Bigotry! (1119 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.58 on 69 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Allenson (View user info) at 2004-11-05 02:06:47 EST
Well, the election is over; Bush won. To me, it's not really such a big deal. Both Bush and Kerry suck. I voted for Kerry, only because I felt like I had to vote for somebody.
Care to know what really bothers me? You probably don't, but I'm going to tell you anyway.
ISSUE 1 (for us Ohio people anyway)
Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio: That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:Article XV Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.A majority yes vote is necessary for passage.
THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE PASSED!
All citizens are supposed to be entitled to equal protection under the law. The passage of this ammendment to our state's constitution renders that void.
Now, I'm not gay, but to discriminate against our brothers and sisters this way is wrong.
That's it, I've said my piece.
UNITY, as one stand together
User Reviews
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-08 13:46:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
**There shouldn't be a question in anyone's mind about whether it should be allowed.**
Believe me, I agree with you there, but rather from the other side of the issue. Anyways, 'should' has nothing to do with it. Lots of things 'should' happen that don't. Talking about the way people 'should' act is pointless because when you're done, you'll still have to deal with the way they DO act, and the two rarely, if ever, mesh.
**I'm not arguing democracy itself. I'm arguing its involvement in the issue at all.**
Regardless of whether or not it 'should' be a question, the reality of the situation is, it is a question in society and it needs to be dealt with. And the way that we deal with societal problems in a democracy is to put them to a vote and abide by the will of the majority. Personally, I'd be inclined to just leave it alone. Let it work itself out. I'm inclined this way partly because I'm kind of lazy, and partly because when God gave mankind His laws, He also gave us free will as to whether or not to obey those laws and it's not my job to run around and make sure everybody does. That topic of conversation will come up once you're dead.
Some people on both sides, however, get impatient with the long view and want an answer right away. Fine. Put it on a ballot. That's your right as Americans and that's what we do in a democracy. Once you do, however, you're constrained to abide by the results of that democratically arrived at decision. You're free to try again if you don't like the outcome, but what EITHER SIDE is NOT free to do is overturn said decision on the laughably nebulous grounds that 'it shouldn't have happened that way.' This is democracy, not golf. You don't get a mulligan in the public arena.
We could just go with executive fiat, but I think neither of us wants that. You don't want that because this is the most socially conservative government the U.S. has had in twelve years and you won't like the ruling that it hands down and I don't want that because, unlike some social conservatives, I don't have 'moral issue tunnel vision' and I can see it setting a very bad precedent.
Good job on the imaginary conversation, by the way. Keeping honing that skill and before you know it you'll be making 'documentaries' with Michael Moore.
**Now, the only thing religious types say is that gays are going to hell, abortion should be outlawed, and biological research that might save people's lives is evil.**
Oh, look, a specious generalisation that adds nothing of value. Never seen one of those around here before.
**Oh, and "majority" does not mean "right".**
It's funny how you only ever hear people bring this up when they lose. You're right, though. If something is right, it is always right, no matter how many or how few people believe it. I never thought I'd see so many leftists embrace moral absolutes.
Submitted by IcyBlackHand (user info) at 2004-11-08 06:50:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Technically, gays have the same rights as heterosexuals. There is no law forbid homosexuals from marrying people of the opposite sex.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-08 05:23:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bart, I knew I wanted to start stalking you for some reason.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-08 04:49:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Bart is right. Majority definitely does not mean right. Unfortunately, so far in the course of human events, it is the best we have to work with in a society as large as ours. If only the government could stay out of the affairs of its people would a majority you disagree with not matter as much. Its By, For, and Of the people, not a Nanny for the people.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-11-08 04:37:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Oh, and "majority" does not mean "right".
Ask the people if they want the government to and give them fifty thousand dollars cash and see which side the majority falls on. People are dumb.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2004-11-08 04:32:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It's funny... as a kid I used to go to church a lot - Catholic church. I remember all the stuff about loving other people, helping the poor, and turning the other cheek.
Now, the only thing religious types say is that gays are going to hell, abortion should be outlawed, and biological research that might save people's lives is evil.
These people are the "moral" majority? What's moral about the church denying people their God given rights?
Bunch of assholes if you ask me.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-08 04:06:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I changed my mind. I'm not done here. Props to Quartermain for an argument! It's been fun thus far.
A giant glaring factual error used as an example in a mistaken attempt to bolster your argument and prove your point is not a 'technicality.'
You're right again. I was exited and exaggerated quite inaccurately about the 'blacks were only slaves' statement. My other example about the world being flat, although incorrect (which I admittedly did not know at the time), was still saying that there are issues which the world thinks in majority that things are true when in fact they are not. It does not void out my argument. Sort of ironic that the exact example I used is an example of my point, don't you think?
___________________________
**Of course, womens' rights and the other issues were voted on. But it took a veeeeery long time. In time this will be voted on too.**
"It has already been voted on, numerous times in the past ten years. And most of those times, it had been defeated. What you mean is that eventually people will come around to your way of thinking, because after all, you're the 'tolerant' one."
MOST of the times it's been defeated. I believe in time there will be more states than not that will allow it. And I'm not saying my way is the only way or the definitive "right" way... but I do believe it will fall into the same category as womens rights, civil rights, et al. See next statement.
_________________________________________
**The fact that you realize that civil rights has been a problem before, it was voted on, it is different now, and you KNOW it was wrong proves that eventually this will fall in the same category.**
"The only thing it proves is that you've managed to confuse 'civil rights' with 'gay rights."
I haven't confused them. I'm comparing the two issues seperately. Civil rights (like womens rights or gun laws) and gay rights (a different subject). Read it one more time. What I said was that when civil rights was a problem it was changed. I believe gay rights will do the same.
_______________________________________
**It's idiotic that I'm having an argument with someone about whether or not two adults in love should be married.**
"That's not what we're arguing about. What we're arguing about is your mistaken notion that democracy only 'works' and the results are only valid if they are the results you like."
That's what YOU are arguing about. I am arguing about the fact that it is absurd for this to even be an arguable issue. There shouldn't be a question in anyone's mind about whether it should be allowed. Therefore, totally extinguishing the need for voting on it at all. I'd be for any democracy when it was deciding on an issue that involved preserving Americans' rights or safety. This does neither. It's solely discriminatory. I've tried to make it clear and you aren't understanding. I'm not arguing democracy itself. I'm arguing its involvement in the issue at all.
Siren: Gay people should have the same rights, including marriage, as everyone else
QM: Marriage was voted against.
Siren: Right. But it shouldn't have been voted on at all.
QM: This is a democracy.
Siren: ...ok. But the gov't shouldn't be involved at all.
QM: Anarchist! You don't love our democracy?
Siren: Not what I'm saying. I believe in it working for our protection, not exclusion.
QM: But it was voted on and lost.
Siren: ...riiiight. I don't agree with it being an issue on a ballot.
QM: It was voted on as a democracy.
Siren: You win. I give up.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-07 01:42:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
**Quartermain, you are missing the point. Technicalities should not make the argument.**
A giant glaring factual error used as an example in a mistaken attempt to bolster your argument and prove your point is not a 'technicality.'
**Of course, womens' rights and the other issues were voted on. But it took a veeeeery long time. In time this will be voted on too.**
It has already been voted on, numerous times in the past ten years. And most of those times, it had been defeated. What you mean is that eventually people will come around to your way of thinking, because after all, you're the 'tolerant' one.
**The fact that you realize that civil rights has been a problem before, it was voted on, it is different now, and you KNOW it was wrong proves that eventually this will fall in the same category.**
The only thing it proves is that you've managed to confuse 'civil rights' with 'gay rights.'
**It's idiotic that I'm having an argument with someone about whether or not two adults in love should be married.**
That's not what we're arguing about. What we're arguing about is your mistaken notion that democracy only 'works' and the results are only valid if they are the results you like.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-05 18:49:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Quartermain, you are missing the point. Technicalities should not make the argument. Obviously not every black person in the US was a slave before 1860. But "blacks" were generally slaves. Of course, womens' rights and the other issues were voted on. But it took a veeeeery long time. In time this will be voted on too. But it takes "a lot" of oppression and a nice beating from the majority to get to a breaking point. We're not there yet on this. The fact that you realize that civil rights has been a problem before, it was voted on, it is different now, and you KNOW it was wrong proves that eventually this will fall in the same category. I'm done with this. It's ridiculous. It's idiotic that I'm having an argument with someone about whether or not two adults in love should be married.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 17:12:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
**to me, three people expressing the same opinion in just a few hours on a web forum IS a large number.**
Then you need to get out more. Although I do see your point, because it's not like this site has some 13,000 odd registered users and God knows how many random people dropping by and leaving opinions, so I could see how the fact that three people voicing vaguely the same opinion over a matter of hours could seem like 'a lot.'
**Not counting all the ones who feel the same way but didn't post because they didn't have anything new to add.**
Yeah, lets not forget all the imaginary people we're making up to bolster our argument.
Submitted by Socialist_Joe (user info) at 2004-11-05 17:09:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
you need some sex and pie and booze
Submitted by rhi at 2004-11-05 16:56:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quartermain:
and Lord knows I'm overcome with a deep sense of personal shame at having a typo or two in my response
Notice my use of the word "consistently." A typo happens by accident, and therefore is very unlikely to be repeated exactly the same way. Your mistake was due to plain old ignorance that "alot" is incorrect.
I didn't include a definition because I thought it went without saying that "lot" has more than one. Here is another one that makes my statement perfectly viable:
A number of associated people or things: placating an angry lot of tenants; kids who made a noisy lot.
Besides, to me, three people expressing the same opinion in just a few hours on a web forum IS a large number. Not counting all the ones who feel the same way but didn't post because they didn't have anything new to add.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 16:47:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
**A "lot" can be any proportion, I could have said "a few" or "a bunch" or "a bushel" and it would have meant the same thing because it's subjective.**
Bollocks. When the term 'a lot' is used (and Lord knows I'm overcome with a deep sense of personal shame at having a typo or two in my response) in the English language it is taken to mean 'a large number of people or things. I noticed you managed to find dictionary.com but somehow failed in including an actual definition. So I looked it up in the real dictionary(i.e, The English Oxford Dictionary)and here's what it had to say.
lot, n.
colloq. A considerable number, quantity, or amount; a good deal, a great deal. If you had said 'a few' you would have indeed been right, but you didn't, and are therefore incorrect.
Submitted by rhi at 2004-11-05 16:23:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Quartermain:
I think out of 53 reviews, at the most three people have said that. I don't think that consitutes 'alot.'
No, it constitutes "a lot." A "lot" can be any proportion, I could have said "a few" or "a bunch" or "a bushel" and it would have meant the same thing because it's subjective. Don't get semantic on me, especially if you type the words "a lot" consistently incorrectly, when they are right there on the screen in the post you're reviewing.
Dictionary.com says:
1 entry found for alot.
ALOT: in Acronym Finder
Acronym Definition @Amazon.com
ALOT Adaptive Large Optics Technologies
ALOT Airborne Lightweight Optical Tracking
Submitted by Sofa_Ace (user info) at 2004-11-05 16:12:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Operation Ivy kicks all sorts of ass.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 16:09:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
**A lot of you are saying that marriage should not be extended to gays because it is a religious institution, not a legal one.**
I think out of 53 reviews, at the most three people have said that. I don't think that consitutes 'alot.' I've got three dollar bills on me, but I don't really think of myself as having 'alot' of cash on hand.
**Do not fucking try to tell me gays can't be involved in religion.**
Nobody on this post has said that homosexuals cannot be invovled in religion. What I personally have said is that the majority of people who object to homosexual marriage do so on the grounds of their belief that marriage is a religious institution.
Submitted by rhi at 2004-11-05 14:48:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
A lot of you are saying that marriage should not be extended to gays because it is a religious institution, not a legal one.
First of all, my gay aunt's life partner of almost 20 years is a Methodist minister. Do not fucking try to tell me gays can't be involved in religion.
Second of all, if it were solely a religious institution IT SHOULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED OR ENDORSED OR REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
I voted against the amendment in Ohio.
Submitted by the_lone_stranger (user info) at 2004-11-05 14:40:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Marriage should not be legislated or politicized. Period.
It's just another indicator that our government is WAY TOO FUCKING BIG.
Vote Libertarian.
Submitted by thricepalermo (user info) at 2004-11-05 14:28:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I believe that all people are entitled to equal protection but I also believe that a society has the right to define its institutions.
That said...I cant think of another institution that carries the societal weight that marriage does.
If it were up to me I'd say let em have it and then I would start a new institution called "The governmentaly sanctioned and legally binding union of two persons who are not of the same sex".
Maybe it would come with a letter from the government attesting to the fact that the aforementioned two people are of different sexes so there wouldnt be any confusing this type of "union" with the previously used and now tainted "union".
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 14:09:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
**If someone wants equal rights, why not give it to them.**
Because, as I earlier, the majority of people who oppose homosexual marriage believe that marriage is not a 'right' that can be granted or withheld by a secular government, but a religious institution.
**Voting on gay marriage? Yeah. That would really work.**
It worked on slavery, women's sufferage, civil rights, and abortion didn't it?
**But, until the civil war blacks in the US were only slaves.**
Not true. There were free blacks in the U.S. from the Revolution. This is not to say that it was a noticeably large segment of the population or that they enjoyed all of the rights and privileges that your average white guy did, but to say that 'until the Civil War blacks in the US were only slaves' is a fallacy.
**Until 1492 the world was flat. You know the cliches.**
"...the Historical Society of Britain some years back listed this as number one in its short compendium of the ten most common historical illusions. It is the notion that people used to believe that the earth was flat--especially medieval Christians. It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."
(http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html)
"...by the time of Pliny the Elder (1st century) its spherical shape was generally acknowledged. At that time Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude and longitude. His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth)
**Just because there is a majority ruling over lives, doesn't mean it's right and those lives are wrong.**
And yet when people use this argument against abortion, they're told 'get your laws off my body.'
Submitted by great_angst (user info) at 2004-11-05 11:19:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 07:42:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
>>An executive order specifically outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal government. If you are a private employer and you operate your business in a state, county or city with a law or ordinance prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, you must follow that law despite the fact that there is no federal law in place.<<
That order was for federal employees ... and it was mostly symbolic. It also excludes the armed services. Oh, and since gays/lesbians/any sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Civil Rights Act, homosexuals that have been descriminated against (in their federal job) do not have true legal grounds to complain to the EEOC. I'm not sure how that helps gays and lesbians feel any job security.
>>Who, last I checked, have just as much right to sponsor measures for the rest of the residents of said state to vote on as anyone else. All they did was propose that the measure be voted on. That it passed reflects the views of a majority of the people in that state.<<
The same arguments was used to keep women from voting. And blacks. And whites from marrying blacks. Clearly -- AT THE TIME -- the majority of the people were in favor of ignoring the rights of these people. This majority did not make it right. It just made it popular. There's a distict difference.
Bottom line, Middle America feels unconfortable around/about homosexuals. The don't understand them, they do't relate to them. They like to watch them on TV decorating some poor slobs house, but not holding hands beside them on the street. They channel this discomfort -- using selected Bible verses, sermons about procreation, and the 'sanctity' of marriage -- into descrination against them.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 10:12:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Excellent Mike, welcome aboard! The American lot need our help to get a campaign together to get this passed in parliament, or whatever it is the American government calls that place where everybody whouts at each other.
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2004-11-05 10:08:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
If that's an Operation Ivy reference, you can have a +1.
By and large though, i'm with MrWolf.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 10:01:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No ones listening to reason here. Just give them garage and its all good. No more opression to gays! You should all write to Bush or Hitachi, or whatever other cheap Japanese stereo you have running your country now and insist he authorise garage between gays, where they can all gary each other and reap the many benefits of sanctimonious garage.
If only I ruled the world. :)
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-11-05 09:57:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Just because it cost alittle more does not make it ok to oppress people. I am sure that ending slavery cost a pretty penny, but it was the right thing to do.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-11-05 09:55:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
The christians did not start marriage, and it is not fair that they claim it as theirs.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-05 09:41:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I fail to see the logic in that. This is a democracy, that's how we decide things. It's put on a ballot and those citizens who have a vested interest in the outcome or who take their civic responsibility seriously(or who are shenanigan-ised by either side into the polls) vote on the matter and the majority opinion holds sway. I would think that if gay people in this country truly wanted their 'marriages' to be legitimised in the eyes of the law, they would demand it be put to a vote, instead of legislated from the bench.
_________________________
I understand and support our democracy. But this shouldn't even be an issue. If someone wants equal rights, why not give it to them. For whatever reason, they deserve them as much as anyone else. Voting on gay marriage? Yeah. That would really work. 3% of the population who are gay and their friends and family (possibly another 10%.) That's fair. The other 87% of completely controls a major part of their life? This is America? Modern day millennium age America? I don't give a rats ass if the majority opinion rules over the matter. This should not be an issue. This should not be any type of issue. This should not be anyone's business but homosexual couples'. This should not be an issue.
Firstly, 'rob' implies that something is being taken away. That at one point homosexual marriage was allowed and that these laws took that away. This is untrue in that homosexuals have NEVER been allowed to marry and that you can't take away what is never possessed in the first place. So it is wrong to speak of them as having been 'robbed' of a right.
_______________________________
Well, you've bested me with a syntax error. I suppose I should've used the word "deny" instead of "rob." You are right in saying that homosexuals have never had the right to marry. But, until the civil war blacks in the US were only slaves. Until 1492 the world was flat. You know the cliches. Don't make me continue. Just because there is a majority ruling over lives, doesn't mean it's right and those lives are wrong. There's just someone with an idea and the power to employ the idea. I get that the majority has spoken. I respect that this is how our government works. But, maybe the government shouldn't have a say in this very personal matter. Maybe this should not be an issue. This should not be an issue.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 09:39:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Like I said man... Gay people should not be entitled to marriage, they should have their own institution... garage... they should be allowed to gary each other.
Problem solved, who's with me?
Submitted by IamNotTheWorldTradeCenter (user info) at 2004-11-05 09:26:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I completely and totally reject the modern church and it's desire to base the government on biblical law(what the really want, whether they realize it or not, is to live like people did 2000 years ago, which is totally retarded). Plus, I know gay people, and they don't smell bad.
Buuuutttttt, I voted for the amendment to my state constitution. Married people get all kinds of special treatment because society needs to encourage people to get married and raise kids so that there will be a generation to pay for our medicare (yeah I know that's not really going to happen for us, but we can imagine). Kids need a father and a mother. Don't make me bust out the sociological/psychological statistics, it's common sense.
Straight people get married for the explicit purpose of raising a family (yes I know there are exceptions to the rule). Gay people don't(yes I know there are exceptions to the rule). Furthermore, when gay people do adopt or otherwise have kids, they don't provide a mother and a father to the child. Society doesn't benefit from them raising a child the same it does from a man and a woman raising a child. So society should provide them with the benefits of marriage.
Committed gay couples need something so that they can have legal rights like seeing their dieing spouse in the hospital, but it shouldn't be equal to marriage.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2004-11-05 09:23:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I voted no and im from Ohio. I think there was 33% of us or something. Fucking rednecks everywhere.
Submitted by cleanfornow (user info) at 2004-11-05 08:34:28 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
The reason people like me voted for 11 was to protect business. Did you know that your employer pays a payroll tax of 100%? So, you make $100, your employer pays another $100 to the government, then on top of the $200 your lazy ass costs there are benefits. Health care is another 50% on average of your pay. If you can "Marry" your butt buddy, then he can get the benefits too, thereby increasing your employers expenses. With margins typically in the 10% range, the extra expense would sink companies with below average margins. Then libs like you would whine about the loss of jobs.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 07:42:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
**There are protections are in place for age, religion, race, sex, but NOT sexual orientation.**
An executive order specifically outlaws discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal government. If you are a private employer and you operate your business in a state, county or city with a law or ordinance prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, you must follow that law despite the fact that there is no federal law in place.
**Again, it's descrimination. And I cannot support any form of descrimination.**
Actually, it's discrimination. And if you cannot support any form of discrimination, does that mean that if you were hiring someone to run your business, you'd give a crackhead's application equal weight with someone who had earned a Ph.D in business from Harvard?
**The ballot was on the ballot because of the religious right.**
Who, last I checked, have just as much right to sponsor measures for the rest of the residents of said state to vote on as anyone else. All they did was propose that the measure be voted on. That it passed reflects the views of a majority of the people in that state.
Submitted by domenad (user info) at 2004-11-05 07:23:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
It is neither bigotry nor discrimination. A gay person is as free to get married as a straight person. You just have to get married to someone of the opposite sex - that's the way the law defines it. If the gay lobby hadn't tried so hard to shove this issue down the throats of Americans, we would have civil unions for them already and everyone would be happy.
Submitted by great_angst (user info) at 2004-11-05 07:19:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 07:13:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
Homosexuals are represented in this country. Thats why employers and companies and apartment buildings are not allowed to discriminate against someone simply because they're homosexual. If they were not being represented, the measure would not have even been on a ballot in the first place, muh less in 11 states.
================
Huh? Check again. Perhaps where you live, but a large part of America does NOT have protections in place for homosexuals when it comes to jobs or housing. There are protections are in place for age, religion, race, sex, but NOT sexual orientation. This is left to states or cities/counties to pass "local" protections.
Again, it's descrimination. And I cannot support any form of descrimination.
The ballot was on the ballot because of the religious right. Period. The republican governor and Ohio's two senators were against the measure.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 07:13:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
**Why should a monogamous, married homo couple pay the same taxes if they can't be entitled to the same tax breaks and benefits that a hetero married couple gets?**
Seeing as in the eyes of the law, the homosexual couple is not married, they wouldn't be paying the same taxes as the married heterosexual couple.
**No taxation without representation**
Homosexuals are represented in this country. Thats why employers and companies and apartment buildings are not allowed to discriminate against someone simply because they're homosexual. If they were not being represented, the measure would not have even been on a ballot in the first place, muh less in 11 states.
Submitted by great_angst (user info) at 2004-11-05 06:59:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:37:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
Lame, lame, lame.
The arguement is marriage. It says union of man & woman ....marriage. NOT civil union.
Gays are a silly bunch. What is this about? Getting on the other-half's insurance plan? Having the same kind of rights as a married couple? It is called "civil union".
Gays are stupid .... GET YOUR CIVIL UNION and stop screwing with the nutcase christians. Marriage should be for religious people (who tend to be against homosexuality) and Civil Unions (same benefits in the eyes of the government) for other marriages (gay or not) that are not done in a church.
Gays are greedy bastards, and this is so typical of politics. It is MY FUCKING way or nothing.
Marriage, Civil Union....it is a fucking word. Give it a rest.... There is nothing wrong with that motion, so -2.
-----------
Read it again, Stabkill ... there was more content past the first 10 words. Ohio will NOT recognise ANY unions that "approximate" marriage ... married, civil, or otherwise. That means no civil unions, and no rights or benefits for gay (or straight unmarried) couples.
Gays aren't being greedy, they're just looking for the same rights that every one else has. Why should a monogamous, married homo couple pay the same taxes if they can't be entitled to the same tax breaks and benefits that a hetero married couple gets? No taxation without representation. It's a fundamental belief that started this country.
This Ohio motion is descrimanatory. Period.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 06:55:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Secondly, as I have said, the majority of people who oppose homosexual marriage do so on religious grounds. To them marriage is not a 'right' that can be granted or withheld by a secular government, but a sacrament, an institution ordained by God when He created the human race in two genders, and something to be entered into under His aegis. That a group of people whose very lifestyle contravenes this belief feels entitled to participate in this sacrament irks them a tad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was gonna stay out of this one now, but I have to agree with the above statement. Very well put, marriage is not something that was handed down from the goverment in a lot of poeples eyes, it used to be a bonding of man and woman by god, and sad though I am I like it that way.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2004-11-05 06:52:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Marriage is a religious institution. Religion does not accept homosexuality. Therefore, homosexuals should not marry.
End. Of. Arguement.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 06:32:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Siren- Sorry, I get fed up with AOL and cancelled it. As a result I don't have AIM. You can hit me up on MSN if you like. Same screen name I use here.
**The point is that it should NEVER have even gotten that far.**
I fail to see the logic in that. This is a democracy, that's how we decide things. It's put on a ballot and those citizens who have a vested interest in the outcome or who take their civic responsibility seriously(or who are shenanigan-ised by either side into the polls) vote on the matter and the majority opinion holds sway. I would think that if gay people in this country truly wanted their 'marriages' to be legitimised in the eyes of the law, they would demand it be put to a vote, instead of legislated from the bench.
**Making up a law to discriminantly rob someone of a right doesn't make sense to me.**
Firstly, 'rob' implies that something is being taken away. That at one point homosexual marriage was allowed and that these laws took that away. This is untrue in that homosexuals have NEVER been allowed to marry and that you can't take away what is never possessed in the first place. So it is wrong to speak of them as having been 'robbed' of a right.
Secondly, as I have said, the majority of people who oppose homosexual marriage do so on religious grounds. To them marriage is not a 'right' that can be granted or withheld by a secular government, but a sacrament, an institution ordained by God when He created the human race in two genders, and something to be entered into under His aegis. That a group of people whose very lifestyle contravenes this belief feels entitled to participate in this sacrament irks them a tad.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 06:04:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Make out? hmm. why the hell not. Let the gay people have their garage. Here's to being straight!
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-05 06:00:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Hahaha! This +2 is for mrwolf. Although, it already would be its own thing. It would always be a "gay marriage."
Do you wanna make out?
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 05:53:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I think I've solved it so we can all stop arguing. Give gay people their own marriage they could call it garage! They get all the same ties as a straight person but with none of the belief system. There is of course the small issue of whether gay people should then be allowed to adopt as part of those rights? I say hell no personally.
Submitted by celine (user info) at 2004-11-05 05:40:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Like it or not, individual states decide what the marriage laws in those states shall be, and are not required to recognize a marriage acknowledged and/or performed by another state.
Apparently your state, which I might remind you also gave its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wants to put a gay marriage ban in the Constitution, decided they don't want Teh Gheys running rampant. Your fellow Ohioans dislike gay marriage even more than their recent unemployment, and I think that's funny.
Oh yeah, and +2 because I agree with you entirely.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-05 05:31:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
**I stand by saying it doesn't matter how few people think it's right, we as Americans should respect their wishes because they are Americans, too.**
So we should just overturn a democratically arrived at solution and abrogate the will of the majority because the people who lost don't think that they should have? That's the thing about democracy...it's not always going to go the way you think it should. Sometimes you have to take the bitter with the better.
____________________________-
You should have imed me. It would make this a lot easier.
Ugh. No, we shouldn't overturn anything. That's too much work, now. The point is that it should NEVER have even gotten that far. Making up a law to discriminantly rob someone of a right doesn't make sense to me. It's hurtful and hateful. Why do gays want to be married so badly? Why do people want to stop them so badly? Ain't none yo' biniss!
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 05:14:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
**I stand by saying it doesn't matter how few people think it's right, we as Americans should respect their wishes because they are Americans, too.**
So we should just overturn a democratically arrived at solution and abrogate the will of the majority because the people who lost don't think that they should have? That's the thing about democracy...it's not always going to go the way you think it should. Sometimes you have to take the bitter with the better.
**Hopefully you never have to really face those poeple who really believe that homosexuals don't need to marry because of whatever stupid reason. I remember my brain almost exploded once when someone actually had the nerve to tell me how he couldn't stand 'interracial breeding'**
Imprimis: It's a mistake to correlate protection of marriage statutes with miscegenation laws. A majority of the people who object to homosexual marriage, and homosexuality itself, do so on religious grounds, out of the belief that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice, a lifestyle that one chooses to lead. This is seen as different from something, like race, that you have no control over.
Secundus: If the gist of yur comment is about the need for tolerance of an unpopular belief or opinion, it gives your argument for that tolerance more validity if you refrain from calling people who disgree you 'stupid', expressing disbelief that someone would have the 'nerve' to disagree with you, and hoping someone else who shares your particular belief never runs into someone who might challenge that belief.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 05:07:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You have a very good point with the health care, and insurance and stuff. Never really looked at it that way...
I think if people should campaign for anything it should be for something other than marriage, like a whole new institution for gay people that they can enter into which entitles them to similar/same contractual obligations as straight marriage.
Being gay is acceptable in modern day society. I think they should have equal rights in every way. But they really shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Submitted by steph (user info) at 2004-11-05 04:58:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't quite feel that way about material stuff either, mrwolf, but (I know, always a big but in there somewhere) I'm just saying that it's not just a matter of gay people wanting to get married just because they feel they should be able to. If something should happen to you, you'd want your significant other taken care of, right? With healthcare the way it is in this country, if you had health insurance wouldn't you want to be able to extend those benefits to your partner too? To me, it's just about wanting to be able to take care of your family, straight or otherwise. You know I love you dude, I'm just dying for a good debate.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 04:46:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for debate...
I would suggest anyone who thinks their opinion actually counts for more than anybody elses take a good long look at themselves.
I don't believe gay people should marry, a lot of you do. Maybe you have a valid argument for stuff like inheritence but maybe marriage shouldn't be about how much you can get out of your partner when you split, or how much of your partners dads money you're entitled to after he dies???
I wanna get married one day because I believe it is a way to declare to my loved ones that I am commited to one person for the rest of my life. It is also part of my religious belief and as part of that religious belief I don't think gay people have a part in it.
Submitted by neeping (user info) at 2004-11-05 04:40:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Good for you! I usually try and stay away from the political posts but I think You're getting too much of a negative responce for this, so yeah, good for you! Hopefully you never have to really face those poeple who really believe that homosexuals don't need to marry because of whatever stupid reason. I remember my brain almost exploded once when someone actually had the nerve to tell me how he couldn't stand 'interracial breeding' .... what the hell is wrong with so many people.
Submitted by steph (user info) at 2004-11-05 04:34:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:35:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't agree. Why do they need to marry so badly? I'm gonna get married one day but that's because I am a man in love with a woman, a normal healthy relationship that will procure children and a family.
--
It's not just a matter of 'hey, straight people get to wave around this pretty marriage certificate, gay people ought to too'- there are taxes, social security, inheritance, things like that. I just can't see how we can ignore basic rights just because of sexual preference.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-11-05 04:34:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"...UNITY, as one stand together."
- not in Ohio, you don't. (unless a hetero couple)
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 04:15:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Still no can do. Ubersite looks a fair ammount like our companys homepage and counts for less trouble than chat rooms. If I start chatting on AIM and get caught, well that's a whole different kettle of fish.
You can mail me if you want though... wolfsweb.at.hotmail.com
Laters, Paul.
Submitted by cheesedick (user info) at 2004-11-05 04:12:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
fuck off
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:56:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I also spelled 'sense' wrong. So there.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:55:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Quartermain,
I stand by saying it doesn't matter how few people think it's right, we as Americans should respect their wishes because they are Americans, too. Consensual, adult, Americans.
mrwolf,
You can always use aim express. Go to aim.com and look in the lefthand column for aim express. And I know I'm being a little freaky about it, but it's something that's very personal to me.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:50:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:39:24 (#)
Ranking: 2
mrwolf just killed me. I've passed on. I died from disbelief that there are still people that closed minded and stupid. Points should generally be valid and make some sence. AIM- munkimoon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't aim you babe, am at work. Chill though yeah? It's just an opinion, nobody truly knows if they're right or wrong because our opinions don't come from some deep cell of human conciousness they are formed by our parents and our peers.
I am willing to accept that there is no right or wrong and therefore my opinion counts no more than yours. Therefore my point is valid. Second of all it makes sense to me. Gay people don't need to get married, it is my opinion that they are just pushing for something they don't need because they feel opressed.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:43:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
**If you live in one of the eleven states that ratified this amendment, write to your congressperson, senator, or even President Bush himself. Tell them that what is occuring is wrong.**
Apparently the majority of the people in those states don't think that it is wrong, or the statutes wouldn't have passed. So what you're actually doing is telling people that their beliefs are wrong and that they should disregard the way that they think and think the way that you do, which is the very thing you're railing against.
**The arguement is marriage. It says union of man & woman ....marriage. NOT civil union**
Many of the eleven statutes that passed were worded to forbid any arrangement that 'approximated' marriage or the benefits thereof, i.e civil unions.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:39:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
mrwolf just killed me. I've passed on. I died from disbelief that there are still people that closed minded and stupid. Points should generally be valid and make some sence. AIM- munkimoon.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:37:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Lame, lame, lame.
The arguement is marriage. It says union of man & woman ....marriage. NOT civil union.
Gays are a silly bunch. What is this about? Getting on the other-half's insurance plan? Having the same kind of rights as a married couple? It is called "civil union".
Gays are stupid .... GET YOUR CIVIL UNION and stop screwing with the nutcase christians. Marriage should be for religious people (who tend to be against homosexuality) and Civil Unions (same benefits in the eyes of the government) for other marriages (gay or not) that are not done in a church.
Gays are greedy bastards, and this is so typical of politics. It is MY FUCKING way or nothing.
Marriage, Civil Union....it is a fucking word. Give it a rest.... There is nothing wrong with that motion, so -2.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:35:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't agree. Why do they need to marry so badly? I'm gonna get married one day but that's because I am a man in love with a woman, a normal healthy relationship that will procure children and a family.
Gay men and gay women can't have children without adopting and so don't have any legal neccessity to marry each other because they don't have the same responsibilities as straight people do to continue to populate the planet.
And before anyone starts with "Well what if they do adopt?" Well they just fucking well shouldn't, anyone who thinks gay people raising straight babies is normal or even fucking fair is wrong.
Here's to the gay population, I think you are all very strange, we can share this planet but don't think I want you marrying each other.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:32:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Oooh! BigMike! You little rat!
Well, I'm not the one with the problem with fags, now am I?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:21:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Bigmike (user info) at 2004-11-05 02:26:01 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm old fashioned.
I believe that men should not marry other men and women should not marry other women.
---
I like how some people think that their believes have anyting to do in people's desire to mary, gay or not.
Submitted by Allenson (user info) at 2004-11-05 03:11:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I meant to include this on the original but forgot to.
If you live in one of the eleven states that ratified this amendment, write to your congressperson, senator, or even President Bush himself. Tell them that what is occuring is wrong. If they truly do represent the voice of the people, they will listen. We can make a change, but if we aren't willing to stand up and do it, no one can do it for us.
Look for my letter to "the man" in a future post.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-11-05 03:06:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
in an effort to be non-partisan, the biggest arguement i've seen against gay marriage is that if you let gays get married, then under equal rights, you have to allow guys to marry multiple wives, etc.
plus, judging by how well the ban vote did in all 11 states, it looks like mainstream america isn't ready for this yet.
Submitted by Bigmike (user info) at 2004-11-05 02:53:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What about fags with bleach blonde hair Siren? :)
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2004-11-05 02:49:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Majority shouldn't matter in a person's right to be married to the one they love. If there is only ONE person in the entire United States of America who wants to be married to his same sex lover, then fine. He should be allowed. Who the fuck are we to say otherwise? Disapprove all you want, but stay out of their business. If you think it's a choice to be gay and marriage between fags is unnatural, then people with bleach blond hair shouldn't be allowed to be happy either. I'll quit now, because I know no one really cares. If you have any questions, comments, or think you can debate my ass into the ground AIM- munkimoon. Debate away, but you will lose. Because you are wrong.
Submitted by Sepsis (user info) at 2004-11-05 02:36:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Bigmike (user info) at 2004-11-05 02:26:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm old fashioned.
I believe that men should not marry other men and women should not marry other women.
I do not begrudge them the right to do so however and hold no avarice towards them if they do.
Submitted by arcane (user info) at 2004-11-05 02:15:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
As far as im concerned laws like the grandfather clause, jim crow, seperate but equal blah blah blah always are shown for what they really are in the eyes of history and change. If you dont agree with it chances are your children wont either and as time goes on and people become more comfortable with the idea of a gay relationship the law will be repealed. With all its faults America historicly has the tendency to start to do the right thing eventually. While not a justification for the law or an agreement with the hatred and manipulative politics that inspired it hoplefully pointing out Americas historical tendancies will give you some peice of mind. Complain enough and politicians will listen. Say nothing and be ignored.
Either that were going to hell in a hand basket and im overly optimistic.