Gay marriage amendment

[5-90]

I really don't understand why everyone is getting up in arms here. In what way would gay marriage harm anyone? If this is about religious aspect fine, here's an easy soloution. A pastor is free to refuse to perform the ceremony for a gay couple. This leaves a civil service as the only option and that shouldn't get anyones panties in a bunch as it's not scatified in Gods eyes.

Or is the big issue surronding the percieved tax burden that these "perverts" impose upon "moral" society. I'll argue that they put a far lesser burden on the tax base then straight society. For example, you'll never see a gay couple popping out tons of kids and increasing how much they get for food stamps and welfare cash benefits. The only way that a gay couple can get a child is through adoption, which requires a thorough background check to verify the prespective parents are able to adequately support the child, along with a hefty amount of money up front for various fees.

In all honesty, these laws are just an attempt to force "morality" on the populace. As has been stated before, this country was formed on a) the seperation of church and state, and b) the escape from religious purscution in England for not conforming to societal norms. Seems to me that laws of this nature are bringing us back to 1600s Europe.

Of course, this is merely my opinion. Flame away

Pat

I'm not. Besides, I also have issues with "straights" being "on the dole" - but that's also easy to fix. Simply add requirements (above and beyond the Pauper's Oath) to receive public assistance. Maybe something like attending trade school (or doing public projects, like WPA in the 1930's) and only being able to receive wefare for a limited time - say, two years. Also, what you get in the beginning is all you get - if you have more kids, it's your fault, and you're not getting any more money from us.

I'll agree (grudgingly) that public assistance can fulfill a necessary function, but it's a socialist programme ("From each according to his means, to each according to his needs") that flies in the face of what we were founded upon. All we've done is shift the taxes from supporting the King to supporting the dregs.

In extreme cases, if you're going to be on welfare for the rest of your life, sterilisation is an option - and CAN and SHOULD be considered (using the legal definition of the words here.)

As I've mentioned, I really don't have issues with homosexuality. As my wife's former hairdresser (a gay man) put it, "You can be gay all you want. Just don't be a fag about it." He felt the same way I do - don't stand out overmuch. (No, he's not dead. He just moved out of the Ghey Area.)

I really don't have any objection to homosexuality - just to fags and dykes, and to the organisations that push "militant homosexuality" on everyone. LEAVE ME ALONE - if you just feel you HAVE to push the idea on me, be ready for the response. You won't like it.

5-90

 

[TRNDRVR]

Well...Can we just drop the subject?

Where's the fun it that Jon?

 

[WB9YZU]

I know lots of people who are gay or lesbian, and you know what? They're normal.

Define "normal". Websters defines "Normal" as: "according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle" or "relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution <normal approximation to the binomial distribution>"- that is to say, average.

"Homosexual" is defined as: "of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex"

Now to walk up to the obvious question, do you believe this statement to be correct?
"Homosexuality is normal"

If you do, then your position accepts that the majority of individuals, that is the "norm", or the "average" population exibits and practices homosexuality.

This is clearly a falsehood since only 3-6% of the population considers themself to be homosexual.

Some one indicated that there is no source that says that a child needs both a father and a mother figure. That is pure BS. There have been numerous studies done on this problem with single parent homes. The absence of one or the other parent is detrimental to the development of the child.

The problem is that there have not been large volumes of studies done on Homosexual couples as being childless seemed to be the object of the excersize.
The impressionalble ages for all children is where future values and identity is developed. The result may be as inoquius as a male who is "in touch" with his feminine self, or a female who is actively more agressive than her counterparts, but who can tell.

Do I believe myself that two homosexuals should marry? The concept is so obsurd as to make it irrelevant. The only reason they want to marry is to get a discount on social services offered by their employers and the government. To this I say "no". When two homosexuals can produce a child without medical assistance, by only having sex with each other, then we talk about it; because then there would be a reason for it- the child.

 

[IXNAYXJ]

("From each according to his means, to each according to his needs")

It's "ability," not "means." At least according to Marx. But that's an aside.

-----Matt-----

 

[Bent]

First off, kudos to me...

Agreed, the pot is at a full boil, It's been a while. Almost as good as the illegal sky marshals.:yelclap:

Secondly, several of you are plain intolerant.

Blacksport and Bent, how about we make all the negros subservient again?

Intolerant? YES

Racist? NO

And yes, the economy has been doomed since WWII.

Less government.

Agreed.
But since the government has it's hands into what is purely a religious institution, stay the course and leave it only between a man and a woman. How 'bout doing away with any and all government recognition of it all together and return it to being solely a religious covenant?
Gotta go work on the MJ now. Luvyabyebye.


Oh, almost forgot,

DEFY LIBERALISM

 

[Phager]

5-90, I wasn't addressing that at you, you posted while I was still typing my diatribe. My "everyone" statement was the public in general.

In regards to your statement regarding public assistance, I'll admit that my wife and I are recieving food stamps at the moment, and I agree with you that continuing education should definitely be a requirement. It's so messed up here in Oregon though. My wife and I are both students and we have to omit the fact that we're students because that's an automatic dismissal of assistance. I have yet to figure out the logic behind that. Oh and my wife works part time and goes to schoolt part time, while I'm a full time student and work over summers.

We're both trying to minimize how much public assistance we recieve. we'll both be graduating within a year or so, and at that point we will no longer be needing to sponge off society.

It looks like we're sort of on the same page when it comes to the gay marriage situation.

Pat

 

[TRNDRVR]

Oh, almost forgot,

DEFY LIBERALISM

:thumbup:

 

[5-90]

It's "ability," not "means." At least according to Marx. But that's an aside.

-----Matt-----

Thanks. I do tend to misquote - a side effect of keeping so much in my hat. I should write more of this stuff down...

Which work did he put that in? The only one I read of his was The Communist Manifesto, and that was quite a few years ago...

5-90

 

[BrettM]

My position on gay marriage is this; every religious and traditional definition of marriage has already been made a mockery of by a 50% divorce rate. The institution of marriage has already vastly changed in definition, so I don't care if people want to change the definition even more.

 

[IXNAYXJ]

Thanks. I do tend to misquote - a side effect of keeping so much in my hat. I should write more of this stuff down...

Which work did he put that in? The only one I read of his was The Communist Manifesto, and that was quite a few years ago...

5-90

It was the Communist Party motto for a long time, originally written by Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Program from 1875. Ironically, it was taken (in concept and in spirit) from the Bible:

"All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need." (Acts 2:44-45)

"There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." (Acts 4:34-35)

When I lived in Germany, my house was on Karl Marx Strasse!

-----Matt-----

 

[MuddinJeeper]

5-90, I wasn't addressing that at you, you posted while I was still typing my diatribe. My "everyone" statement was the public in general.

So...do you read a thesaurus in your off time? this is a 4x4 forum...we don't need you intellectual types confusing us...
































continue!!!1

 

[mdl]

I can only imagine having Bubba's 'member' shoved up your......:moon:

Well, I can only imagine. :wow:

You and you're imagination... lastara

 

[TRNDRVR]

You and you're imagination... lastara

Are?

 

[Phager]

You don't even want to see what would happen if I did read a thesaurus in my spare time , I was simply raised in a household that valued reading over TV. I was reading at a college level in third grade.

I sincerely apologize if my vernacular goes over your head (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Pat

 

[Menzenski]

Define "normal". Websters defines "Normal" as: "according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle" or "relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution <normal approximation to the binomial distribution>"- that is to say, average.

Apparently 'normal' was not the most appropriate word choice, but my point still stands. Homosexuals on the whole are just as weird and just as not-weird as heterosexuals.

Some one indicated that there is no source that says that a child needs both a father and a mother figure. That is pure BS. There have been numerous studies done on this problem with single parent homes. The absence of one or the other parent is detrimental to the development of the child.

Of course it's going to be detrimental a child's development if one of his/her parents dies, leaves or otherwise becomes absent. That sort of study has no meaningful relevance to whether or not children with homosexual parents will develop differently than children with heterosexual parents. If anything, a child with homosexual parents will develop a greater tolerance for those different from him/herself.

The impressionalble ages for all children is where future values and identity is developed. The result may be as inoquius as a male who is "in touch" with his feminine self, or a female who is actively more agressive than her counterparts, but who can tell.

Ignoring your begging of the question "will children of homosexual couples grow up with skewed gender perceptions?", what's so wrong with an effeminate male or an aggressive female? Would they threaten your own perceptions of what a man or a woman is?

Do I believe myself that two homosexuals should marry? The concept is so obsurd as to make it irrelevant. The only reason they want to marry is to get a discount on social services offered by their employers and the government. To this I say "no". When two homosexuals can produce a child without medical assistance, by only having sex with each other, then we talk about it; because then there would be a reason for it- the child.

So in your eyes, the only reason that straight people get married is to have kids? What about infertile couples, or elderly couples past child-bearing age? Should they not be allowed to marry? There is so much more to marriage than just popping out babies. If a gay person is in the hospital, his/her longtime partner should be able to visit him/her and make decisions if he/she is unable to. That's not possible today.

I really don't understand how so many so-called 'conservatives' are against gay marriage. Don't you want less government involvement in people's personal lives?

 

[01XJLIMITED]

My wife and I are both students and we have to omit the fact that we're students because that's an automatic dismissal of assistance.

Amazing. Glad you have all the angles worked out.

 

[MuddinJeeper]

You don't even want to see what would happen if I did read a thesaurus in my spare time , I was simply raised in a household that valued reading over TV. I was reading at a college level in third grade.

I sincerely apologize if my vernacular goes over your head (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Pat

:read:nerd
Nothing goes over my head:viking:

 

[Phager]

Amazing. Glad you have all the angles worked out.

I suspected that this would lead to some flak. Might I ask what you would do, if given the option of a) dropping out of school or b) having to make the decision between have a roof over your head, or eating. Allow to reiterate, this is not a situation I'm happy with. If the state of Oregon would realize that assisting people persueing an education is a far better investment, since college graduates make far more on average than high school graduates. This would translate directly into greater tax revenues for the state.

Instead, the state would rather force welfare recipents into minimum wage jobs. The irony here is that a person will still recieve food stamps (and cash benefits and free daycare, if a parent) working full time at Oregon minimum wage. And yet I'm viewed as the villian here. And for the record, my wife and I have no children, we're smart enough to realize that we aren't financially ready for kids. And we are minimizing our dependance on public assistance by working and reporting all income made through working.

Pat