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

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Look, if gay marriage is illegal based on a proposition passed by the people of California, then it is against the law, and anyone who tries to ignore the law and act in clear violation of it would be sent to jail. Otherwise, there's no point in passing laws.




So in your mind, sexual acts serve no other purpose than procreation?

Think of how many times you've had sex, and then count how many children you have. Isn't there some other reason human beings engage in sexual activity?

Beemn, I can't figure out where you stand on this. You seem to be against it, but seem to enjoy picking at other people's views? I dunno.

Was just curious.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Beemn, I can't figure out where you stand on this. You seem to be against it, but seem to enjoy picking at other people's views? I dunno.

Was just curious.

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.

[MTK]

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.

amen, live and let live

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

amen, live and let live

I'm always perplexed when ballot measures like these (and for marijuana decriminalization) seem to fail. Especially in California.

David Frum, a conservative writer for National Review said that all you have to do is look at the demographics for those who find the gay issue so important -- it's overwhelmingly over the age of 40.

One day, the tide will turn.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I'm always perplexed when ballot measures like these (and for marijuana decriminalization) seem to fail. Especially in California.

David Frum, a conservative writer for National Review said that all you have to do is look at the demographics for those who find the gay issue so important -- it's overwhelmingly over the age of 40.

One day, the tide will turn.

Here's hoping, Beemn.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I'm always perplexed when ballot measures like these (and for marijuana decriminalization) seem to fail. Especially in California.

David Frum, a conservative writer for National Review said that all you have to do is look at the demographics for those who find the gay issue so important -- it's overwhelmingly over the age of 40.

One day, the tide will turn.

Yes, I believe in our lifetime it will.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[70Chip]

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.

I don't get the Quagmire reference.

Age of consent and legal age are largely the same thing, I think.

The tax angle is interesting.

The majority of men would not consider marrying another man either.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I don't get the Quagmire reference.

Age of consent and legal age are largely the same thing, I think.

The tax angle is interesting.

The majority of men would not consider marrying another man either.

Quagmire is a character from Family Guy who went competatively overboard during a golf game. Family Guy - For the Love of Golf - AOL Video

Age of consent and legal age are two different ages. One allows you to vote, the other allows you to have consensual sex. In most states the ages are one and the same. In states like Georgia a 16 year old can consent to a 18 year old or something like that, and its ok. In my opinion the ages should both be the same, and they should remain 18. Going back to my original point, for the most part across this country, 18 is the Legal age for everything except alcohol, and with the exception of places like Georgia you cannot change one without the other. In other words the nation would never allow for 16 Year olds to vote, so the age for consensual sex will also remain in tact.

There are a larger population of men who would marry another man than those who would perform beastiality. At least man on man (as much as it weirds me out) is a union of the same species. A man and a man, if legally permitted, could fill out a joint tax return, because they both could work in the human work force. An animal could not because their is a very defined difference between Animal Rights and Civil Rights.

[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?

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by dmek25

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

I'm not a Libertarian. I am a Burkean conservative. The government certainly has a role.

In this case, however, I would suggest that it is the other side that is seeking governmental sanction for their cause. This is an interesting tactic by the left. They alter a standard that is as old as civilization (abortion, gay marriage) and then pretend their opponents are the radicals.

I think the concerns that homosexuals claim to be trying to address with this movement could be dealt with with much less problematic laws. The hospital visitation thing, taxes, etc. The reason I talk about the slippery slope and worry that this process is neverending is that it seems like they are seeking approval or fulfillment that the political process can't provide. I don't think any law will make homosexuality seem normal or satisfy whatever need these folks are seeking to satiate.

[Beemnseven]

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.

See, this is called changing the aspects of the issue at hand, then arguing against something completely different. It's like debating an advocate of gun control, when they inevitably assume that since you want to own a handgun or a semi-automatic rifle, then that also means you should be able to own an M-1 Abrahms tank, or a Pershing ICBM.

By the way, age of consent varies greatly all across the country. And keep in mind, we're talking about consent here, and last time I checked, animals cannot consent to anything.

For the record, I also think prostitution and plural marriage are fine since they too are actions which do not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.