote on how doctors are to perform surgeries. It's not like the public votes on how to design and build bridges. Why is the public suddenly qualified to pass/repeal/enact/withdraw/rescind/supercede a law that affects or may affect someone's constitutional rights?
Reason, I've said it before and I stand by it- no court has the right to arbitrarily make a law out of thin air. That's what the Massachusetts Supreme Court did, and that's why the Ohio General Assembly passed its Defense of Marriage Act. I applaud the General Assembly for so doing. But my reasoning is grounded not in Phil Burress as it is Thomas Jefferson.
But that said...allowing issues like this on the ballot...it's almost as bad, if not worse, than the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly declaring gay marriage constitutional. We elect representatives and they pass the laws. I don't care if XYZ School District wants a levy, fine (I don't like that, either, but it doesn't necessarily entail a constitutional right).
But Issue 3 is confusing and the public has no idea what it's voting on and perhaps the day will come when the General Assembly steps in and drops the hammer on it.
He put it on the ballot in 93. Now we are trying to remove it.
Of course, you are talking about two things here: Issue 3 has nothing to do with marriage, so perhaps you are adding to the confusion by putting irrelevant topics into the discussion. Marriage is addressed by Issue 1, NOT Issue 3. Your hero, Phil Burress, is responsible for both.
I'm not confident you understand that there are two issues on the ballot.
As far as the public goes and not knowing the ramifications of Issue 3, as a member of the public I'll tell you what they are.
I can be arbitrarily fired for being gay.
I can be arbitrarily denied housing for being gay.
I can be arbitrarily denied service for being gay.
You think this is ok, Lew, but I don't. Talk your Constitutional mumbo jumbo all you want, Lew, but it doesn't make you right.
I don't think the framers of the Constitution meant to arbitrarily deny access to basic rights, or allow the will of the majority to deny basic rights.
A vote yes on Issue 3 allows the opportunity to address those basic rights. And it has absolutely nothing to do with marriage.
<font color="#000002" size="1">[ October 12, 2004 01:00 PM: Message edited by: reason ]</font>