Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I'm for personal freedom and individual rights. If someone finds love or pleasure in the arms of another person who happens to be of the same sex, it should be absolutely, perfectly legal. Same for gay marriage.

And yes, I do enjoy unravelling the logic of those with whom I disagree.

I think people are getting this mixed up some. Its not illegal for gays to get married by a church and have the church regonize them as married. Its that the state will not recognize them as legally married. Myself I really do not understand the issues enough to have a strong opinion either way. I have a gay family member and several gay friend and I have never heard them talk about this issue. Maybe I'll ask next time I have a chance to talk to one of them.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Interesting to see the economic impact of Prop 8:

Demise of Same-Sex Weddings Disheartens Businesses

I would imagine the shop owner in the imterview is a bit biased on the gay side of the arguement, and the $$ side as well.

[70Chip]

I think you have to draw a line somewhere and this seems as good a place as any. After this it will be plural marriage, then it will be lowering the age of consent, then it will be prostitution, then it will be animals, and on and on. We will never reach a point where there won't be someone who wants their sexual proclivity to be formalized in some way by law, no matter how creepy.

[saden1]

Once you start legislating morality the war is already lost. It's simply a matter of time....like my man Thomas Jefferson said:

We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong.

-Thomas Jefferson

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think you have to draw a line somewhere and this seems as good a place as any. After this it will be plural marriage, then it will be lowering the age of consent, then it will be prostitution, then it will be animals, and on and on. We will never reach a point where there won't be someone who wants their sexual proclivity to be formalized in some way by law, no matter how creepy.

You do not believe that you are over reacting a little bit? Those statements remind me of Quagmire playing golf. You went off the deep end.

The age of consent will not be lowered unless they lower the "Legal" age all around.

Legal Polygamy will not be allowed because the government will never go for joint tax returns involving more than 2 people.

I would say that the majority of people on this Earth would not consider marrying an animal.

[FRPLG]

In my opinion the gov't shouldn't be in the business of marriage in the first place. Makes no sense to me for some people to tell everyone else how to live. I don't like homosexuality all that much. So guess what...I don't practice it. What others do? I don't give a flying fart. Sanctioning marriage one way but not another is crap. It is that kind of crapola that kills the Republican party. Why is it ok to call for tax cuts, spending cuts and less gov't in general but socially the gov't is supposed to regulate more? Moronic. Not even remotely logical. I don't like the Cowboys. You don't see me trying to get a job with the NFL so I can get them banished from the league. I just don't cheer for them. Pretty simple in my book.

Eliminate the traditional BS marriage tenants of our laws. Enact some type of civil unions for the purpose of satisfying needed unity issues (medical decisions and so forth) and put this dumb issue to bed. If you want to be "against" gays then be "against" them. Have your idiot rallys but don't try to enact laws to prohibit it. We have plenty of laws that prohibit certain actions that don't work anyways so why does legislating this stuff make any sense?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by saden1

Once you start legislating morality the war is already lost. It's simply a matter of time....like my man Thomas Jefferson said:

If you were able to present TJ with the question at hand, what is your opinion of his thoughts on the matter?

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Angry

You do not believe that you are over reacting a little bit? Those statements remind me of Quagmire playing golf. You went off the deep end.

The age of consent will not be lowered unless they lower the "Legal" age all around.

Legal Polygamy will not be allowed because the government will never go for joint tax returns involving more than 2 people.

I would say that the majority of people on this Earth would not consider marrying an animal.

These statements are true today.
That may not be the case in years to come as "the more our society does the wrong thing, the more right it becomes". That condition is promoting (IMO) an escalating degradation of the moral climate in our society.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Hog1

If you were able to present TJ with the question at hand, what is your opinion of his thoughts on the matter?

Given that he is the man who authored the the Declaration of Independence I feel confidant that he would be partial to gay marriage. That is to say if he is a principled man he would side with liberty and not with religious dogma.

[saden1]

My homeboy James Dobson weighs in from the future, the year 2012 to be exact. I'm guessing he is hoping Obama will not be reelected in 2012. Very entertaining read...mega bonus points for creativity. It starts out like this to wet your appetite and get you to lick your lips:

Dear friends,

I can hardly sing “The Star Spangled Banner” any more. When I hear the words,

O say, does that star spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

I get tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Now in October of 2012, after seeing what has happened in the last four years, I don't think I can still answer, "Yes," to that question. We are not "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate, and hardly any brave citizen dares to resist the new government policies any more.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Given that he is the man who authored the the Declaration of Independence I feel confidant that he would be partial to gay marriage. That is to say if he is a principled man he would side with liberty and not with religious dogma.

Not sure that gay marriage was much of an issue back then so its hard to say how he would feel. Did the Declaration of Independense apply to black slaves?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

My homeboy James Dobson weighs in from the future, the year 2012 to be exact. I'm guessing he is hoping Obama will not be reelected in 2012. Very entertaining read...mega bonus points for creativity. It starts out like this to wet your appetite and get you to lick your lips:

I can't even do it.

I'd rather watch the saved by zero Toyota commercial over and over than be subjected to such garbage.

Doesn't he think that homosexuals can be "cured"?

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I think you have to draw a line somewhere and this seems as good a place as any. After this it will be plural marriage, then it will be lowering the age of consent, then it will be prostitution, then it will be animals, and on and on. We will never reach a point where there won't be someone who wants their sexual proclivity to be formalized in some way by law, no matter how creepy.

aren't you the same guy that thinks that the less government intervention into peoples every day lives, the better?

[saden1]

From a literary stand point it's a masterpiece. If it will help look at it as a work of fiction written from the prospective of a deranged man.

He thinks it's psychological problem that can be cured. Homeboy wanted to help Ted Haggard but he just didn't have the time.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Not sure that gay marriage was much of an issue back then so its hard to say how he would feel. Did the Declaration of Independense apply to black slaves?

It is not hard to deduce from his writing how he would have felt. Slaves were considered property so I would imagine it applied to them from the stand point of property by their owners.