Active Users:684 Time:16/09/2026 01:19:18 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 1851 Views
Nice satire, but it raises another point for me. Helene - 07/08/2010 07:20:49 AM 1227 Views
One small problem... Phelix - 07/08/2010 08:02:34 AM 1227 Views
Re tax. Rebekah - 07/08/2010 08:47:22 AM 1286 Views
That seems sensible to me. SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:13:26 PM 1173 Views
Not sure what you mean by "demoted." Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:50:02 PM 1296 Views
Nice. *NM* Camilla - 07/08/2010 08:58:20 AM 717 Views
That would only be appropriate if Christians wanted to ban secular unions of normal people. Cannoli - 07/08/2010 11:51:29 AM 1484 Views
Hey, look! There was a point over there! Dannymac - 07/08/2010 03:46:41 PM 1348 Views
Who else should make those decisions? Cannoli - 07/08/2010 08:00:39 PM 1259 Views
I'd totally... Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 04:14:15 AM 1161 Views
I'd totally... ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:17:30 AM 1323 Views
You'd defend this idiot? *NM* Ectheledhel - 08/08/2010 06:40:34 AM 595 Views
Indeed ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1255 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 1260 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 1165 Views
Um, ok. *NM* everynametaken - 10/08/2010 12:48:19 AM 601 Views
*Shakes Head* Dannymac - 08/08/2010 06:23:47 AM 1135 Views
I highly doubt Cannoli is "scared" of homosexuals *NM* ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:29:54 AM 622 Views
Perhaps not in the physical sense. Great Lord of Chaos - 08/08/2010 06:35:53 AM 1250 Views
Re: Perhaps not in the physical sense. ßelals Girl - 08/08/2010 06:46:56 AM 1186 Views
Gah! You did that on purpose! Vodalus - 09/08/2010 01:05:13 AM 1129 Views
whoops *NM* ßelals Girl - 09/08/2010 02:22:49 AM 556 Views
Re: *Shakes Head* Cannoli - 08/08/2010 07:43:11 PM 1183 Views
I still do not see how you think marriage is a "pointless" institution LadyLorraine - 08/08/2010 08:05:45 PM 1347 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 529 Views
This must be the "thought out reaction" I've heard so much about. Dannymac - 08/08/2010 10:45:59 PM 1137 Views
You cannot be that stupid. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:10:55 PM 1398 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 1338 Views
Incorrect. Genders are not treated equally. Dreaded Anomaly - 11/08/2010 07:53:00 PM 1521 Views
all you need is enough support to pass an amendment random thoughts - 08/08/2010 02:46:08 PM 1120 Views
A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 08/08/2010 11:51:24 PM 1190 Views
And what is wrong with polygamy? *NM* Ectheledhel - 09/08/2010 10:36:53 AM 617 Views
Did I say there was anything? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:03:10 AM 1262 Views
Plolygamy and incest are not on the same level of bad. Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:00:07 AM 1210 Views
Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:36:26 AM 1150 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Camilla - 09/08/2010 11:46:42 AM 1121 Views
Re: Is that assumption valid? Isaac - 09/08/2010 12:07:22 PM 1235 Views
Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:20:46 PM 1092 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 01:27:04 PM 1213 Views
Re: Not really snoopcester - 09/08/2010 02:14:43 PM 1084 Views
Re: Not really Isaac - 09/08/2010 03:06:31 PM 1274 Views
Spoken like someone who does not have to insure an employee's six wives. Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:11:57 PM 1290 Views
... Camilla - 11/08/2010 03:22:50 PM 1158 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 11:25:39 AM 1161 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 11:51:50 AM 1126 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too snoopcester - 09/08/2010 01:18:35 PM 1225 Views
Re: A lot of the arguments would seem to justify polygamy and incest too Isaac - 09/08/2010 02:54:19 PM 1246 Views
Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 06:13:30 PM 1280 Views
Re: Mmm, but when you're strictly discussing marriage Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:24:06 AM 1085 Views
Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Dannymac - 10/08/2010 04:09:43 PM 1207 Views
Re: Now I think about it, I'm not sure. Isaac - 10/08/2010 06:12:39 PM 1133 Views
Great post Danny SilverWarder - 09/08/2010 08:22:27 PM 983 Views
It should be noted again... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 08:59:32 PM 1244 Views
and how is it not a right? LadyLorraine - 09/08/2010 09:19:12 PM 1156 Views
My definition of rights... Jeordam - 09/08/2010 10:47:16 PM 1242 Views
mmm, but the UN has legally stated marriage as a right. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 02:52:03 AM 1011 Views
+1 Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:11:22 AM 1303 Views
Article 16 probably not a great example Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:44:04 AM 1108 Views
You could just as easily move the emphasis... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:08:46 AM 1267 Views
If we need a more specific resolution... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 04:22:12 AM 1449 Views
No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 05:25:57 AM 1144 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 03:04:39 PM 1450 Views
That's really a ridiculous stance, you do realize. Legolas - 10/08/2010 03:23:02 PM 1045 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 832 Views
Re: No, the choice of 'Men and Women' is too specific in the context Isaac - 10/08/2010 03:46:56 PM 1306 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 1120 Views
It also doesn't say they can Isaac - 10/08/2010 04:41:18 AM 1118 Views
You're missing the point. It's not about gay marriage. Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:20:59 AM 1154 Views
No, I got that, I'm pointing out how it does so Isaac - 10/08/2010 01:47:00 PM 1142 Views
I know, and that's been brought up before. But that's not my point. LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:09:32 PM 1099 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 1039 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 552 Views
To clarify for you SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 05:36:14 AM 1108 Views
The UNSC is actually the UN's enforcement body... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:16:31 PM 1508 Views
I'm not sure that I would call the Security Council the 'Enforcement Body' SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:43:02 PM 1122 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 1389 Views
Disagree - but it's most a matter of definition there SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:31:53 PM 1269 Views
What the UN thinks is *completely* worthless.... Jeordam - 10/08/2010 06:43:15 PM 1072 Views
and the Constitution dictates nothing about marriage. *NM* LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 11:46:24 PM 577 Views
That means it is up to the people. And they say "No." *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:13:12 PM 588 Views
No, but it does dictate things about rights and discrimination SilverWarder - 12/08/2010 03:48:02 PM 1299 Views
Why don't YOU back up your assertion that the right to marry exists? *NM* Cannoli - 11/08/2010 03:16:02 PM 586 Views
The actual ruling on Prop 8 specifices marriage as a freedom, not a right. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 12:02:17 AM 1229 Views
Out of curiosity, what would you say to using the Ninth Amendment, possibly in conjunction... Vodalus - 10/08/2010 12:20:19 AM 1286 Views
I agree LadyLorraine - 10/08/2010 06:11:19 PM 987 Views
Yeah but this can't be used to prove that it IS a right... Napoleon62 - 10/08/2010 07:30:57 PM 1441 Views
Note it all you want... Dannymac - 10/08/2010 06:43:53 AM 1003 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 631 Views
The best one yet. Camilla - 10/08/2010 07:59:17 PM 1244 Views
Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 10/08/2010 08:49:24 PM 1116 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 10/08/2010 09:03:11 PM 1206 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 04:35:03 PM 1123 Views
Re: Yeah, I'd agree that's pretty insane Camilla - 11/08/2010 04:41:23 PM 1257 Views
Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel SilverWarder - 11/08/2010 05:06:47 PM 1228 Views
Re: Hmm - been a long time since I read my copy of the graphic novel Camilla - 11/08/2010 05:09:23 PM 1174 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes