Think of it this way -- black people didn't used to have the legal right to marry either. The institution of marriage is not changing. It's just that as times change, we become more accepting as to who we let have these freedoms that only some of us used to have.
Also, you may be interested to learn about the history of marriage. It's based mostly in property rights, and the concept of marriage unifying a romantic relationship is a pretty recent one. Last couple hundred years or so.
I don't really have to think of it "that way"...since I'm black. Blacks not having the legal right to marry was a man-made restriction considering that they, too, were property at a time.
And granting civil unions and all of the basic rights that come with a legal union is pretty damned accepting. Whose world is going to collapse because they had a "civil union" ceremony instead of a "marriage" ceremony?
Do I sound contradictory? Sorry, can't help that because I don't see this issue as an issue of discrimination; more an issue of "I want what I want and demand that you accept it." Gay and straight have to live here as well as those who follow the bible and those who do not. This country is overwhelming faith-based and that's not a bad thing.
Whose world is going to collapse because they had a "civil union" ceremony instead of a "marriage" ceremony?
Well, that question could be directed right back at you; whose world is going to collapse because they had a "marriage" ceremony instead of a "civil union" ceremony? And I think the answer to your question is that the institution and spiritual meaning of marriage is desired by many people, both gay and straight. Why differentiate?
The government should not be in the marriage business. The government should only recognize civil unions - hetero or homo. If a couple then wants to go to their church and get married, that is fine, but the gov't shouldn't care one way or the other.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
The government should not be in the marriage business. The government should only recognize civil unions - hetero or homo. If a couple then wants to go to their church and get married, that is fine, but the gov't shouldn't care one way or the other.
I can understand the states' rights argument very much, although I'm not sure I entirely agree. The federal amendment ban argument, on the other hand, is hypocritical horsecrap, in my personal opinion.
EDIT: That being said, I think it'd be a practical impossibility to remove the states' recognizing marriage. There's too much invested in it already. But I'd agree to that before I'd agree to marriage recognition only for heterosexual couples. It should be all or nothing.
The government should not be in the marriage business. The government should only recognize civil unions - hetero or homo. If a couple then wants to go to their church and get married, that is fine, but the gov't shouldn't care one way or the other.
agree ... and thus, California's Prop 8 should be voted against.
as, it would amend the state constitution to ONLY recognize marraige between a man and a woman.
VOTE NO ON 8!
"You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
For those of you who may not know, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution is the reason why one state has to recognize and give benefits to people who got married in another state. So Nevada has to recognize the marriage of a couple who got married in CA, and vise versa.
This is why the states rights issue is not an end result. If CA permits gay marriages, the implications are nationwide.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
For those of you who may not know, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution is the reason why one state has to recognize and give benefits to people who got married in another state. So Nevada has to recognize the marriage of a couple who got married in CA, and vise versa.
This is why the states rights issue is not an end result. If CA permits gay marriages, the implications are nationwide.
Yes, good point. And the state governments would not be able to make any law that rejects gay marriages from other states, for in the case that the federal law and state law contradict, the former overrules the latter.
I don't really have to think of it "that way"...since I'm black. Blacks not having the legal right to marry was a man-made restriction considering that they, too, were property at a time.
And granting civil unions and all of the basic rights that come with a legal union is pretty damned accepting. Whose world is going to collapse because they had a "civil union" ceremony instead of a "marriage" ceremony?
Do I sound contradictory? Sorry, can't help that because I don't see this issue as an issue of discrimination; more an issue of "I want what I want and demand that you accept it." Gay and straight have to live here as well as those who follow the bible and those who do not. This country is overwhelming faith-based and that's not a bad thing.
I missed your response earlier. You know, I am interested in your response. I do believe this is an issue of discrimination. I am straight and white, for the record, but I don't think that matters here. The civil union laws to me are a pretty clear cut example of separate but equal, and that violates the 14th amendment. I just don't think it's going to hold up.
Practically speaking, who wins this election will have a huge impact on this issue because if McCain appoints a couple of Scalias, the court will side with the conservatives who say man and woman and that's it. As is, I think the court sides with CA, but we will see.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
I missed your response earlier. You know, I am interested in your response. I do believe this is an issue of discrimination. I am straight and white, for the record, but I don't think that matters here. The civil union laws to me are a pretty clear cut example of separate but equal, and that violates the 14th amendment. I just don't think it's going to hold up.
Practically speaking, who wins this election will have a huge impact on this issue because if McCain appoints a couple of Scalias, the court will side with the conservatives who say man and woman and that's it. As is, I think the court sides with CA, but we will see.
I did say contradictory, didn't I?
You would think that leaving it up to the individual states instead of the federal gov't would be the logical and responsible thing to do, but that's not foolproof either. But also, in my head, I see you start changing something like the definition of marriage and all else follows; why stop there? Change everything. Bigamists want to be able to legalize their marriages as well, so let them.
You would think that leaving it up to the individual states instead of the federal gov't would be the logical and responsible thing to do, but that's not foolproof either.
But the difficulty of states' rights was brought up earlier by him. States' rights would be overrode should a gay couple move into a state that has a ban of gay marriage on the books, because in this case the federal law would override state law.
I just don't understand why people are so opposed to the idea. There are plenty of gay couples already; why are we removing their rights? We should only make something illegal if there is a reason it has to be. I've not seen a good answer about that regarding gay marriage yet.
But the difficulty of states' rights was brought up earlier by him. States' rights would be overrode should a gay couple move into a state that has a ban of gay marriage on the books, because in this case the federal law would override state law.
I just don't understand why people are so opposed to the idea. There are plenty of gay couples already; why are we removing their rights? We should only make something illegal if there is a reason it has to be. I've not seen a good answer about that regarding gay marriage yet.
Yeah, I mean it doesn't hurt anyone to call it marriage. If you are married and you believe that giving gay people the right to marry somehow hurts your marriage, I just don't get that.
I have a gay second cousin in Germany who is legally married to a man. I posted this in another thread. I saw both of them at a wedding recently, and they are really nice guys and nothing about the relationship is weird to me when I see them. Anyway, they said the only place in the world where they can't dance at a wedding would be the US.
My point is that the institution of marriage is strong. It is not being weakened by letting gay people get married. We have it in CA and guess what? Straight people are still getting married. No one cares. Let these people get married. It matters more to them than it does to anyone else.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
You would think that leaving it up to the individual states instead of the federal gov't would be the logical and responsible thing to do, but that's not foolproof either. But also, in my head, I see you start changing something like the definition of marriage and all else follows; why stop there? Change everything. Bigamists want to be able to legalize their marriages as well, so let them.
But that's just me.
Yeah, there are lots of bigamists cases. The issue with those is the freedom of religion vs. the public policy of outlawing bigamy. The cases side with the state's right to deem it illegal. So there is precedent there that wouldn't be affected by this gay marriage issue.
I hear your point though. But I don't know that there is a lot of risk in this being a slippery slope. Marriage would just be defined as a union of two people, nothing more nothing less. I dunno. Seems simple to me.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
Getting divorced is a more meaningful tradition than getting married, but whatever, if gays want to get married I couldn't care less. More power to them.
Marriage is a joke. It's pathetic to see people trying to protect its "traditional" meaning.
Maybe to you it is, but not to me and many other people.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
But the difficulty of states' rights was brought up earlier by him. States' rights would be overrode should a gay couple move into a state that has a ban of gay marriage on the books, because in this case the federal law would override state law.
I just don't understand why people are so opposed to the idea. There are plenty of gay couples already; why are we removing their rights? We should only make something illegal if there is a reason it has to be. I've not seen a good answer about that regarding gay marriage yet.
Depending on who you ask, being gay is "illegal" so that's a tricky area as well.
And again, no one's really "removing their rights"; they're just calling a gay marriage a civil union.
Depending on who you ask, being gay is "illegal" so that's a tricky area as well.
And again, no one's really "removing their rights"; they're just calling a gay marriage a civil union.
Anyone who says that being gay is illegal does not know the law.
It's separate but equal. Brown v. Board is on point.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
There are plenty of gay couples already; why are we removing their rights?
The issue is whether or not they should HAVE that right in the first place. That's the issue. It's not whether or not we should take it away, it's about giving it to them in the first place. Please understand that. Because gay marriages are obviously not spelled out in the Constitution as a right, the government must decide if it wants to recognize and grant gay civil unions or not.
I personally support allowing gay civil unions. I wouldn't, however, support any efforts to force churches to recognize or perform gay marriages. In my mind, the definition of a civil union is up to the government to decide, and the definition of "marriage" is up to churches and religions to decide.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
Gay people are going to have sex anyway so why not?
That's a flawed argument. People are always going to be murdered, does that mean we should allow murder? In fact, murder probably occurs more often.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
That's a flawed argument. People are always going to be murdered, does that mean we should allow murder? In fact, murder probably occurs more often.
You think murder occurs more often than gay sex?
Anyway, we are way off topic at this point.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
That's flawed aswell, gay sex isn't something illegal.
We're talking about gay marriage, not gay sex.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
It may. I'm not being discriminatory, honestly. It's very possible.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
It may. I'm not being discriminatory, honestly. It's very possible.
I am pretty sure there are way more gay people in the world than you think.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
I am pretty sure there are way more gay people in the world than you think.
I'm also pretty sure there's a lot of fucking murders that occur in the world.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
I'm also pretty sure there's a lot of fucking murders that occur in the world.
In LA County, a murder is committed every 26 hours. That may be the highest murder rate out there, according to this website. So far, in 2008, there have been 274 murders.
So you think that in LA County, one gay person has sex every couple days or so?
Now, I think if you count the night of 9/11/01 in New York City, you may be close, assuming you count the people who died in the WTC as murders. Frankly, I have no clue how many gay people had sex in New York City that night, but I am positive it was more than one person every 26 hours. There are lots of gay people in the world. It's just that in some areas, they can't be honest about their lifestyles, which is sad.
But we are way off topic here.
San Diego 10/25/00, Mountain View 6/1/03, Santa Barbara 10/28/03, Northwest School 3/18/05, San Diego 7/7/06, Los Angeles 7/9/06, 7/10/06, Honolulu (U2) 12/9/06, Santa Barbara (EV) 4/10/08, Los Angeles (EV) 4/12/08, Hartford 6/27/08, Mansfield 6/28/08, VH1 Rock Honors The Who 7/12/08, Seattle 9/21/09, Universal City 9/30/09, 10/1/09, 10/6/09, 10/7/09, San Diego 10/9/09, Los Angeles (EV) 7/8/11, Santa Barbara (EV) 7/9/11, Chicago 7/19/13, San Diego 11/21/13, Los Angeles 11/23/13, 11/24/13, Oakland 11/26/13, Chicago 8/22/16, Missoula 8/13/18, Boston 9/2/18, Los Angeles 2/25/22 (EV), San Diego 5/3/22, Los Angeles 5/6/22, 5/7/22, Imola 6/25/22, Los Angeles 5/21/24, [London 6/29/24], [Boston 9/15/24]
In LA County, a murder is committed every 26 hours. That may be the highest murder rate out there, according to this website. So far, in 2008, there have been 274 murders.
So you think that in LA County, one gay person has sex every couple days or so?
Now, I think if you count the night of 9/11/01 in New York City, you may be close, assuming you count the people who died in the WTC as murders. Frankly, I have no clue how many gay people had sex in New York City that night, but I am positive it was more than one person every 26 hours. There are lots of gay people in the world. It's just that in some areas, they can't be honest about their lifestyles, which is sad.
But we are way off topic here.
I have nothing against gay people. There are gay people in my family who I really respect and have no problems with. But honestly, I think there are fewer gay people in the world than one would think.
But you're right, we are very off topic, although I think the topic has kinda run it's course anyway.
I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely, its ability to act tempered by prudence, and its willingness to do good, balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us.
-Reagan
Comments
And granting civil unions and all of the basic rights that come with a legal union is pretty damned accepting. Whose world is going to collapse because they had a "civil union" ceremony instead of a "marriage" ceremony?
Do I sound contradictory? Sorry, can't help that because I don't see this issue as an issue of discrimination; more an issue of "I want what I want and demand that you accept it." Gay and straight have to live here as well as those who follow the bible and those who do not. This country is overwhelming faith-based and that's not a bad thing.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
Well, that question could be directed right back at you; whose world is going to collapse because they had a "marriage" ceremony instead of a "civil union" ceremony? And I think the answer to your question is that the institution and spiritual meaning of marriage is desired by many people, both gay and straight. Why differentiate?
I can understand the states' rights argument very much, although I'm not sure I entirely agree. The federal amendment ban argument, on the other hand, is hypocritical horsecrap, in my personal opinion.
EDIT: That being said, I think it'd be a practical impossibility to remove the states' recognizing marriage. There's too much invested in it already. But I'd agree to that before I'd agree to marriage recognition only for heterosexual couples. It should be all or nothing.
agree ... and thus, California's Prop 8 should be voted against.
as, it would amend the state constitution to ONLY recognize marraige between a man and a woman.
VOTE NO ON 8!
"I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
If I lived in California, I'd definitely be voting NO ON 8! Good luck down there.
This is why the states rights issue is not an end result. If CA permits gay marriages, the implications are nationwide.
Yes, good point. And the state governments would not be able to make any law that rejects gay marriages from other states, for in the case that the federal law and state law contradict, the former overrules the latter.
I missed your response earlier. You know, I am interested in your response. I do believe this is an issue of discrimination. I am straight and white, for the record, but I don't think that matters here. The civil union laws to me are a pretty clear cut example of separate but equal, and that violates the 14th amendment. I just don't think it's going to hold up.
Practically speaking, who wins this election will have a huge impact on this issue because if McCain appoints a couple of Scalias, the court will side with the conservatives who say man and woman and that's it. As is, I think the court sides with CA, but we will see.
You would think that leaving it up to the individual states instead of the federal gov't would be the logical and responsible thing to do, but that's not foolproof either. But also, in my head, I see you start changing something like the definition of marriage and all else follows; why stop there? Change everything. Bigamists want to be able to legalize their marriages as well, so let them.
But that's just me.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
But the difficulty of states' rights was brought up earlier by him. States' rights would be overrode should a gay couple move into a state that has a ban of gay marriage on the books, because in this case the federal law would override state law.
I just don't understand why people are so opposed to the idea. There are plenty of gay couples already; why are we removing their rights? We should only make something illegal if there is a reason it has to be. I've not seen a good answer about that regarding gay marriage yet.
Yeah, I mean it doesn't hurt anyone to call it marriage. If you are married and you believe that giving gay people the right to marry somehow hurts your marriage, I just don't get that.
I have a gay second cousin in Germany who is legally married to a man. I posted this in another thread. I saw both of them at a wedding recently, and they are really nice guys and nothing about the relationship is weird to me when I see them. Anyway, they said the only place in the world where they can't dance at a wedding would be the US.
My point is that the institution of marriage is strong. It is not being weakened by letting gay people get married. We have it in CA and guess what? Straight people are still getting married. No one cares. Let these people get married. It matters more to them than it does to anyone else.
Yeah, there are lots of bigamists cases. The issue with those is the freedom of religion vs. the public policy of outlawing bigamy. The cases side with the state's right to deem it illegal. So there is precedent there that wouldn't be affected by this gay marriage issue.
I hear your point though. But I don't know that there is a lot of risk in this being a slippery slope. Marriage would just be defined as a union of two people, nothing more nothing less. I dunno. Seems simple to me.
Maybe to you it is, but not to me and many other people.
-Reagan
And again, no one's really "removing their rights"; they're just calling a gay marriage a civil union.
...signed...the token black Pearl Jam fan.
FaceSpace
Anyone who says that being gay is illegal does not know the law.
It's separate but equal. Brown v. Board is on point.
Because its nasty and should never be allowed????
The issue is whether or not they should HAVE that right in the first place. That's the issue. It's not whether or not we should take it away, it's about giving it to them in the first place. Please understand that. Because gay marriages are obviously not spelled out in the Constitution as a right, the government must decide if it wants to recognize and grant gay civil unions or not.
I personally support allowing gay civil unions. I wouldn't, however, support any efforts to force churches to recognize or perform gay marriages. In my mind, the definition of a civil union is up to the government to decide, and the definition of "marriage" is up to churches and religions to decide.
-Reagan
Gay people are going to have sex anyway so why not?
That's a flawed argument. People are always going to be murdered, does that mean we should allow murder? In fact, murder probably occurs more often.
-Reagan
You think murder occurs more often than gay sex?
Anyway, we are way off topic at this point.
That's flawed aswell, gay sex isn't something illegal.
We're talking about gay marriage, not gay sex.
-Reagan
It may. I'm not being discriminatory, honestly. It's very possible.
-Reagan
Marraige is not a joke. People have made it a joke by their actions.
I am pretty sure there are way more gay people in the world than you think.
I'm also pretty sure there's a lot of fucking murders that occur in the world.
-Reagan
In LA County, a murder is committed every 26 hours. That may be the highest murder rate out there, according to this website. So far, in 2008, there have been 274 murders.
http://www.lacountymurders.com/stats.cfm
So you think that in LA County, one gay person has sex every couple days or so?
Now, I think if you count the night of 9/11/01 in New York City, you may be close, assuming you count the people who died in the WTC as murders. Frankly, I have no clue how many gay people had sex in New York City that night, but I am positive it was more than one person every 26 hours. There are lots of gay people in the world. It's just that in some areas, they can't be honest about their lifestyles, which is sad.
But we are way off topic here.
I have nothing against gay people. There are gay people in my family who I really respect and have no problems with. But honestly, I think there are fewer gay people in the world than one would think.
But you're right, we are very off topic, although I think the topic has kinda run it's course anyway.
-Reagan