RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB...

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB...

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 4:48:57 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

The question still remains for anyone on this board. If gay married people were given similar rights to straight married people ... what right would straight married people be denied, that they have today under the current system?

caitlyn,
Constitutionally you have to ask the question this way; "What constitutional rights do 'straight' people now have that a gay person doesn't?" Unfortunately for the gay population that answer is none. A straight person can't be married to someone of his/her own sex and neither can a gay person, even without a Congressionally approved "marriage definition".

The argument commonly used comparing gay rights to the civil rights movement of the 60's, is also flawed. In the case of civil rights black people were not provided the same rights as white people. All those laws have be eliminated based on that single principle. There is no similarity to the issue of gay marriage. There is no distinction of what they can do versus what a straight person can do. Conversely, they CAN do everything a straight person can do. In the case of marrying someone of the opposite sex, it's not something the WANT to do. "Want" is not a constitutional issue. Which is why any change or amendment will have to come from a vote of the majority, not a constitutional question presented to the courts.

Gay people have made many gains regarding housing, employment on the same principle of no distinction between a gay person or a straight person regarding those issues. They weren't given more rights they only got the rights they deserved. It shouldn't have taken a fight, but then it shouldn't have taken a fight by the blacks to "gain" what was their constitutional right to have in the first place.

Now, you could argue about "love", "desire", even "personal preference" but I don't see any argument against the bottom line. Gays currently have no fewer rights then a straight person. When it comes to the constitution that is all that matters. All other arguments are rhetoric. They are legitimate, good, valid points; but not akin to a black person being forced to ride in the back of a bus, or not able to go into certain restaurants or certain hotels in 1962.

(in reply to caitlyn)

Post #: 121

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 4:55:51 PM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

The more I look at who's who in each party... it blows my mind that the Democrats are unwilling or unable to field some folks that can capture the public's eye. I don't want Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton to lead the Democratic party into the dumpster. Even someone I like, such as Russ Feingold, makes horrible misteps like trying to drag impeachment back into the American landscape, instead of focusing on the issues that will engender trust and respect by the populace.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 122

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 5:06:07 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

The more I look at who's who in each party... it blows my mind that the Democrats are unwilling or unable to field some folks that can capture the public's eye. I don't want Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton to lead the Democratic party into the dumpster. Even someone I like, such as Russ Feingold, makes horrible misteps like trying to drag impeachment back into the American landscape, instead of focusing on the issues that will engender trust and respect by the populace.

You just quoted just about everyone I chatted with last night at our polling place. There were a lot of head shakers in the group. How about this exit poll, only 35% of the people who voted for Angelides in the primary are positive they will vote for him against Arnold, they just didn't want Wesley representing their party in November.

(in reply to Level)

Post #: 123

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 5:45:24 PM

impishlilhellcat

Posts: 4379
Joined: 3/26/2006
Status: offline

Okay I don't know if I can help straighten this post out about the child support and the jewish person, but I am going to try. I happen to know Tamer in real life and I know that while his words may have come across as racist that wasn't his intention. I happen to know that the situation is pretty frustrating for him. Having seen the situation first hand and having talked to him at great length about the situation I can say what I believe he was trying to say was this: The officer of the court (said Jewish lady) stated that the child belonged with his mother. Now with that being said I've seen how the mother takes care of the child. She wasn't the fitter parent. Which is why he's so irritated. I was around when the mother swore at her child, called him a peice of shit, and told him he was no longer her son because he was just doing what teenage boys do...he was being a boy. I was also around when Tamer had to arrange for a plane ticket for his son to get because his mother's husband grabbed him by the throat and told him if he ever talked backed to him he would choke the shit out of him and the mother just stood by and let that happen. With that being said the court officer voted for the mother. His point with the jewish comment was that the jewish faith leans towards the mother caring for the child. That's all he was trying to say and his anger at the situation got in the way as often happens with many people.
I hope this puts a stop to all the bantering.

_____________________________

Anyone who says they have only one life to live must not know how to read a book - Unknown

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 124

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 5:55:43 PM

Tamerofwild1s

Posts: 1765
Joined: 12/5/2004
Status: offline

ok this is for those that can't read LnM ...... I said the woman was a "LAW" gaurdian not legal gaurdian ... you stand their all pious and think your so freakin smart yet you can't even read the common english language. a LAW guardian is a legal person who is assigned to represent the needs of a minor child. learn to read before your ignorance makes you make another stupid statement please

_____________________________

A building get torched. All that is left is ashes. I used to think that it is true about everything - family, friends, feelings - but now I know that sometimes if love proves real, and two people are meant to be together, nothing can keep them apart ~

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 125

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 6:37:33 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

So I was right. You really believe that you lost custody of your child because the judge in your case was persuaded by a Jew and Judaism teaches that women are better parents.

Sorry, buddy, but that is anti-Semitic. (It's also ignorant, but I don't point out every ignorant thing people say on Collarme.) And I'm glad I persisted with this, because I like the way you've exposed to the world what a friendly, tolerant, level-headed guy you really are.

(in reply to Tamerofwild1s)

Post #: 126

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 6:47:33 PM

ModeratorEleven

Posts: 2007
Joined: 8/14/2005
Status: offline

Enough you two. Please take this to email or drop it.

XI

_____________________________

This mod goes to eleven.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 127

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 8:01:21 PM

Sheikh

Posts: 32
Joined: 6/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ModeratorEleven

Enough you two. Please take this to email or drop it.

XI

Hear, hear!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ModeratorEleven

This mod goes to eleven.

You count on your toes?

(in reply to ModeratorEleven)

Post #: 128

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 8:10:09 PM

Sheikh

Posts: 32
Joined: 6/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
The argument commonly used comparing gay rights to the civil rights movement of the 60's, is also flawed. In the case of civil rights black people were not provided the same rights as white people. All those laws have be eliminated based on that single principle. There is no similarity to the issue of gay marriage. There is no distinction of what they can do versus what a straight person can do. Conversely, they CAN do everything a straight person can do. In the case of marrying someone of the opposite sex, it's not something the WANT to do. "Want" is not a constitutional issue. Which is why any change or amendment will have to come from a vote of the majority, not a constitutional question presented to the courts.

In other words, you believe that human rights are not inalienable but are privileges that may (or may not) be given to minorities by the majority?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Gay people have made many gains regarding housing, employment on the same principle of no distinction between a gay person or a straight person regarding those issues. They weren't given more rights they only got the rights they deserved. It shouldn't have taken a fight, but then it shouldn't have taken a fight by the blacks to "gain" what was their constitutional right to have in the first place.

Now, you could argue about "love", "desire", even "personal preference" but I don't see any argument against the bottom line. Gays currently have no fewer rights then a straight person. When it comes to the constitution that is all that matters. All other arguments are rhetoric. They are legitimate, good, valid points; but not akin to a black person being forced to ride in the back of a bus, or not able to go into certain restaurants or certain hotels in 1962.

How about the right to be the next of kin to their partner, or to inherit property free from taxes, or to inherit their partner's pension? All of those are enjoyed by heterosexual, married couples yet all of those are denied to cohabiting homosexualists.

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 129

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 10:03:46 PM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

In other words, you believe that human rights are not inalienable but are privileges that may (or may not) be given to minorities by the majority?

Sheikh,
What I believe and what you believe is not a factor. Most likely our "beliefs" are the same. This is an issue about a Constitutional law challenge. "Beliefs" aren't permitted as argument before the court.

quote:

How about the right to be the next of kin to their partner, or to inherit property free from taxes, or to inherit their partner's pension? All of those are enjoyed by heterosexual, married couples yet all of those are denied to cohabiting homosexuals.

See above. Again, philosophically I don't disagree. But in this instance, my opinion is that the financial aspect of this situation is a primary reason this will be a difficult law to get changed. All these would take tax money out of the hands of the government. However again, there is no discrimination in the laws. Unmarried cohabiting straight people are subject to the same fate. "Common Law Marriage" or "Palimony" are contractually debatable. Those civil actions can be raised by anyone regardless of sexual preference. Common Law has standing in some states, but can be challenged by a family in the case of an estate.

Sheikh, please don't see my post as a position against gay marriage. I'm simply addressing the constitutional issues raised. To site 'prejudice' you have to point to the same thing you are not allowed to do is permitted to someone else. It's not. Gay marriage is requesting something unique for gay people. It will require a law change. More than likely it will require a vote. Given that opportunity I'd vote for gay marriage. Any two people in love should be able to have the ability to marry. The fact that the issue was used as a polarizing political lightning-rod in Congress this week is an indication it will be an uphill battle.

(in reply to Sheikh)

Post #: 130

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 10:35:58 PM

MistressLorelei

Posts: 997
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

See above. Again, philosophically I don't disagree. But in this instance, my opinion is that the financial aspect of this situation is a primary reason this will be a difficult law to get changed. All these would take tax money out of the hands of the government. However again, there is no discrimination in the laws. Unmarried cohabiting straight people are subject to the same fate. "Common Law Marriage" or "Palimony" are contractually debatable. Those civil actions can be raised by anyone regardless of sexual preference. Common Law has standing in some states, but can be challenged by a family in the case of an estate.

Sheikh, please don't see my post as a position against gay marriage. I'm simply addressing the constitutional issues raised. To site 'prejudice' you have to point to the same thing you are not allowed to do is permitted to someone else. It's not. Gay marriage is requesting something unique for gay people. It will require a law change. More than likely it will require a vote. Given that opportunity I'd vote for gay marriage. Any two people in love should be able to have the ability to marry. The fact that the issue was used as a polarizing political lightning-rod in Congress this week is an indication it will be an uphill battle.

It's a problem when one human being has to request to receive the same rights as another human being. When a gay person pays taxes, drives a car, shoplifts, or serves in the military he is considered just another human being.

According to the constitution, gays do have the right to marry. Government can not pick and chose who they wish to grant rights to, and they certainly can't use religion, 'family', sexual preference or gender as their rationale for doing so. Furthermore, according to the constitution, the banning of such a unity based on religion shall not be allowed, and states shall not ignore the legal civil agreements of other states, so The Defense of marriage Act is unconstitutional on a state level, as is any marriage protection act on the Federal level.

This issue shouldn't even be an issue... the constitution says so.

< Message edited by MistressLorelei -- 6/7/2006 10:59:22 PM >

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 131

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/7/2006 11:08:07 PM

Lordandmaster

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Just to be clear: the Constitution doesn't say that explicitly. Of course I agree with your INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, but the text itself is open-ended. The only time the word even appears is in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

I'd say the Fourteenth Amendment probably contains the most relevant language about gay marriage: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If the right to the legal benefits of marriage isn't covered under "the equal protection of the laws," I don't know what is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei

Furthermore, according to the constitution, the banning of such a unity based on religion shall not be allowed

(in reply to MistressLorelei)

Post #: 132

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/8/2006 12:45:53 AM

MistressLorelei

Posts: 997
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Just to be clear: the Constitution doesn't say that explicitly. Of course I agree with your INTERPRETATION of the Constitution, but the text itself is open-ended. The only time the word even appears is in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

I'd say the Fourteenth Amendment probably contains the most relevant language about gay marriage: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If the right to the legal benefits of marriage isn't covered under "the equal protection of the laws," I don't know what is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei

Furthermore, according to the constitution, the banning of such a unity based on religion shall not be allowed

Exactly... a right is a right, is a right... Marriage is what is being deemed as "unique", when it is asked that this right be isolated and taken away from a segment of society.

The First Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Doesn't that clearly indicate that religion shall not be considered in law making, though freedom of religion is protected?

Human rights are to be granted to all, and the state to state recognition of legal rights afforded to others in the same circumstances (like legal gay marriage in Mass) is indicated in article four. Article six states that constitutional laws cannot contradict themselves... like proposed marriage amendment which contradicts articles four and nine ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.").

Besides if the constitution says it's wrong for gay marriage then why did/do they want an amendment to that very constitution to say it's wrong?

< Message edited by MistressLorelei -- 6/8/2006 12:50:19 AM >

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

Post #: 133

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/8/2006 1:52:21 AM

brightspot

Posts: 3052
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HisTicia

I just don't get it.. what are ppl so afraid of? I mean.. were my gf and I that scary ... did we cause major world disasters... (I guess according to some we did). We were just two ppl that loved each other.. and lived our lives just as boring as most. We went to work.. we lived check to check.. we fought once in a while.. we loved a lot more often.. we laughed.. we cried.. all we wanted was to be allowed to do those things as any other couple.. and along with that.. to be accepted. The American dream isn't just done by color.. or sex.. or by who you love.. we are all capable of living it..or at least we should be. That is all they want.. they don't want to ruin your little part of the world.. or have sex in your living room..they just want to be free to have their love.. their families.. in the same way everyone else does. I can't see anything scary in that.. and if you can.. I really feel sorry for you.

I would like to thank you Ticia for what you added to this thread. Your words were the most intelligent I found here.

I am a Lesbian American who wants to have the same rights, protections, freedom and dreams as every other American.

*Brightspot

_____________________________

"Comedy is NOT Pretty!" ~Peter Nelson

But..."May at Least One person have a sense of Humor!" ~KML.

http://360.yahoo.com/my_profile-TD4TwEw8crWS3GHFDcs_DK1rHmW6Dq_E;_ylt=Av2PfG9gH0wkQrMPivuMCivGAOJ3

(in reply to HisTicia)

Post #: 134

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/8/2006 2:36:39 AM

NativeDad

Posts: 8
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see this as a 'real' issue at all. In a poker game, I'd call it a tell. It's nearly BECOME an issue, since yes, it threatens some very serious rights, I mean, a Constitutional Amendment? That's insane... Fortunately, there are enough sane people in this country not to allow such a thing. Getting back to the prez bringing this up, It's sleight of hand, I'm sure. Showing one hand, while the other does the dirty work... I'm just never sure what these politicians are up to... So whatever's being hidden, I feel sure is much more insidious than this. We'll need to keep our eyes open.

(in reply to MsMacComb)

Post #: 135

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/8/2006 4:34:58 AM

krys

Posts: 611
Joined: 8/24/2005
Status: offline

Its improper to address the issue as a Constitutional Amendment because it's a State's Rights issue. That's why your marriage license is issued by the State you get married in, like your driver's license, and not by the Federal Government, like your Passport. Its also why divorces take place in the State Court and, no matter how it may seem like to some in the thick of it, your divorce will never become a Federal case.

There was no way it could have passed, and dragging up the "Gay Marriage Boogie Man" was just a way to distract from rising gas prices and tapping your telephones. And if you watch the news coverage, it seems to have worked.

We're wagging the dog.

_____________________________

Krys

(in reply to Mercnbeth)

Post #: 136

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/8/2006 4:36:18 AM

brightspot

Posts: 3052
Status: offline

Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Jon Stewart tears open Bill Bennett on gay marriage

1 excerpt;

Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart: I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07jon-sterwart_tears_op.html

< Message edited by brightspot -- 6/8/2006 4:42:50 AM >

_____________________________

"Comedy is NOT Pretty!" ~Peter Nelson

But..."May at Least One person have a sense of Humor!" ~KML.

http://360.yahoo.com/my_profile-TD4TwEw8crWS3GHFDcs_DK1rHmW6Dq_E;_ylt=Av2PfG9gH0wkQrMPivuMCivGAOJ3

(in reply to NativeDad)

Post #: 137

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/8/2006 5:01:36 AM

Level

Posts: 25145
Joined: 3/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brightspot

Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Jon Stewart tears open Bill Bennett on gay marriage

1 excerpt;

Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart: I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07jon-sterwart_tears_op.html

Good for Stewart; he's a sharp guy.

(in reply to brightspot)

Post #: 138

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/8/2006 6:52:47 AM

jazzbound318

Posts: 8
Joined: 2/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: brightspot

Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Jon Stewart tears open Bill Bennett on gay marriage

1 excerpt;

Bennett Look, it's a debate about whether you think marriage is between a man and a women.

Stewart: I disagree, I think it's a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/07jon-sterwart_tears_op.html

i watched that episode last night. it was Brilliant. i don't think i've ever had more respect fo Jon Stewart. Seriously folks, if you can download the episode, do, to say it rocks is an understatement.

*$0.02*

(in reply to brightspot)

Post #: 139

RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB... - 6/8/2006 7:11:24 AM

Mercnbeth

Posts: 11766
Status: offline

quote:

Good for Stewart; he's a sharp guy.

Maybe, but if your cause siting the words of a comedian or using him as a spokesperson there is a good chance your cause will be considered a comedy routine or joke.

'News' from the 'Comedy Channel' or MTV isn't going to help. Arguments in the debate need to address commentary made from the opposition. Watch Fox news and address the commentary from that source. "Those guys are fucking assholes!" is NOT a debate point.

(in reply to brightspot)

Post #: 140

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: For those still needing a reason to hate this SOB...

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 [7] 8 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094