RunRyder RC
 7  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 5 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )     4      5     NEXT    >> ] 2814 views POST REPLY
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › One Leftist Judge Slaps Down Seven Million Voters in California
08-09-2010 12:33 PM  7 years agoPost 41
SSN Pru

rrElite Veteran

Taxachusetts

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I've been married for 34 years and I can't see what this has to do with the pursuit of happiness!
I'm glad you aren't the "decider" when it comes to what defines the pursuit of happiness.

Not in the least.

He was as big a moron as the current moron.
The left/statists/whatever have spent the last 40 years doing their best to destroy the nuclear family in America because it is the basis of our culture, and much of our freedom. When we have family, we have support systems that make the government unnecessary. Without family, the government steps in and fills that role. And that dependence is what they are after, because it provides them with power.
that's the most intellectual post in this thread. I agree!
As far as "rights", a same-sex couple can enter into any civil contract with each other any time they want. You can leave your estate to your dog, so why not your same sex partner? The truth is that, legally, they already possess everything they are asking for. They just want to redifine "marriage" to mean something other than what it has meant for all of human history.
I can't agree with this 100%. A gay 'spouse' can't be covered under the insurance of the other the way a husband or wife can be covered by being married. That's one I can think of right away.

Stupidity can be cured. Ignorance is for life!

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-09-2010 04:26 PM  7 years agoPost 42
Rodan

rrVeteran

Prescott Valley, AZ

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I can't agree with this 100%. A gay 'spouse' can't be covered under the insurance of the other the way a husband or wife can be covered by being married. That's one I can think of right away.
That may be true, and if so, I would agree that those same types of coverages should be available to any designated dependent. HOWEVER, insurance is a contract entered into by a person, and a company. In a free market, any company has a right to offer/refuse service to anyone for any reason. So, how 'bout the gay rights folks exercise some entrepreneurial spirit, and come up with a free market solution and start an insurance company that caters to their crowd. Given all the yelling/screaming, I would think they would be able to find some investors and create some market share...

Our problem is that we have come to the point that we look to government for solutions to problems that are none of their business, and everything under the sun becomes a "right".

Access to emergency medical services is, IMHO, a basic human right. And that has been covered under law for some time. "Health care" is not a "right"... it's personal responsibility. Now, I'm talking in basic terms here, there's obviously a huge problem with our system, but there are real, free market solutions. Putting the government in charge, and making the taxpayer shoulder the cost is not a solution.

I didn't want to jack the thread into health care, but the basic philosophies are the same for me when I look at "gay rights". Your life is your own, and I don't care what you do, but don't make me fiscally responsible for your choices. And don't try to force me to accept your choices as normal or acceptable. They're none of my business, just stop trying to make them my business.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-09-2010 04:47 PM  7 years agoPost 43
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

they have the EXACT same right as everyone else to marry the opposite sex.
Oh really.

What about the guy that wants to have a dozen wives?

What about the guy that wants a wife of 12 years old?

What about the guy that wants to have several wives of 12 years old?

Do all those guys have the same rights as everyone else to marry the opposite sex?

Point being is that how far do we go with this change to human history since the dawn of time? I am all for marriage between a man and a woman. Period. I suppose the Supreme Court will be the ultimate decider sooner or later. It could go either way. We will all have to accept that decision. I may not like it if it does not go the way I would like to see it. Bur, I guess I will have to accept it. I'll bet the other side will not do so well if that decision goes against them.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-09-2010 05:38 PM  7 years agoPost 44
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It's not about rights.

It's about destroying the sanctity of marriage.

If it were rights, a simple compromise could be reached.

Is the issue insurance? Why isn't Obama's HealthCare fixing that?

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-09-2010 09:09 PM  7 years agoPost 45
Ghia

rrApprentice

Abq, NM

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I dont think Obama has the balls to touch the gay marriage issue. Not if he want reelected.

As American citizens gays get all the same RIGHTS everyone else gets, so why do they need additional rights just for them??

On healthcare insurance in NM, the gays can put their partner on the same plan and get all the benefits a married couple gets anyway because our society caters to the gay community.

We as a hetero couple cant put my mother-in-law on our Ins as a dependant due to her having MS and needs drugs and care regularly, but if we got a divorce and chose to turn gay then all kind of benefits open up.

Some one above said they ARE trying to dissolve the basic fabric of America to make Gov more powerful! I agree 100%.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 03:41 PM  7 years agoPost 46
ScottV

rrApprentice

El Dorado Hills, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

As American citizens gays get all the same RIGHTS everyone else gets, so why do they need additional rights just for them??
They don't get the right to marry.
It's not about rights.

It's about destroying the sanctity of marriage.
It is about the right to marry like any other person in America, so yes it is about rights. And what gives you the right to say who can and can not marry. And do not go into the stupid argument of why can't I marry my dog or cat or whatever. Marriage is between 2 people and it should not matter if it is be 2 guys or 2 women or a guy and a women.
Point being is that how far do we go with this change to human history since the dawn of time?
Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time it is nothing new. Just because you won't accept it doesn't mean everyone should have to.

So long and thanks for all the fish!
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><((((º>

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 03:52 PM  7 years agoPost 47
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

And do not go into the stupid argument of why can't I marry my dog or cat or whatever. Marriage is between 2 people and it should not matter if it is be 2 guys or 2 women or a guy and a women.
Hmm. Marriage has historically always been between a man and a woman. Simple as that.

If you wish to alter the definition of marriage, you have to accept that some might want to marry the cat.

Since we're changing the meaning of things anyway.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 03:54 PM  7 years agoPost 48
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

If this is a rights thing, then I propose that homosexuals be allowed to enter legal, financially beneficial, binding unions. Just don't call it marriage. Call it a "union" if you like.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 04:30 PM  7 years agoPost 49
ScottV

rrApprentice

El Dorado Hills, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Just don't call it marriage
Why not? It will not affect your marriage in any way.

Also I cat is unable to signify whether or not it wants to marry or consents to the marraige.

So long and thanks for all the fish!
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><((((º>

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 04:35 PM  7 years agoPost 50
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Next thing you know people will want to be able to eat lunch at Mc D's and call it the Eucharist.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 04:47 PM  7 years agoPost 51
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Marriage is between 2 people and it should not matter if it is be 2 guys or 2 women or a guy and a women.
Right there is where your argument falls apart.

You are critical of people that draw the line of marriage at one man and one woman.

Yet, you want to draw the line at one person to one person. Why did you stop there?

What the "big" rights gays are missing? Lets list'm.

1. Insurance
Already fixed by Obama.

2. List away....

Like Arron says:
Marriage is man and woman.

Civil Union:
Two humans or pets, trains, lunch, pictures of Obama, anything.

Problem solved unless the REAL AGENDA is to destroy sanctity of marriage.

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 05:23 PM  7 years agoPost 52
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What's the problem with calling it a civil union and having all the rights of a marriage?

Oh yeah, that doesn't piss off religious people enough, which seems to be the goal.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 05:29 PM  7 years agoPost 53
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What's the problem with calling it a civil union and having all the rights of a marriage? Oh yeah, that doesn't piss off the religious people enough, which seems to be the goal.
Nail...meet Hammer!

Well said.

If the gays were really interested in "rights", they would seek compromise "without" offending other groups.

Other than insurance, what are their claims?

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 05:44 PM  7 years agoPost 54
ScottV

rrApprentice

El Dorado Hills, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

What's the problem with calling it a civil union and having all the rights of a marriage?
Why must it be called a different name?

Can't you just be honest and say the reason you are against it is because you are against gays. I believe in equal rights for everyone, no matter race or sex preference, but the rest of you don't. You feel if they are not like you then they should not be allowed the same rights. You also feel it is ok to vote away peoples rights.
If the gays were really interested in "rights", they would seek compromise "without" offending other groups.
They simply want to be able to get married, what is the big deal. Why can't you compromise and allow them to get married.

So long and thanks for all the fish!
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><((((º>

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 05:47 PM  7 years agoPost 55
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Why must it be called a different name?
Why are you trying to change the English language?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 05:48 PM  7 years agoPost 56
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

but the rest of you don't. You feel if they are not like you then they should not be allowed the same rights. You also feel it is ok to vote away peoples rights.
Wrong. I wish to afford them all the legal and financial rights that a heterosexual couple gets when they marry.

But calling it a marriage, which has been defined as a spiritual union between a man and a woman before God, means that you are trying to butt into someone's religious beliefs.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 05:52 PM  7 years agoPost 57
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They simply want to be able to get married, what is the big deal?
This is a ridiculous argument of semantics.

I own a Ford.

Clearly, it's not a Chevy. I'm going to call it a Chevy. Why should anyone stop me? Stop infringing on my right to call it what I want it to be. I simply want it to be a Chevy. What's the big deal?

I assure you the DMV isn't going to allow me to register my Ford as a Chevy. So then, is that an official government entity infringing on my free speech rights if I try to put Chevy on my registration certificate?

Or what if I wanted to put "female" on my driver's license? I should be allowed to do that. Wait, I can't? That's sexist! Why can only ladies check that box? It isn't fair!

This is so stupid, but I can do this all day.

It's not infringing on anyone's rights to disallow calling their unions a "marriage" any more than my rights are being infringed when I am denied the ability to register my Ford as a Chevy.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The definition has already been taken. Find another definition. Civil union sounds very sweet, what's wrong with it?

And no, this denial is not an infringement of rights. It's just trying to avoid the ridiculous. People have way too much frikin time on their hands if they can sit around thinking of ways to annoy other people. Are they attention-seeking or is there an agenda? Whatever it is, it is counterproductive for the group. Just making them look like idiots.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 06:30 PM  7 years agoPost 58
ScottV

rrApprentice

El Dorado Hills, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

But calling it a marriage, which has been defined as a spiritual union between a man and a woman before God, means that you are trying to butt into someone's religious beliefs.
So it is about religion, and if it does not follow your religion then it is wrong. Thank you for clarifying what I had assumed.

So much for seperation of church and state.

I will no longer post on this issue since I clearly see now that your feeling are religion based.

“Judge not, lest ye not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

So long and thanks for all the fish!
`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><((((º>

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 06:31 PM  7 years agoPost 59
Aaron29

rrProfessor

USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Dude. I'm not even religious.

I just find this to be idiotic. Like I said, as long as the rights afforded are equal, there is no infringement of rights. At least none above my Ford vs. Chevy example.

So if the rights afforded are equal, and yet still people whine, clearly, there is a motivation here beyond simple "equal rights."

Oh and if you are going to quote the Bible, how about quoting some of what it has to say in Revelation about the sexually immoral? Don't even look at the Old Testament for what it has to say.

This is lame. Leave the religious to their text, and their centuries long standing definition of marriage. It is not infringing on anyone's rights.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
08-10-2010 06:42 PM  7 years agoPost 60
dilberteinstein

rrNovice

texas - USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

They simply want to be able to get married, what is the big deal. Why can't you compromise and allow them to get married.
Very clever...why isn't some sort of compromise offered by gays. We've offered "civil union" with all the benefits (insurance? what else?).

No compromise from the gays...no, only total capitulation is acceptable to you.

If I were gay and seeking marraige rights, I would say something like this:

I understand that "marriage" is held sacred by many religions and ordinary people alike. It is not my intention to offend anyone with "gay unions." I am merely asking that "civil unions of gays" be given the same legal status as a marriage between a man and a woman.

And yet you would deny a marriage between a man and his picture of Obama.

90% of life is "showing up"

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 5 pages [ <<    <     1      2     ( 3 )     4      5     NEXT    >> ] 2814 views POST REPLY
HelicopterOff Topics News & Politics › One Leftist Judge Slaps Down Seven Million Voters in California
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 7  Topic Subscribe

Sunday, May 27 - 8:38 am - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online