Active Users:625 Time:03/08/2025 07:15:42 AM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
It should be noted again... Jeordam Send a noteboard - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM
that marriage and the governmental advantages that come with it, are not rights. Homosexual marriage, and this debate in general, is not a civil rights issue. If someone made $100,000 a year, should they be allowed to get WIC stamps or other forms of government assistance (university grants, housing assitance, etc). After all...they are human and deserve the same advantages. Right?

Oh...that's right. They don't fit the pre-set qualifications. As I said in a post in another thread. The state then asked the public if those qualifications should be changed. The state said no. The qualifications as they are currently set are appropriate.

~Jeordam
ex-Admin at wotmania (all things wot & art galleries)
Saving the Princess, Humanity, or the World-Entire since 1985
Reply to message
Let's ban all Christian Marriage. Dannymac - 07/08/2010 06:36:13 AM 1648 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. Helene - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1047 Views
One small problem... Phelix - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1072 Views
Re tax. Rebekah - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1113 Views
That seems sensible to me. SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 978 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1124 Views
Nice. *NM* Camilla - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 621 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. Cannoli - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1297 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1101 Views
Who else should make those decisions? Cannoli - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1049 Views
I'd totally... Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 997 Views
I'd totally... ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1152 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 512 Views
Indeed ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1083 Views
I used to think Joel was the biggest rambler on this site. I am seriously reconsidering. everynametaken - 08/08/2010 05:24:56 AM 1087 Views
And my assessment of one poster as the most content-poor, non-contributing slug is unchanged Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:17:02 PM 992 Views
Um, ok. *NM* everynametaken - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 513 Views
*Shakes Head* Dannymac - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 957 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 547 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. Great Lord of Chaos - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1056 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1020 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! Vodalus - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 969 Views
whoops *NM* ßelals Girl - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 469 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 1005 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution LadyLorraine - 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM 1103 Views
No, I was referring to same-sex marriage. Real marriage hardly counts as a novelty. *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 02:28:43 PM 456 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. Dannymac - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 951 Views
You cannot be that stupid. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1228 Views
There's a lot of ridiculous arguments here, but I'll focus on just one of them... Legolas - 11/08/2010 03:38:05 PM 1118 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. Dreaded Anomaly - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1335 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment random thoughts - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 940 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 978 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* Ectheledhel - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 519 Views
Did I say there was anything? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1096 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1024 Views
Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 965 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 954 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1067 Views
Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 926 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1059 Views
Re: Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 925 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1089 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1092 Views
... Camilla - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 982 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 1001 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 949 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 1045 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM 1064 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1108 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 916 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Dannymac - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1043 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 919 Views
Great post Danny SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 800 Views
It should be noted again... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1091 Views
and how is it not a right? LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 965 Views
My definition of rights... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1087 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 848 Views
+1 Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1122 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 946 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1081 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1259 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM 943 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM 1267 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize. Legolas - 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM 899 Views
The point is that marriage IS a right, one which cannot be denied based upon sexual orientation *NM* Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:04:16 PM 728 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM 1135 Views
It doesn't say a man can only marry a woman or vice versa, though. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 04:24:17 AM 950 Views
It also doesn't say they can Isaac - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 954 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 955 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 963 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM 935 Views
Re: I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:33:56 PM 869 Views
It's mentioned as a right in some SC decision quoted in that Walker opinion. *NM* Legolas - 10/08/2010 06:51:13 PM 468 Views
To clarify for you SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 896 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1324 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM 910 Views
The fact that it is capable of authorizing the use of military force makes it an enforcement body Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 10:33:59 PM 1185 Views
Disagree - but it's most a matter of definition there SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:31:53 PM 1089 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... Jeordam - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 896 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 495 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 499 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination SilverWarder - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1134 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM 504 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1033 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... Vodalus - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1112 Views
I agree LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 821 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1187 Views
Note it all you want... Dannymac - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 817 Views
No, they seek to expand the terms of the partnership. Homosexuals can & do get married normally *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:14:25 PM 524 Views
The best one yet. Camilla - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1069 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 940 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1044 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 935 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1068 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1060 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel Camilla - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 1007 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes