I am more disturbed

She still got half of a billion dollar fortune (I think).

Oh please - give me more realistic cases then this.

It still comes down to one thing - I have yet to hear a good reason from anyone here on why homosexuals should not be allowed to have the same marital rights as heterosexuals without it being blatant discrimination. Please tell me who these ammendments protect.

~Amanda
 
Originally posted by snarfer1
Minor heat, no flame intended.

Let's see if I understand this one.

People who honestly believe homosexuality is a sin, do not have the right to speak their mind (1st Ammendment). I agree they cannot do anything about thier views, disctiminate, violence, burn crosses, etc. But you state they can not express their views about something they feel 'has gotten out of hand'


Where did I ever say people could not speak their mind? You can dusagree with and denigrate homosexuality all you want, as long as the force of government is not used to enforce that view on others whom may not agree.

You (specific) feel gay rights should include marriage and have the right to say so.

You;re wrong. I think marriage should not be a government issue at all, gay or straight.

However, you also have the right to point out a 'sub-class' of gays have a behavior that is not helpful. In fact that they have 'gotten out of hand'. The difference in your 'criticism' seems to be one of small degree.

Again, I never told anyone they coudn;t speak their mind about anything.

Bluntly, why can you point out that some Gay's actions (in your opinion) are hurting the cause, but I can't say, sorry I don't support Gay Marriage, or even I don't approve of your life style (said to make a point only). Who really cares if I approve? Who really cares what you think about some Homosexuals?

Well, I'm quite sure you would approve of my lifestyle. ;) Let me be very, very clear, you are free to disagree with gay marriage all you want. You are not free to use the force of government to enforce that view on others.

Before you (specific) think about adding rights for others,

Excuse me, but were you not paying attention to my little civics lesson a few pages ago?? I, you, "we" do not ADD or TAKE AWAY rights for law abiding citizens. WE retain them, there are unlimited inalienable rights.

I respectfully submit you support certain rights that already exist for all of us. Freedom of speech does not mean you have to like what is said. I support the American Nazis and Communists rights of assembly and free speech, I will never support their messages or goals.

-Tony


Again, WHERE did I tell YOU or anyone else they could not speak their minds?
 
WE retain them, there are unlimited inalienable rights.

I disagree on this. We do not have unlimited inalienable rights. That would be complete anarchy.
 
Originally posted by BuckNaked
I disagree on this. We do not have unlimited inalienable rights. That would be complete anarchy.

Of course it wouldn't. We have laws against murder and theft and the like because a murderer or thief infringes on other people's rights. There can certainly be plenty of laws without anarchy that also recognize our unlimted inalienable rights.
 

Originally posted by septbride2002
Miss Jasmine I can respect the position you are in since you and I have had many religious discussions. Let me ask you - if the government came into your home and said - you can no longer practice your faith how would you feel? If our government was to come in and ban the Christian faith all together - how would you feel? Now this would never happen because your freedom of religion is protected under the 1st ammendment. So why is it okay for Religion to come into the Government and say that lifestyle is not natural and therefore is stripped of any and all benefits that other married people have?

It is a two way street. If religion becomes to much of a focus in politics you will have people fleeing this country much like the pilgrims fled England. Or you will have an uprising.

~Amanda

If the government came in and said I could no longer practice my faith, I do know I would continue to practice it under penalty of whatever the penalty is. The day will come when that will be the case. I hope I am not around to see it.

As for same-sex marriage, it is not about taking away a right but giving a right that all through most of time has been reserved for a man and woman. This country was found on the same beliefs in the same book that leads to the prohibition of same sex marriages. There is something that guides each of us. For me it's my belief in the Word of God. Other people use other things for their moral compass. Who is right and who is wrong? I don't know.
 
Originally posted by septbride2002
She still got half of a billion dollar fortune (I think).

Oh please - give me more realistic cases then this.

It still comes down to one thing - I have yet to hear a good reason from anyone here on why homosexuals should not be allowed to have the same marital rights as heterosexuals without it being blatant discrimination. Please tell me who these ammendments protect.

~Amanda

While I agree with you in principle, I do believe that it takes time for people to adjust to different belief systems. I figure as long as people are making the same type of committment with the same legalities all the way along (marriage, divorce, etc.) then right is right!
 
I wonder why Homosexuals are concerned with a piece of paper? There are all kinds of laws that allow same sex partners to have joint health Insurance etc... You can make a will if you want your partner to be your next of kin.

What I think Homosexuals want is to be told, "We think your choices are okay". The country is saying , "No we don't". Is that the real issue here?

Personally, I do not really care what you do, in your own home or out in public for that matter, as long as I do not have to be effected by it. The alot of us are saying that.

Ellen is a perfect example. When she came out, that was fine, but then it became "With every episode I will push my views on the general public and everywhere you turn you will see this". Her show got cancelled, because the American public did not want to see it. Now she has a show and I watch because she is funny, and obviously gagged by the network about her views. I, like most people, I think, want to see this funny comedianne doing what she does best, being lighthearted and entertaining. When she gets to spouting her views, I do not care to be subjected to it.
 
Originally posted by Miss Jasmine


As for same-sex marriage, it is not about taking away a right but giving a right that all through most of time has been reserved for a man and woman.


So I guess they were wrong when they gave women the right to vote. And minorities. Or when they gave slaves the right of freedom.

Just because things are "the way they've always been," doesn't mean that's the best way to be.

Ya know?
 
Originally posted by tonyswife
Of course it wouldn't. We have laws against murder and theft and the like because a murderer or thief infringes on other people's rights. There can certainly be plenty of laws without anarchy that also recognize our unlimted inalienable rights.

That is a silppery slope. Rights are limited, if there are unlimited inalienable rights then what could stop a gang member from saying that the murder of another is a membership ritual, according to my unlimited rights. By virtue of having laws you have limited rights.

Before you say I am ridiculous, really think about that statement. Unlimited. The constitution says there are CERTAIN inalienable rights that we have.

Certain here means specified.
 
I have two views on the whole thing. I'm only going to post one though for now.

In this country we essentially have 4 different generation groups.

We have the senior citizens who come from a very different time than most of us. They didn't have TV growing up, computers, cars, heck some didn't even have electricty and plumbing. Alot of them came from families that recently immigrated here and some survived the depression and many wars. They grew up in a different time, a different place. I would guess most of them grew up in a religous home of some type. They came from a time when morals, integrity and hard work mean't something, when the world around them wasn't so crazy.

Then you have the baby-boomers. There are actually two sets of them. The older ones and the younger ones. The older boomers grew up in the 50's and early 60's. Life was still simpler than. TV was new, family time was important, religion still played an important role in the home. Grandparents were influential and an important part of the family who passed down stories, traditions and ways of life. Moms for the most part still stayed home and brought up their children to be what they thought were good and moral people, to teach them right from wrong. Divorce rate was low, families stayed together.

The younger boomers grew up in the late 60's and 70's. Tides were achanging then! Womens rights, protests, civil rights and increasing drug use and the sexual revolution. Moms needed and wanted to go out and work, Dad may not have been around, supervision was slacking.

Then comes what I believe is known as genX. The kids that grew up in the late 70's and 80's. They are the age of electronics and technology. Personal computers, the interenet, you want something, you got it. Mom and dad are busy people, everyone is going here and there. Family dinners are a thing of the past and there is just not enough time on a weekend to waste a few hours in church or religion just isn't a family focus any longer. The world is just Go Go Go!

IMHO senior citizens are not supportive of recongnizing the gay lifestyle. It goes against everything they knew to be good and decent. They will not be as ready to accept such a change.

The older boomers probably follow suit. While the may be a tad bit more tolerant of it, they do not want to "see" it. Keep it hidden in the closets so to speak.

The younger boomers are more flexible. Some mind, some don't.

The Genx'ers for the most part could care less since most of the openly gay people are probably from their generation. They want rights and they expect to have them. They want something, they want it now. That is what they are used to. Immediate gratification. Afterall, that is what this world around us has become. We don't write letters anymore, we email. No time to cook a nice dinner...nuke it or drive thru somewhere. Have a term paper...no need to spend time in a library anymore, just go to your computer. Miss a show on TV...Tivo. Instant gratification...that's what we have, that's what we expect.

How long did it take for womens rights to happen? How long for civil rights? Getting rid of slavery? A womens right to choose? These all took a long time. People had to accept them, get used to the ideas.

We have people who say I want these rights and they don't think they should have to wait. There are so many different generations of people in the world that to just say "hey. I want this" doesn't mean that everybody is going to agree. Its not just a religious thing, its a generational thing.

Yes, you have those whose religion plays a large part in their lives and that is wonderful, but please don't assume that its only the God fearing people who are opposed. Go out and ask a large variety of different aged people what they think. I would be interested to see (which I know isn't possible) what age groups voted and how they voted in the states where the ammendments were.

Anyways, that's one of my takes on this whole issue. This is just my personal opinion too.

I do not mean to offend any member of any generation nor working moms, SAHMs or divorced people. I am just passing on my observation of how things have changed over a period of time and how they may have influenced society around us.
 
Originally posted by Microcell
That is a silppery slope. Rights are limited, if there are unlimited inalienable rights then what could stop a gang member from saying that the murder of another is a membership ritual, according to my unlimited rights. By virtue of having laws you have limited rights.


Laws are created to prevent other people from infringing on other people's rights. It's against the law to murder someone because it infringes on their rights. Why should it be against the law to marry someone of the same sex? It does not infringe on your rights. A better option is to get the government out of marriage altogether. People will be free to make whatever contracts they want, without the need for a government rubber stamp.

Before you say I am ridiculous, really think about that statement. Unlimited. The constitution says there are CERTAIN inalienable rights that we have.

Certain here means specified.

Ninth Amendment
 
Yes, you have those whose religion plays a large part in their lives and that is wonderful, but please don't assume that its only the God fearing people who are opposed. Go out and ask a large variety of different aged people what they think. I would be interested to see (which I know isn't possible) what age groups voted and how they voted in the states where the ammendments were.

Yes fear also guides them. Fear of the unknown.

As a Generation X'er let me say that yes we are use to instant gratification but there are also alot of positives about us as well. Be nice - we will control the homes you live in later.

~Amanda
 
Ninth Amendment

As you well know, the IX Amendment does not address inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are not only not guaranteed, they are not even mentioned in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"...others..." certainly does not indicate that there are unlimited rights given to the people.
 
Originally posted by septbride2002
Yes fear also guides them. Fear of the unknown.

As a Generation X'er let me say that yes we are use to instant gratification but there are also alot of positives about us as well. Be nice - we will control the homes you live in later.

~Amanda

I was not implying anything negative about genx'ers. Just making some observations is all......
 
Originally posted by BuckNaked
As you well know, the IX Amendment does not address inalienable rights. Inalienable rights are not only not guaranteed, they are not even mentioned in the Constitution.



"...others..." certainly does not indicate that there are unlimited rights given to the people.

What "others" do you think they were referring to?
 
Originally posted by tonyswife
What "others" do you think they were referring to?


The ones retained by the people, like it says :smooth:
 
Originally posted by CheshireVal
So I guess they were wrong when they gave women the right to vote. And minorities. Or when they gave slaves the right of freedom.

Just because things are "the way they've always been," doesn't mean that's the best way to be.

Ya know?

Marriage is not a right. If it were, we wouldn't need laws defining it. As for the above comment, to gays really want to be viewed as a minority? A special class? Why is how someone chooses to have sex with someone else a basis for rewriting laws, or granting or taking away civil rights?
 
I was not implying anything negative about genx'ers. Just making some observations is all......

Your post kinda sounded negative to me. However I was just teasing with the home remark. Evidently my ;) didn't make it into the post.

Marriage is not a right. If it were, we wouldn't need laws defining it. As for the above comment, to gays really want to be viewed as a minority? A special class? Why is how someone chooses to have sex with someone else a basis for rewriting laws, or granting or taking away civil rights?

What is it then? Tell me.

Personally, I do not really care what you do, in your own home or out in public for that matter, as long as I do not have to be effected by it. The alot of us are saying that.

So how do you feel about these ammendments being passed?

~Amanda
 
Originally posted by phorsenuf
I have two views on the whole thing. I'm only going to post one though for now.

In this country we essentially have 4 different generation groups.

We have the senior citizens who come from a very different time than most of us. They didn't have TV growing up, computers, cars, heck some didn't even have electricty and plumbing. Alot of them came from families that recently immigrated here and some survived the depression and many wars. They grew up in a different time, a different place. I would guess most of them grew up in a religous home of some type. They came from a time when morals, integrity and hard work mean't something, when the world around them wasn't so crazy.

Then you have the baby-boomers. There are actually two sets of them. The older ones and the younger ones. The older boomers grew up in the 50's and early 60's. Life was still simpler than. TV was new, family time was important, religion still played an important role in the home. Grandparents were influential and an important part of the family who passed down stories, traditions and ways of life. Moms for the most part still stayed home and brought up their children to be what they thought were good and moral people, to teach them right from wrong. Divorce rate was low, families stayed together.

The younger boomers grew up in the late 60's and 70's. Tides were achanging then! Womens rights, protests, civil rights and increasing drug use and the sexual revolution. Moms needed and wanted to go out and work, Dad may not have been around, supervision was slacking.

Then comes what I believe is known as genX. The kids that grew up in the late 70's and 80's. They are the age of electronics and technology. Personal computers, the interenet, you want something, you got it. Mom and dad are busy people, everyone is going here and there. Family dinners are a thing of the past and there is just not enough time on a weekend to waste a few hours in church or religion just isn't a family focus any longer. The world is just Go Go Go!

IMHO senior citizens are not supportive of recongnizing the gay lifestyle. It goes against everything they knew to be good and decent. They will not be as ready to accept such a change.

The older boomers probably follow suit. While the may be a tad bit more tolerant of it, they do not want to "see" it. Keep it hidden in the closets so to speak.

The younger boomers are more flexible. Some mind, some don't.

The Genx'ers for the most part could care less since most of the openly gay people are probably from their generation. They want rights and they expect to have them. They want something, they want it now. That is what they are used to. Immediate gratification. Afterall, that is what this world around us has become. We don't write letters anymore, we email. No time to cook a nice dinner...nuke it or drive thru somewhere. Have a term paper...no need to spend time in a library anymore, just go to your computer. Miss a show on TV...Tivo. Instant gratification...that's what we have, that's what we expect.

How long did it take for womens rights to happen? How long for civil rights? Getting rid of slavery? A womens right to choose? These all took a long time. People had to accept them, get used to the ideas.

We have people who say I want these rights and they don't think they should have to wait. There are so many different generations of people in the world that to just say "hey. I want this" doesn't mean that everybody is going to agree. Its not just a religious thing, its a generational thing.

Yes, you have those whose religion plays a large part in their lives and that is wonderful, but please don't assume that its only the God fearing people who are opposed. Go out and ask a large variety of different aged people what they think. I would be interested to see (which I know isn't possible) what age groups voted and how they voted in the states where the ammendments were.

Anyways, that's one of my takes on this whole issue. This is just my personal opinion too.

I do not mean to offend any member of any generation nor working moms, SAHMs or divorced people. I am just passing on my observation of how things have changed over a period of time and how they may have influenced society around us.

Thankyou for that. I enjoyed reading your post. I agree, too.
 
Originally posted by septbride2002

What is it then? Tell me.




It's a legally defined contractual living arrangement between two people of the opposite sex. At least that's what it is as far as the state is concerned. Again, if it were a right, I wouldn't need the endorsement of the state to enter in to marriage. Do I need the endorsement of the state to practice my religion? Do I need the endorsement of the state to speak my mind? Do I need the endorsmement of the state to start printing a newspaper?
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom