Originally posted by PVS
just admit it.
you CHOSE to be gay as a means of pissing off conservatives.well dont push your ideals on me buddy!!!
Yes, my family is ultra-conservative. So, this is my sick, demented form of rebellion. To further add to their torment, I moved to San Francisco. I don't even fancy guys, I'm just acting out against my mother.
wow to much biology given to a legal process...........even worse is biology then backed by judeo-christian values as it pertains to modern mixed society...........
I do understand the piece whob is trying to make on what will/can we consider a relationship then allow a civil union however just for your own good whob stop using biology to justify the law.
So, you're saying you agree that if gay people are allowed to marry, that people will be marrying elephants, air fresheners and pencil sharpeners?
I'm also not sure what you mean by using biology to justify a legal process? Are you saying that it doesn't matter to you if it's chosen or genetic, because the bottom line is that it's a fact of life that should just be accepted? Good for you! But I don't think you feel that way. I think that you're saying that it's shouldn't be 'allowed' because it will cause too much paper work for the government. Well, guess what, that's the governments f-ing job. If it can't serve the people it's suppoded to represent, then it's failing at it's job and needs to be replaced with a body that can accomodate the people of this nation. ALL THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION. Saying it's "too much work for the government" is a cop out. It's a lazy argument. And it isn't even true.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
There are indeed people out there who believe in such foolish concepts..much like homosexuality, these practices have been deemed by many in society to be degenerative behaviors..which cause the inevitable break down the social family structure, and as a result cause something similar to an anarchaic society.
By many? I'm not so sure of that. If I had to make a reasoned prediction on current social trends... well, I see a gradual, very gradual, movement towards a more accepting, a more reasonable populous in the western world.
Now as to the break down of the social family structure, I just don't see it. Firstly the family structure has changed, and is changing. It is different for families from 5000, 2000, 500, heck, even 30-50 years ago. Simply because society changes. Values change. The concept of the perfect nuclear family is not as predominant in an age of divorce, single parents, step parents, childless couples (such as those unable to have children, the career people who choose not to etc) and the like.
Things change - the important thing is to accept and deal with them. Homosexual marriage is not going to topple the western world. Firstly it is not degenerative (if so, please tell me how it is.) Secondly it is a MINORITY, and lets be honest, it always has been, and always will be. And it has always existed. It's not like if it's allowed overnight everyone will suddenly turn gay, no heterosexual couples will be left and humanity and society will disintegrate and die out. It doesn't work like that. And I would ask what seems more "degenerative", practically speaking - forcing people to live in relationships that are neither legally or ethically recognised by the state and denying them equal rights for no real reason, or allowing people to commit to a union symbolising love and unity? And once again, lets be honest - they are going to be together anyway, as they have often been - saying no to same sex marriage is not going to make gay people go away.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I think that you're saying that it's shouldn't be 'allowed' because it will cause too much paper work for the government. Well, guess what, that's the governments f-ing job. If it can't serve the people it's suppoded to represent, then it's failing at it's job and needs to be replaced with a body that can accomodate the people of this nation. ALL THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION.
If the government cannot be bothered to provide equal protection under the law to same-sex couples, then it needs to stop collecting tax money from homosexuals.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So, you're saying you agree that if gay people are allowed to marry, that people will be marrying elephants, air fresheners and pencil sharpeners?I'm also not sure what you mean by using biology to justify a legal process? Are you saying that it doesn't matter to you if it's chosen or genetic, because the bottom line is that it's a fact of life that should just be accepted? Good for you! But I don't think you feel that way. I think that you're saying that it's shouldn't be 'allowed' because it will cause too much paper work for the government. Well, guess what, that's the governments f-ing job. If it can't serve the people it's suppoded to represent, then it's failing at it's job and needs to be replaced with a body that can accomodate the people of this nation. ALL THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION. Saying it's "too much work for the government" is a cop out. It's a lazy argument. And it isn't even true.
What I am saying is that people will interpret the law as it sees them fit. Whatever you decide to interpret with that it is up to you.
I am saying that I don't really care if gays marry, hell I would be happy for them for anyone really that can pursue that. What I don't want to see is some poorly bastardized system that puts shit to paper to allow this union then not give equal rights to gay marriages that traditional marriages already receive. That said as I HAVE SAID many times before we need to be very clear in the writing of the laws placed in affect so that we don't have ppl "marrying" their dogs for tax reasons and whatever.........because I don't know anyone that would do it for love but more a way to circumvent the law.
Interpretation of the law is not up to the people, rather those who's job it is to enforce the laws. I seriously doubt a justice of the peace will allow the marriage of a man and his favorite candy bar. I mean, we all love chocolate, but how far can it be taken?
I respect your position, though. I'm glad it's a non-issue for you. It should be for anyone who isn't gay. Were that the case, it wouldn't be a "fight" for equal rights. I also agree that equality isn't just a matter of allowance, nor is it a matter of wording.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If the government cannot be bothered to provide equal protection under the law to same-sex couples, then it needs to stop collecting tax money from homosexuals.
You know that my statement was rhetorical. We have had that conversation many times. The government does need be done away with.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hmm didn't read that...although i need to give it some thought...it sounds not all that right.
what's to question? If a secretary doesn't do her job, she gets fired. Why shouldn't a government? And it is more a matter of personal opinion, not fact. It isn't up for debate in my mind. Then again, you've not truely agreed with me since you found out I was a fascist, so...
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Interpretation of the law is not up to the people, rather those who's job it is to enforce the laws. I seriously doubt a justice of the peace will allow the marriage of a man and his favorite candy bar. I mean, we all love chocolate, but how far can it be taken?
Interpretation of the law is the HIGHEST power given to the people..............otherwise lawyers would be starving right now and since I have several attorney clients I know thats just not the case. If we left the law enforcement agencies to interpret the laws alone we would be fooked🙂 About the candy bar piece I was just making obtuse discussions which could be provided as a loophole somewhere somehow.............if someone doesn't ask the question then no one will provide an answer and it goes unchecked..........thats all I mean when I used pieces like that in my discussions with you Capt 🙂 Hope for the best prepare for the worst! It would be nice to see some changes done however with a system in place that is highly judeo-christian influenced it can be a strain obviously.
Originally posted by soleran30
Interpretation of the law is the HIGHEST power given to the people..............otherwise lawyers would be starving right now and since I have several attorney clients I know thats just not the case. If we left the law enforcement agencies to interpret the laws alone we would be fooked🙂 About the candy bar piece I was just making obtuse discussions which could be provided as a loophole somewhere somehow.............if someone doesn't ask the question then no one will provide an answer and it goes unchecked..........thats all I mean when I used pieces like that in my discussions with you Capt 🙂 Hope for the best prepare for the worst! It would be nice to see some changes done however with a system in place that is highly judeo-christian influenced it can be a strain obviously.
Um...lawyers don't "interpret" the law. Judges and jurys do. Lawyers try to get around the law.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
what's to question? If a secretary doesn't do her job, she gets fired. Why shouldn't a government? And it is more a matter of personal opinion, not fact. It isn't up for debate in my mind. Then again, you've not truely agreed with me since you found out I was a fascist, so...
Well you know we germans can't really agree with fascists anymore....we get labeled to easily ...it's a shame weep
But the thing is, I don't know if you mean it that way but I think the system (be it what it wants to be) should be equal for everyone...everyone should have the same riughts and the same responsibilities. And Officials need to take care that this is made possible. But then again we live in democracies cause there are many different opinions and the point is that people get ellected to do what the voter wants....so they cannot really do what all people want but what a majority thinks is best (there'S a problem with the US System since there are hardly any compromises).
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Um...lawyers don't "interpret" the law. Judges and jurys do. Lawyers try to get around the law.
There in lies the rub.................many laws are written with open resolutions so that it can be interpretted so its a more fluid system as opposed to black and whites...............its uses words that have multiple meanings without absolulute meanings so there is interpretation left for lawyers..............believe it .......or not.........
hence get a shitastic prosecutting attorney that can spit out every letter of the law and watch them lose to a GREAT defense attorney simply due to this interpretation.