When Gays get Married, Who does it Really Bother? » Forum Post by foreverserenity

Ah, but they would all fall under the terms of the question here.

Actually they wouldn't. They're separate laws and tangential to the topic at hand.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So, when I say "unnatural", it means just that- it's against nature.

Yes, a simple knowledge of the human body tells us the body parts don't fit.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Age of consent, bestiality, and polygamy, are all irrelevant separate issues which would remain unchanged even if same sex marriages are made legal.

It seems MasonM that you are feeling this on emotion rather than logically thinking this through with your brain.

Investigate what the California law was before the 4 judges changed it and what the unintended consequences of changing it means. You should come up with the conclusion that once the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is changed because of one special interest group (i.e. homosexuals)sued for "equality", then anything goes when the next group sues.

Successfully updated karma reason!

duplicate

Successfully updated karma reason!

It seems MasonM that you are feeling this on emotion rather than logically thinking this through with your brain.

Investigate what the California law was before the 4 judges changed it and what the unintended consequences of changing it means. You should come up with the conclusion that once the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is changed because of one special interest group (i.e. homosexuals)sued for "equality", then anything goes when the next group sues.

No it's you who are not thinking logically or even factually.

You're dragging in a lot of unrelated issues to the original post. The original post asked a very simple question, and didn't in any way even bring up this court decision you keep harping on. It's all irrelevant to the actual question asked.

And as for your "unintended consequences" they're all in your mind and pure bullshit. I'll say it one last time before I begin ignoring you for persisting in dragging up irrelevant issues in an attempt to avoid addressing the original post, every single irrelevant issue is addressed separately under various separate laws. Create all the hypothetical boogie men you like if that's what you need to do to justify your bigotry, but it just doesn't wash in the light of reason and fact.

Oh and by the way, fuck you for even attempting to say that I don't use my head. I'd be willing to bet that I'm a damn sight smarter than you'll ever be. Typical ploy, someone disagrees with you they must not be using their head. What you believe to be logic is pure hyperbolic bullshit.

+2

Successfully updated karma reason!

You're dragging in a lot of unrelated issues to the original post. The original post asked a very simple question,

MasonM,

The title of the article asks, "who does it really bother?"

I'm simply answering the question by pointing out that this court decision to allow homosexual "marriage" really bothers not only me but 61% of the voting electorate in California...I'm sure this fool hardy decision by 4 activists judges really BOTHERS them. They understand the unintended consequences of what it means when 4 unelected judges attempt to overturn existing California law and make up their own.

and didn't in any way even bring up this court decision you keep harping on.

MasonM,

Your are mistaken.

Foreverserenity wrote this as the fifth paragraph of her article:

The article I have linked above, written by John Cloud, defines and clarify some of the things the California rulings does or does not do with the confusion to many about Gay marriage.

Check out the link and learn something about this issue and what prompted Foreverserenity to write the article and ask the title question before you castigate and curse profanities at me. Shame on you.

You've called me a bigot twice now. Why is my having a viewpoint against homosexual "marriage" bigotry to you?

And you still haven't answered my initial question: Would it bother you if Tom, Dick and Harry or Tom, Dick and Sally want to get "married"? If it would, then why would it? If not, why not?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Check out the link and learn something about this issue and what prompted Foreverserenity to write the article and ask the title question before you castigate and curse profanities at me.

OK, I said I was going to ignore you and I will after this. I have read extensively on this and am quite well informed despite your asinine assumption to the contrary. I read far more than just opinions from some religious leaders somewhere.

Her article, which does mention this decision (I admit I forgot about that at the moment), is not about the decision itself but how exactly some people seem to think it will take something away from them. It won't plain and simple, despite your boogie man "unintended consequences" hyperbole.

And as for your harping on how the court ignored the will of the voters, perhaps you should educate yourself on the role of a supreme court. It is not to bow down to the will of voters but to determine whether or not a law is constitutional. You should have learned that in high school.

As for the profanities, perhaps now you just may be able to discern the difference between an emotional response and a reasoned position (but I doubt it). Imply or state again that I do not think or somehow base my reasoned positions on emotion instead of reason and you'll see far more than that you twit.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Being pro-homosexual "marriage" is being against marriage. There is no having it both ways.

This is, without a doubt, the biggest load of rubbish I've read on this post.

Essentially, you're saying that I, as a married man who support gay marriages, am against marriage? How can you say this without even realising how many people you're offending? My marriage is extremely important and very dear to me.

How dare you try to devalue this so dismissively.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And as for your harping on how the court ignored the will of the voters, perhaps you should educate yourself on the role of a supreme court. It is not to bow down to the will of voters but to determine whether or not a law is constitutional.

MasonM,

The California Supreme Court imposed, through judicial fiat, homosexual "marriage" on Californians....this means that 4 judges banned the existing California law (marriage between a man and a woman) and made a new California marriage law....making law is the role of state legislatures working of, by and for the people NOT the role of SUPREME COURT JUDGES.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Being pro-homosexual "marriage" is being against marriage. There is no having it both ways.

That is your opinion! You do not speak for me, nor me for you! Denying the rights of any individual is wrong! When does human rights enter into this equation? ONLY when you want it to? Only when you see it fit, because it has your approval stamped all over it?

he new definition of "marriage" now becomes open for any arrangement, whether it's same gender, threesomes, bisexuals, you name it. They, too, under their "sexual orientation" may claim "equality" under the judges' new definition of marriage and could apply for a marriage licence.

Again, you confuse the issues, as Mason points out, but you do not listen because you hear only your voice. The law doesn't set out to put an end to Marriage of heterosexuals, or the sacredness of Marriage, rather the law seeks to give the rights to individuals who choose to have a partner of the same sex, human rights, not bestiality, nothing else that you keep inserting to make your point.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have to put the little one to bed, not ignoring the other responses.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Being pro-homosexual "marriage" is being against marriage. There is no having it both ways.

Under the guise of "equality", California's high court decision essentially deconstructed traditional marriage and creates another institution.

The judges' ruling if allowed to stand would destroy marriage as between a man and a woman is destroyed and a whole new "marriage" law would be in its place.

The law doesn't set out to put an end to Marriage of heterosexuals, or the sacredness of Marriage, rather the law seeks to give the rights to individuals who choose to have a partner of the same sex, human rights, not bestiality, nothing else that you keep inserting to make your point.

The law would lead to the logical conclusion of the legalization of polygamous and other aberrant unions as "marriages", of group marriage as I have described, and would overturn all the marriage laws in the other 49 states. That's why I am really bothered when crazy activist judges go out of their bounds and legislate homosexual "marriage".

DrGuy was right....you've asked and answered your own question and were never really interested in discussing another's viewpoint that disagrees with your own.

What a pity.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Oh and by the way, fuck you for even attempting to say that I don't use my head. I'd be willing to bet that I'm a damn sight smarter than you'll ever be. Typical ploy, someone disagrees with you they must not be using their head. What you believe to be logic is pure hyperbolic bullshit.

You've called me a bigot twice now. Why is my having a viewpoint against homosexual "marriage" bigotry to you? And you still haven't answered my initial question: Would it bother you if Tom, Dick and Harry or Tom, Dick and Sally want to get "married"? If it would, then why would it? If not, why not?

Lula, I don't blame Mason for responding to you the way he has because you are calling him an idiot, dragging emotions into it, questioning his thinking? I don't understand that at all? Of course we all get emotional thinking about something we feel strongly about, however, there is thinking behind our responses, for you to suggest that he is not 'using his head' that's not acceptable!

I asked who does it really bother, because whose business is it really if these people want to be married, or committed to each other in a civil union? If what they have we lable it as marriage, is it our business? Should the courts be dragged into it? They should not have been dragged into it from day one, they should not have been involved from the beginning because Gays should have the rights that all men and women do! Why should they be treated as separate, and not equal? It is what our country as been known to do from its' existence (I should say the people)! Cut off individuals rights to fair and equal living, opportunities, until they have to change with the times! Until they, the courts get involved because they have to in order to uphold the rights of each individuals. The rights of Gays to marry is so much bigger than their rights to be married! It proves what our country is, free, and fair to each individual that calls it home! To consider the rights of each individual, their freedom!

And you still haven't answered my initial question: Would it bother you if Tom, Dick and Harry or Tom, Dick and Sally want to get "married"? If it would, then why would it? If not, why not?

Perhaps you can answer this for yourself, because you seem intent on making some point that is supposedly over our heads? IN the first place, I think Tom, Dick and Sally would rather play together than get married!

Essentially, you're saying that I, as a married man who support gay marriages, am against marriage? How can you say this without even realising how many people you're offending? My marriage is extremely important and very dear to me. How dare you try to devalue this so dismissively.

I just don't get why an heterosexual marriage is deemed wrong, unsacred and forever affected by two men or two women getting married? Saying what you have Lulu, again, so totally insultive!

.this means that 4 judges banned the existing California law (marriage between a man and a woman) and made a new California marriage law.

In essence what they have done, is allow the civil rights of a few thousand people, who couldn't get any otherwise!

Successfully updated karma reason!

DrGuy was right....you've asked and answered your own question and were never really interested in discussing another's viewpoint that disagrees with your own. What a pity.

First, sorry for mangling your moniker, I kept referring to you as Lulu instead of Lula (the short form of your name).

Second, there you go again, we are not seeing eye to eye, so on with the implied insults! I believe that I have discussed the points I was trying to make, as well as listened to the opinions of everyone who responded to my blog because they had an opinion as well. Too bad you have to do something like this!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Let's look at the laws of nature. We're just animals. How many other animals look for a mate of the same sex? In nature, sex is used for procreation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

Successfully updated karma reason!

[quote]Let's look at the laws of nature. We're just animals. How many other animals look for a mate of the same sex? In nature, sex is used for procreation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals[/quote]

Thx for the link Loca! I would have mentioned what I've seen with my own eyes as a child growing up around animals that sometimes they do the strangest things, one of them humping another of the same sex! But I might have been accused of making things up!lol!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Gays should have the rights that all men and women do!

This contention is false.

Homosexuals do have the same rights as the rest of us...every person has rights that flow from his rational, inherent human nature. All homosexuals have a right to marry, but they must marry someone of the opposite sex as that's what marriage means and has always meant. There is no so-called "right" to homosexual "marriage" becasue homosexuality opposes nature. Nothing that opposes nature can be a source of rights since the common good is the end and the rule of the State. Therefore to forbid homosexuality doesn't transgress any individual fundamental rights since these actions aren't in accordance with human nature.

4 judges coerced Californian society into changing traditional marriage law and thus eroding the most fundamental supports of our society. It is chillling that most here don't see or comprehend the larger issue that society and thereby the State has a vital interest in establishing rules gorunded in morality for the common good. That's got to be becasue you've bought into our licentious, amoral culture and are hung up on radical individualism over the common good of all.

What isn't understood is that in every civilization since the dawn of time, there has been fornication, adultery, and sodomy practiced, but never been accepted as morally right in any culture that's stood the test of time.

MasonM posts:

Oh and by the way, fuck you for even attempting to say that I don't use my head.

Foreverserenity posts:

Lula, I don't blame Mason for responding to you the way he has

It's not that we don't know what's right and wrong, it's that we don't have the will to do what's right.

Bye.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"When Gays get Married, Who does it Really Bother" you ask, Donna?

IT BOTHERS LULA!

Now you've gone and hurted her precious little feelsies.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

Denying the rights of any individual is wrong! When does human rights enter into this equation?

Actually, America used to be a Democracy. We used to adhere to "majority rules" and make laws for the majority (for the people, by the people, is a majority act, not an individual act.) America was fonded on Christian values, and Christianity is still the leading religion in America. However, we have degraded our system over time and now have the bizarre reasoning that every person has the right to live exactly how they want to. We no longer adhere to the way that our forefathers established this country, and we have started to make minority "rights" become more important than majority rights.

The problem is- if a person's "rights" affect my "rights", who should be denied? If my right is to raise my child in a traditional. American society, how come a majority can step in and take tradition away by declaring that they have the right to be legally recognized as a sexual deviant? Explaining to my daughter why her friend has two set of parents is hard enough, but having to explain why a friend has two Dads who are "married". No thanks. I prefer to keep Homosexuals in the same "sexual deviant' bin as Polygamists and the like are thrown.

It saddens me that America has lost so much morality. We hold nothing sacred, and we've become so concerned over each individuals right that we have lost perspective as a nation- a nation that used to be a Democracy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

Now you've gone and hurted her precious little feelsies.

Well, I have to say, saying "fuck you" to anyone is probably going to upset them. Not sure it's appropriate to say that to anyone, even if you don't like them.

Having Gays get married bothers me, too. It's a slippery slope.

If Gays have "rights" why don't polygamists? Why is polygamy less natural than homosexuality? Considering there are more women then men, wouldn't it be natural to see two women with one man in a relationship? What is the women are bi? Shouldn't they have the right to enter into a relationship with each other and a man of choice?

Where do you draw the line? How come one group of deviants have rights over another group?

Successfully updated karma reason!

No one has yet answered how, tangibly, gay marriage would effect them. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy but I could certainly see polygamist asking for the same right. I really don't have a problem with polygamy ether, if some guy falls in love with a bisexual woman that has a girlfriend and the girlfriend falls in love with the guy, let' em get married and color me jealous. Polygamy is fairly rare outside of cults anyway, jealousy is just too strong an emotion.

If someone wants to marry an animal, fine as long as the animal can legally become a citizen, sign their own name and say "I do " they'll have my blessing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's not that we don't know what's right and wrong, it's that we don't have the will to do what's right.

I think you already know my response to this Lula. Let's just agree to see things the way we each want to see them.

"When Gays get Married, Who does it Really Bother" you ask, Donna? IT BOTHERS LULA! Now you've gone and hurted her precious little feelsies.

Ohhhh, I'm in trouble! You know, you can't win them all!lol! Sometimes, some feelings are hurt along the way!

The problem is- if a person's "rights" affect my "rights", who should be denied? If my right is to raise my child in a traditional. American society, how come a majority can step in and take tradition away by declaring that they have the right to be legally recognized as a sexual deviant? Explaining to my daughter why her friend has two set of parents is hard enough, but having to explain why a friend has two Dads who are "married". No thanks. I prefer to keep Homosexuals in the same "sexual deviant' bin as Polygamists and the like are thrown.

I totally understand and see your point. For me, I have briefly explained to my daughter when she asked, that some people like other people who are just like them. It was as simple of an explanation that I gave at the time because she won't fully grasp it all at her age. My son I explained the same but then I said, some people dont like the idea of the same type of people being in love together. That's as far as he wanted to know right now. I won't give more than I know they can handle, and need to know at this point at their age. My oldest now fully understands what is what and what I've thought her have given her the knowledge to make the decisions she does. She has friends who are gay, are aware of the implications and all that. The differences between the ages, 6, 13 and 18, is on a need to know basis, and only when the question is asked because of something that was heard, or seen. I do tell them their are some things they don't need to know right now, some programs they don't need to watch and that I wouldn't approve of and because we communicate we I know that they have a level of understanding that they can comprehend. In saying that, I dont' say you don't communicate (or anyone else) with their children, but this is how I deemed to handle it.

And as our country must change with the times, as we grow as a society, some concessions have to be made so our society can live cohesively. We can't always be as it were in the days back when because our world is different than it was 100 years ago! Why shouldn't our laws be updated and upgraded? It's not a matter of letting our country go to the dogs, so to speak, it's a matter of making room for what our world is now. It's not just one way of thinking, one set of people who exists anymore, it is all types.

Well, I have to say, saying "fuck you" to anyone is probably going to upset them. Not sure it's appropriate to say that to anyone, even if you don't like them.

I can't speak for Mason, but I do understand why he said it! Seriously!

No one has yet answered how, tangibly, gay marriage would effect them. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy but I could certainly see polygamist asking for the same right. I really don't have a problem with polygamy ether, if some guy falls in love with a bisexual woman that has a girlfriend and the girlfriend falls in love with the guy, let' em get married and color me jealous. Polygamy is fairly rare outside of cults anyway, jealousy is just too strong an emotion.

You want my honest answer on this? I really don't know how it would affect me because I can't see in what way it would? Other than that some have pointed out, it may raise my insurance or my taxes....? I'll bitch and moan then I'll still have to pay. I can't seriously see how it would affect me, other than me telling my kids, sitting them down for a talk! I should hope they would be as open-minded as I am and that's how I'm growing them to be!

I have one God who sees all and knows all and judges all! I cannot be the judge of all, but I can make a difference in my life and everyone's who I meet. If I can't see a person without judging, and I'm not perfect, I'll tell you, I stereotype as much as the next person. However, I do leave an open mind to the 'what ifs' out there!

I also don't come from a line of very open-minded people when it comes to gays either! My birth country, Jamaica, is a nation of people who are as conservative and judgemental and will 'crucify' you for being gay! That is the truth! They do not even tolerate the thought! It's sad. There are gay couples there but they also have a fight on their hands as much as they do here, even more so!

If someone wants to marry an animal, fine as long as the animal can legally become a citizen, sign their own name and say "I do " they'll have my blessing.

LOL! You are such a crazy person!LOL! But I hear you! Dang if the animal can do that, we are no longer on Earth!LOL!

Successfully updated karma reason!

cactoblasta

Join Date 04/2004

+48

It saddens me that America has lost so much morality. We hold nothing sacred, and we've become so concerned over each individuals right that we have lost perspective as a nation- a nation that used to be a Democracy.

You should take another look at what you're saying here. America holds nothing sacred, and yet in the very same sentence you say that it holds individual rights sacred.

So which is it? A shift in America's sacred cows away from your preferred values or abolition of the bovine standard altogether?

stubbyfinger: I totally agree. I think human society has much bigger threats to its wellbeing than sex. So long as people make themselves useful in some other sphere I couldn't give a damn who they try to breed with.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

I can't speak for Mason, but I do understand why he said it! Seriously!

Oh, I can see why somebody would say it, but I still don't think it's appropriate. In all my many many years of online communications, I have never said "fuck you" to anyone. It's not like she said something equally horrible to him. It may have been condescending, but I don't think she deserved that treatment.

And as our country must change with the times, as we grow as a society, some concessions have to be made so our society can live cohesively. We can't always be as it were in the days back when because our world is different than it was 100 years ago!

Our country is changing alright, and it's not for the better. Detroit is now up to over a 50% drop out rate before graduation. It's a city that has been given all sorts of political concessions due to minority appeals. Its schools receive special funding, they have special programs for the minorities, we bend over backward for them. In contrast, there are schools in small, mainly white areas that are struggling due to funding. They have less than a 2% drop out rate, but the government keeps pushing money to the minorities instead because the minorities are in "trouble".

Once democracy is no more, we will realize how making concessions for minorities and minority interests affects the majority. I guess I don't understand why people aren't seeing the full cause and effect of the situation that America is getting into. It's not improving with the times, it's simply giving in to the times. It's not a good trend.

You should take another look at what you're saying here. America holds nothing sacred, and yet in the very same sentence you say that it holds individual rights sacred.

No, actually, you should read again the entirety of what I wrote. America is not holding on to what was sacred. Individual rights are not sacred. If that was the case, every single person would have individual rights. That isn't possible, and it is not what America was founded on, anyway.

America was founded on Christian morals and principles. America also was founded as a democracy. Are you saying that Gays being allowed to marry is Christian? Is ruling in favor of a minority, or making special cases for a minority Democratic?

I'm not Christian, and I don't believe in "God", but I do believe in the way this country was founded and I truly believe that we are destroying our country by conceding to minority interests.

You can say that Gay "marriage" shouldn't "bother" anyone, but it is really just one notch in the belt of society's degradation.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have never said "fuck you" to anyone.

Oh, come on, Angie, talk dirty to me.

I'M JUST KIDDING I'M JUST KIDDING DON'T BAN ME!

Successfully updated karma reason!