[acidcomplex]

ManifestDestiny ManifestDestiny:

they can have there own thing and call it cocksucker union for all I care

lol im on the other side but this is damn funny to me. Or maybe marigade?. "Hey we just got marigaded the other day and now were part of the arse fockers union"

[poquas]

lily lily:

feel so special that you decided to break your months of mere lurking by posting to me. I'm truly honoured.

I can't imagine who you think you're speaking to, but it might explain your comments. You appear to infer some form of superior knowledge immediately followed by putting your foot in your mouth if this topic is any indication of your debating skills.

lily lily:

My point was very clear. Legally, there's NO good reason to ban SSM. When forced to come up with a reason, most people fall back on their religious views - which aren't relevant in secular law - or they claim that "queers" are abnormal and repugnant, etc.

Legally, there's NO good reason to legislate it as a new and acceptable form of marriage.

To reinforce the point I made earlier today and correct your "spin", I didn't refer to anyone as queer. I'd find that term insulting too. What I said was that a large portion of the 98% of heterosexual people finds homosexuality at some level instinctively repugnant and that was borne out by the four US states that voted against it. I also said homosexuality is abnormal. That's factual, not an opinion.

[travior]

lily lily:

I feel so special that you decided to break your months of mere lurking by posting to me. I'm truly honoured.

My point was very clear. Legally, there's NO good reason to ban SSM. When forced to come up with a reason, most people fall back on their religious views - which aren't relevant in secular law - or they claim that "queers" are abnormal and repugnant, etc.

You bring nothing to the table... as per usual.

If you were to remove all "secular" laws that were based or influenced by religious views, there would be nothing left except the tax code. Laws are made by the people to protect what they feel is right. Those feelings of what is right will ALWAYS be influenced by their moral/religious/lack-of-religion views. You cannot ask someone to turn off their core values or views when it comes to making laws.

I do not agree with all religious based laws. Some are a bit over-the-top such as the ban on Sunday alcohol sales (as it is here in SC, with some exceptions). But I respect those laws because they were put in place by the majority of the people based on what they felt was right.

I do not agree with SSM's period. However, since they are legal in Canada, I will not protest the fact in regards to Canada even if it was by a court ruling initially. I will still not openly condone it but I will not be protesting in the streets about it either. Just don't expet me to give em' a big ol' hug for support.

When you have a deeply religious society, or even the reminents of one, you cannot blast people for wanting to have their way of life protected. If you want to do away with religious based or influenced laws, lets legalise nudity in public as well as open containers in public parks, decriminalise sex in public, recend laws against polygomy, sodomy, prostitution, adultry, lying under oath, etc. All these are laws based on religious views. What is wrong (secularly) about two people having sex in public or walking around naked?

[poquas]

lily lily:

Everyone is abnormal in some way, poquas.

Some obviously more than others.

lily lily:

The rest of your post is your usual tripe.

Again with the familiarity? Just who do you think I am?

lily lily:

The same could be said for hetero marriage.

Tell me Lily, are you married? If so, to a man or woman?

[travior]

There are laws against them because they are the religious views of Judeo-Christians. Religiously influenced. Non of those acts would upset a non-religious person, so we might as well get rid of them, right? While we are at it, lets get rid of laws against obscene language.

[Scape]

travior travior:

When you have a deeply religious society, or even the reminents of one, you cannot blast people for wanting to have their way of life protected.

Like Iran?

travior travior:

If you want to do away with religious based or influenced laws, lets legalise nudity in public as well as open containers in public parks, decriminalise sex in public, recend laws against polygomy, sodomy, prostitution, adultry, lying under oath, etc. All these are laws based on religious views. What is wrong (secularly) about two people having sex in public or walking around naked?

What wrong with public stoning?

[hurley_108]

lily lily:

$1:

Legally, there's NO good reason to legislate it as a new and acceptable form of marriage.

The same could be said for hetero marriage.

Pairwise relationships are a fact of life, be they MF, MM, or FF. The people in such pairs look after each other in all aspects of life - paying bills, doing housework, advocating for each other, looking after kids together, whatever. Men and women have historically had their pairwise relationship put above all the other relationships each individual has with other people. A wife has more say in medical treatment of her husband than does his sister, for example. And it should be so. The two in the pair are, in general, the ones who understand the wishes of each other best, are committed to the other the most. Pairwise relationships must be enshrined in law, otherwise it'll be forever an endless mess of fighting over guardianship or sharing of health benefits, what have you. It just so happens that we call this pairwise relationship "marriage." There is NO GOOD REASON to not extend these rights and responsibilites to MM and FF relationships that we have always extended to MF relationships.

So we can either cast the term "marriage" out of all laws, and have government have no part in the use of the term, and develop a new term for pairwise relationships that it does recognize, and which you would have to use in all official correspondence. Or we can just let same sex couples "marry."

[hwacker]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Or we can just let same sex couples "marry."

Na the Liberals of Cali have spoken it's now banned. At least some lefties have some sense of right in the world.

[Brenda]

hwacker hwacker:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Or we can just let same sex couples "marry."

Na the Liberals of Cali have spoken it's now banned. At least some lefties have some sense of right in the world.

How Liberal of the Liberals...

[Yogi]

So far, none of those who are 'against gay marriage' have said how what two homosexuals do in the 'privacy of their own homes' hurts them or is any of their business! It has been stated that homosexuality is 'morally reprehensible', and that the sexual acts that one would natuarally assume that they engage in are 'repugnant'.
Raise your hand ( all one of you) who have not engaged in some form of 'anal activity' with a member of the opposite sex! Why do you not see 'that activity' as 'repugnant'???
People are so quick to 'quote the bible' when it suits their own purposes, then it gets shoved back into the back of the shelf until it may be require again to bolster their opinions!

[Scape]

$1:

In response to the ever-reasonable Proposition 8 in California, which restored TRADITIONAL marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years (and was mostly funded by the Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints), I hereby call upon teh gays to promote the equally reasonable and Jesusesque "Proposition P", which would restore TRADITIONAL prophets, as THEY have been defined for thousands of years.

Proposition P, or The Defense of Religious Leaders Who Did Not Wear Magical Underwear, would change the California constitution so that only prophets identified and revered BEFORE 1820 would be recognized.

Once Proposition P is law, any non-traditional prophets... say ones that claimed they could find gold by putting stones in a white stovepipe hat or who, for years, promoted the practice of polygamy... would be devalued as second-class and believers in these modern, substandard prophets would not be allowed to claim their values as valid as those who believe in, like, totally REAL God.

Look, I'm NOT trying to make these immoral and shameful new believers feel BADLY about themselves, but TRADITION dictates one homogeneous world-view and I'm worried what it says about MY prophet if any self-interested, outcast in Pennsylvania can wander into the woods and claim to have heard the word of God.

And then there's the children?

What will happen to the little one's blind adherence to my totally random, but much OLDER belief system, if they are forced to consider someone else's equally random, but much more RECENT, system of morality derived through fear of damnation and haphazardly concocted bogeymen?

Can we really take the chance that some "teacher" pushing an "agenda" of "tolerance" might suggest these "other prophets" are anything more than amoral bacteria-sacks?

No! TRADITIONAL PROPHETS are the way it has always been done... always being defined as at least a couple thousand years, before which we had the PRE-TRADITIONAL Gods and Prophets Like Zeus and Vishnu, who we should also probably get around to outlawing and belittling at some point.

Look, if none of the above is compelling, consider this:

We must pass The Defense of Prophets Act, if for no other reason than to ensure that gay people, who have existed since the beginning of humanity, won't find themselves being bullied by a religion which postdates penicillin... and the steam engine... and the merkin.

Proposition P: because every hateful act of spite deserves and equally irrational response.

link

[hwacker]

Yogi Yogi:

So far, none of those who are 'against gay marriage' have said how what two homosexuals do in the 'privacy of their own homes' hurts them or is any of their business! It has been stated that homosexuality is 'morally reprehensible', and that the sexual acts that one would natuarally assume that they engage in are 'repugnant'.
Raise your hand ( all one of you) who have not engaged in some form of 'anal activity' with a member of the opposite sex! Why do you not see 'that activity' as 'repugnant'???
People are so quick to 'quote the bible' when it suits their own purposes, then it gets shoved back into the back of the shelf until it may be require again to bolster their opinions!

See the great thing is the people of Cali don't have to answer 1000 of questions about the subject, they go in the voting booth place their X and it's done.

thats how Canada should have done away with it as well.

[hwacker]

Scape why are you posting links from the dailyretards ?

[TattoodGirl]

Scape Scape:

$1:

In response to the ever-reasonable Proposition 8 in California, which restored TRADITIONAL marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years (and was mostly funded by the Mormon Church of Latter Day Saints), I hereby call upon teh gays to promote the equally reasonable and Jesusesque "Proposition P", which would restore TRADITIONAL prophets, as THEY have been defined for thousands of years.

Proposition P, or The Defense of Religious Leaders Who Did Not Wear Magical Underwear, would change the California constitution so that only prophets identified and revered BEFORE 1820 would be recognized.

Once Proposition P is law, any non-traditional prophets... say ones that claimed they could find gold by putting stones in a white stovepipe hat or who, for years, promoted the practice of polygamy... would be devalued as second-class and believers in these modern, substandard prophets would not be allowed to claim their values as valid as those who believe in, like, totally REAL God.

Look, I'm NOT trying to make these immoral and shameful new believers feel BADLY about themselves, but TRADITION dictates one homogeneous world-view and I'm worried what it says about MY prophet if any self-interested, outcast in Pennsylvania can wander into the woods and claim to have heard the word of God.

And then there's the children?

What will happen to the little one's blind adherence to my totally random, but much OLDER belief system, if they are forced to consider someone else's equally random, but much more RECENT, system of morality derived through fear of damnation and haphazardly concocted bogeymen?

Can we really take the chance that some "teacher" pushing an "agenda" of "tolerance" might suggest these "other prophets" are anything more than amoral bacteria-sacks?

No! TRADITIONAL PROPHETS are the way it has always been done... always being defined as at least a couple thousand years, before which we had the PRE-TRADITIONAL Gods and Prophets Like Zeus and Vishnu, who we should also probably get around to outlawing and belittling at some point.

Look, if none of the above is compelling, consider this:

We must pass The Defense of Prophets Act, if for no other reason than to ensure that gay people, who have existed since the beginning of humanity, won't find themselves being bullied by a religion which postdates penicillin... and the steam engine... and the merkin.

Proposition P: because every hateful act of spite deserves and equally irrational response.

link

Brilliant Post...as usual

[Pseudonym]

What is the basis of law? Does one legislate merely to administrate, defend and establish rule of law, or is one permitted to make moral judgments in said legislation? If so, we went horribly wrong somewhere. If not, then why is anyone objecting to me taking a moral stand on the issue?