Thread: Imagine how stupid you will look in 40 years

Originally Posted by Bleipriester

And a government that cares about the gays all time and does not think a single second about the workers is?

Excuse me, what? Was that a reply to my post? What are you asking/saying?

No. It is a part of the policy. Politicians, who don´t care about the children ain´t good politicians. The rights of children are more important than the rights of gays. A government that gives a children away as goods and toys for seome sexual freaks, must be replaced. Period.

Better give them to straight child molesters instead, right bleip?

Yes they will. But for now, a large percentage do not and I think it's arrogant to call them, and half of America, bigots, especially by people who only just got on board themselves a short time ago. 20 years ago 80% of Americans opposed gay marriage and the President did until like last week. Why advocates thought that freed them to go on a rhetorical rampage of judgement and condemnation is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Damn Yankee

I don't let peer pressure influence my self esteem now, or 40 years in the past, so why would I care what people think about me 40 years in the future?

Sometimes the position of those peers pressuring you is the right one.

Originally Posted by Slon

Sometimes the position of those peers pressuring you is the right one.

More often it is not.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

a sizable majority of the black community will support equal rights as well.

Take a train, take a bus, take a plane.
Who's reading their Bible?
Blacks.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

I started reading the first 2 pages and stopped. Don't care what happened till now in this thread.

Simple solution.

If you and the person you love want to share responsibility of each others lives and have the same rights that are commonly associated with straight marriage we do this.

1: Eliminate all governmental laws about marriage.


2: If you want a LEGAL contract binding you and allowing you things like hospital visitation and such, the government will issue a CIVIL UNION that grants those legal statuses.


3: If you want a MARRIAGE, you go to whatever minister, priest etc who will marry you and get a marriage but understand that your MARRIAGE has no legal weight. For a LEGAL status as a couple you need to see #2 and get a CIVIL UNION.

Problem solved, the idiots who claim it will ruin the sanctity of marriage no longer have a government sanction marriage so they can just complain about the churches that perform same sex marriages. Everyone straight or gay can get a Civil Union which confers the legal aspect of what is called marriage now with no issues.

Both sides win.

This sounds like the solution, so it does.

It is the "government sanctioning" that has, in the end, ruined the sanctity of marriage, not the few sexually confused nutcases demanding redefinitions of words describing the human relationship.

Originally Posted by Slon

Excuse me, what? Was that a reply to my post? What are you asking/saying?

Just some incoherent letters. Don´t mind.

Originally Posted by Slon

Better give them to straight child molesters instead, right bleip?

I don´t know what you had in mind, but I was not talking about molesters.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

And many who were involved in the civil rights movement of the 60's DO support equal rights. Coretta Scott King, Mildred Loving, Julian Bonds, Al Sharpton, Joseph Lowery... and on and on. The black community as a whole is lagging behind the white community in their support... but their rate of support is indeed increasing at about the same rate as the white community. In 20 years... a sizable majority of the black community will support equal rights as well.

What actual rights are you denied being gay?

Note, i said "rights", not "things you want which due to your choices are not available to you". There is a difference you know.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

What actual rights are you denied being gay?

Note, i said "rights", not "things you want which due to your choices are not available to you". There is a difference you know.

The right to equal protection under the law. There is a civil legal contract, that currently provides the most comprehensive protection for jointly held assets, AND ALSO allows me to legally designate a person that is unrelated to me as LEGAL KIN; that I am not allowed to enter into, simply because of the gender mix of the two parties that wish to contract with each other. Can you name any other civil legal contracts that define the genders of those that may enter into them together?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

The right to equal protection under the law.

How so? I am unaware of any law which affects you differently.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

There is a civil legal contract, that currently provides the most comprehensive protection for jointly held assets, AND ALSO allows me to legally designate a person that is unrelated to me as LEGAL KIN; that I am not allowed to enter into, simply because of the gender mix of the two parties that wish to contract with each other. Can you name any other civil legal contracts that define the genders of those that may enter into them together?

There is NOTHING preventing you from entering into that contract with a member of the opposite sex - just like everyone else.

At the end of the day, what you really want is special dispensation to enter into the contract in a manner different from everyone else - based upon your personal choices rather than the legal requirement that the contract involve one male, one female and the state.

You don't meet the terms of the contract. That does not mean you are denied anything - it means other choices in your life have made you ineligible. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

How so? I am unaware of any law which affects you differently.

There is NOTHING preventing you from entering into that contract with a member of the opposite sex - just like everyone else.

At the end of the day, what you really want is special dispensation to enter into the contract in a manner different from everyone else - based upon your personal choices rather than the legal requirement that the contract involve one male, one female and the state.

You don't meet the terms of the contract. That does not mean you are denied anything - it means other choices in your life have made you ineligible. Simple as that.

I see.... so your idea of strengthening marriage is to advocate that people should marry people they aren't in love with just because they happen to be the right gender? And whose child would you suggest that I enter into a loveless marriage with? Yours?

And please... can you explain how simply because two people are of the same gender... that they enter into a contract in a different way than people that are of different genders? Explain that in detail if you don't mind. What does a person's gender have to do with their ability to adhere to the terms of a contract? Are you saying that if tomorrow Mississippi creates a law that you can only designate an opposite sex person as your medical power of attorney, that would be perfectly constitutional?

There's a damned good reason that proponents of prop 8 have fought tooth and nail to keep the video of the prop 8 trial from being released. It's because their arguements against gay marriage hold no legal water.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

I see.... so your idea of strengthening marriage is to advocate that people should marry people they aren't in love with just because they happen to be the right gender? And whose child would you suggest that I enter into a loveless marriage with? Yours?

Nope - i never said anything of the sort. Do not put words in my mouth. That is your one and only warning.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

And please... can you explain how simply because two people are of the same gender... that they enter into a contract in a different way than people that are of different genders? Explain that in detail if you don't mind.

The contract requires one party be male and one be female. The third party of course is the state. Simple as that. If both parties are the same sex (and it is sex, not gender) then the contractual obligations are not met. No different than the requirement that the male and female are of a certain distance in relationship - no fathers marrying daughters or brothers marrying sisters. There is no reason those people could not sign the contract of course, but they do not meet the requirements.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

What does a person's gender have to do with their ability to adhere to the terms of a contract?

Depends on the contract. In the case of marriage, it is required to be one man, one woman. Has nothing to do with the ability to adhere - it has to do with meeting the conditions of the contract to begin with.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Are you saying that if tomorrow Mississippi creates a law that you can only designate an opposite sex person as your medical power of attorney, that would be perfectly constitutional?

Depending upon how it was worded, it may well be. I know nothing of Mississippi's laws. I am not capable of making that determination one way or the other.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

There's a damned good reason that proponents of prop 8 have fought tooth and nail to keep the video of the prop 8 trial from being released. It's because their arguements against gay marriage hold no legal water.

I don't know what you're talking about. All I know with Prop 8 is it was a legally enacted amendment to the CA constitution which was illegally determined to violate the state constitution - a logical impossibility.

Originally Posted by HonorsDaddy

Nope - i never said anything of the sort. Do not put words in my mouth. That is your one and only warning.

The contract requires one party be male and one be female. The third party of course is the state. Simple as that. If both parties are the same sex (and it is sex, not gender) then the contractual obligations are not met. No different than the requirement that the male and female are of a certain distance in relationship - no fathers marrying daughters or brothers marrying sisters. There is no reason those people could not sign the contract of course, but they do not meet the requirements.

Depends on the contract. In the case of marriage, it is required to be one man, one woman. Has nothing to do with the ability to adhere - it has to do with meeting the conditions of the contract to begin with.

Depending upon how it was worded, it may well be. I know nothing of Mississippi's laws. I am not capable of making that determination one way or the other.

I don't know what you're talking about. All I know with Prop 8 is it was a legally enacted amendment to the CA constitution which was illegally determined to violate the state constitution - a logical impossibility.

How does defining the gender of the person one may choose to enter into legal contracts with not violate one's constitutional right to free association?

And what basis do you have to say that the overturning of prop 8 was illegal?