Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 15, 2007 17:09:31 GMT -4
I’m not in “outrage” mode and I apologize if my post came off that way. I don't think you were in "outrage mode", no. I generally agree.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 15, 2007 17:54:25 GMT -4
I’m not in “outrage” mode and I apologize if my post came off that way. I don't think you were in "outrage mode", no. I generally agree. Promoting and encouraging lesbianism is the best way to stop sexually transmitted diseases. We should all do our part. I suggest men stop showering immediately.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 15, 2007 18:11:04 GMT -4
Abstinence goes against our basic human drives and is not a realistic solution to anything. Look where it got the Catholic Church. "Couldn't you have had ... some sort of accident?" "Not if we're to remain members of the fastest-growing religion in the World, my lad!" ;D
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 18, 2007 18:59:20 GMT -4
Abstinence goes against our basic human drives and is not a realistic solution to anything. Look where it got the Catholic Church. "Couldn't you have had ... some sort of accident?" "Not if we're to remain members of the fastest-growing religion in the World, my lad!" ;D What is that a quote from? By the way, isn't this whole argument pointless? Isn't there one province in Canada where same gender couples can marry? And thus, if it is legal in once province, once the couple moves to another one, it has to be recognized in other provinces. And if it is recognized in one country, it does not make sense that a marriage becomes void if a couple moves across the border to another country. If someone has multiple wives in Saudi Arabia, is he suddenly single if he travels to the USA or he is suddenly forced to pick just one wife?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 18, 2007 19:42:27 GMT -4
I think same gender marriages are legal all across Canada right now.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 18, 2007 20:17:30 GMT -4
What is that a quote from? Monty Python's Meaning of Life. Just before the song & dance routine about the sanctity of individual human reproductive cells.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 18, 2007 22:05:41 GMT -4
I think same gender marriages are legal all across Canada right now. Well, then, the debate is over. And, by the way, this is a good thing even if you are against it. There was more alcohol related problems during prohibition than after it was reversed. And once euthanasia was legalized in Holland, less and less people chose it. But if homosexual marriage is legal in Canada, does that mean the marriage would be null and void if a same gender couple moved to the USA? I doubt it. But if so, it won't be long until the USA will be forced to accept it. Too many [glow=red,2,300]<< insert your employment stereotype here >>[/glow] will be moving to Canada and taking all their talent with them.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 18, 2007 22:41:09 GMT -4
Utah won't recognize your same-gender relationship if you move here - the state can't do that, since the state constitution now defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Many other states have ammended their constitutions in the same way.
So if the debate's over, then it's over in different ways in different states.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 25, 2007 20:24:19 GMT -4
So it is just a geographic issue, then.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 26, 2007 16:01:41 GMT -4
One way it will be over is if the US Supreme Court determines that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution applies to gay marriage. If that happens, all states will be required to recognizes a gay marriage from any state that allows it, all it takes is one.. Although they would be quite well justified in applying the FF&C clause to this issue, I'd rather see the discussions continue than have an imposition by the court. There are few better ways to add fuel to a contentions, emotional debate than for nonelected body to impose a rule. See Roe v Wade for an example.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 26, 2007 17:42:03 GMT -4
One way it will be over is if the US Supreme Court determines that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution applies to gay marriage. If that happens, all states will be required to recognizes a gay marriage from any state that allows it, all it takes is one.. Although they would be quite well justified in applying the FF&C clause to this issue, I'd rather see the discussions continue than have an imposition by the court. There are few better ways to add fuel to a contentions, emotional debate than for non-elected body to impose a rule. See Roe v Wade for an example. Isn't it already legal on one US state? Massachusetts or some New England state? As far as the US Supreme Court is concerned, that just needs to happen once. Holding on to the notion that marriage changes based on geography will not last forever. And once the cat is out of the bag, the genie is out of the bottle, Pandora's box is opened, or whatever analogy you use, there will be no undoing what is done. Another thing is this. The US is not a democracy, it is a representative republic. It is supposed to be representative of all its people, but this does not mean that the majority wins always like they do in each individual state. Recognizing gay marriage, is the moral and just thing to do for a representaive republic, like the United States. This is Constitutional. Besides, all that needs to happen for Utah to recognize gay marriage is to have all the gays flood into Utah and vote it into action by voting a gay or gay-friendly state government.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 17:48:00 GMT -4
The fact that more states have now ammended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage than allow it is good evidence that the people feel it is not the moral or just thing to do, and that there aren't enough pro-gay elements to force such votes everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 26, 2007 19:46:39 GMT -4
The fact that more states have now ammended their constitutions to prohibit gay marriage than allow it is good evidence that the people feel it is not the moral or just thing to do, and that there aren't enough pro-gay elements to force such votes everywhere. I think to most people it is a fear based issue, because of lack of understanding. I wonder how you would look at this issue Jason if you had a gay son or daughter. Could you accept it?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 26, 2007 19:52:19 GMT -4
If I had a son or daughter who persisted in homosexual behavior and self-identified as "gay" I would beleive exactly the same way I do today. I would continue to love the son or daughter and support them as far as I could, but I could not call their behavior acceptable or moral or support "same sex marriages".
|
|
|
Post by RAF on Nov 27, 2007 10:44:01 GMT -4
I would continue to love the son or daughter and support them as far as I could, but I could not call their behavior acceptable or moral... But would you accept them for what they were? Contrary wise, would you expect a gay son or daughter to accept your fear and bigotry? Sounds like you wouldn't have any kind of relationship with a child who didn't "believe as I do"...which is pretty damn stupid.
|
|