"Whites" need only apply!

[rocks 494]

As usual, you added little more to the conversation.

I said children were the "primary" reason.

A screw driver was invented for one primary purpose... although it is quite handy for other uses as well.

and i quite clearly said that it was not the primary reason, but can be one reason of many? you asked why people bother to get married if they don't find co-habiting immoral and don't want children, i answered you. i refer you to post #173 for more information as i do not feel like repeating myself.

by the way, what exactly is it you think you add to the conversation? do you think being offensive and superior adds anything?

[Danno 1,228]

As usual, you added little more to the conversation.

I said children were the "primary" reason.

A screw driver was invented for one primary purpose... although it is quite handy for other uses as well.

and i quite clearly said that it was not the primary reason, but can be one reason of many? you asked why people bother to get married if they don't find co-habiting immoral and don't want children, i answered you. i refer you to post #173 for more information as i do not feel like repeating myself.

by the way, what exactly is it you think you add to the conversation? do you think being offensive and superior adds anything?

First of all; If in my honesty, my views are offensive, it's not my intention.

Let me remind you, most of my posted opinions are majority opinions.

Not only in this country but around the world.

Secondly, while I do like to "mix it up" with some of you Vjer's, as we kick ideas and even humor around, I never consider myself "superior" to you or anyone else.... I have no basis for this type delusion.

Edited November 23, 2008 by Danno

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Equating mixed race marriages with same sex marriages is offensive. They are not comparable.

Indeed. They should be treated the same, not compared. Equal protection under the law works for sexuality and race alike.

Very well said.

Gays can marry already, so they haven't been denied equal protection under the law. Gay men can marry women, lesbians can marry men. They just can't marry same sex, and there is no right to do so under equal protection laws, that's why banning same sex marriage isn't unconstitutional. Who you want to have sex with is not a protected status. Who you can marry - male to female - is.

[Danno 1,228]

And what I can't figure out is why these people who feel Gov't has no right to dictate the sex of those in a marriage.... somehow firmly feel the State has a right to deem "2" as the limit of the persons in a marriage.

If these people were intellectually honest, they would stop defending "gay-marriage" and instead

go straight to "alternative Marriage" would would be much more inclusive of the many combinations which people in relationships.

"INCREMENTAL-ISM"

Liberal-ism's best friend.

[rocks 494]

First of all; If in my honesty, my views are offensive, it's not my intention.

Let me remind you, most of my posted opinions are majority opinions.

Not only in this country but around the world.

Secondly, while I do like to "mix it up" with some of you Vjer's, as we kick ideas and even humor around, I never consider myself "superior" to you or anyone else.... I have no basis for this type delusion.

As usual, you added little more to the conversation.

which part of that isn't offensive? it is clear that you intended to be offensive with that comment. you also tried to be superior by pretending that you add more to the conversation than i do. at least be honest.

[IAMX 3,055]

Equating mixed race marriages with same sex marriages is offensive. They are not comparable.

Indeed. They should be treated the same, not compared. Equal protection under the law works for sexuality and race alike.

Very well said.

Gays can marry already, so they haven't been denied equal protection under the law. Gay men can marry women, lesbians can marry men. They just can't marry same sex, and there is no right to do so under equal protection laws, that's why banning same sex marriage isn't unconstitutional. Who you want to have sex with is not a protected status. Who you can marry - male to female - is.

3 problems:

1. Black people could marry, just not white people. No difference here. Typical jargon you're using to exclude them happened as well. Thankfully both are unfounded.

2. Judges HAVE found it to be unconstitutional. Looks like your claim is without merit.

3. Sexuality is a protected status. You cannot discriminate based upon sexuality. Another claim without merit.

Oh how VW loves being wrong, and not just wrong, but waaaaay the #### wrong.

As usual, you added little more to the conversation.

I said children were the "primary" reason.

A screw driver was invented for one primary purpose... although it is quite handy for other uses as well.

and i quite clearly said that it was not the primary reason, but can be one reason of many? you asked why people bother to get married if they don't find co-habiting immoral and don't want children, i answered you. i refer you to post #173 for more information as i do not feel like repeating myself.

by the way, what exactly is it you think you add to the conversation? do you think being offensive and superior adds anything?

First of all; If in my honesty, my views are offensive, it's not my intention.

Let me remind you, most of my posted opinions are majority opinions.

Not only in this country but around the world.

Secondly, while I do like to "mix it up" with some of you Vjer's, as we kick ideas and even humor around, I never consider myself "superior" to you or anyone else.... I have no basis for this type delusion.

It's very clear here the majority cannot take the rights away of the minority. Wonder what ever led you to believe this was true.

[Danno 1,228]

First of all; If in my honesty, my views are offensive, it's not my intention.

Let me remind you, most of my posted opinions are majority opinions.

Not only in this country but around the world.

Secondly, while I do like to "mix it up" with some of you Vjer's, as we kick ideas and even humor around, I never consider myself "superior" to you or anyone else.... I have no basis for this type delusion.

As usual, you added little more to the conversation.

which part of that isn't offensive? it is clear that you intended to be offensive with that comment. you also tried to be superior by pretending that you add more to the conversation than i do. at least be honest.

Your point well-made.

[Danno 1,228]

Equating mixed race marriages with same sex marriages is offensive. They are not comparable.

Indeed. They should be treated the same, not compared. Equal protection under the law works for sexuality and race alike.

Very well said.

Gays can marry already, so they haven't been denied equal protection under the law. Gay men can marry women, lesbians can marry men. They just can't marry same sex, and there is no right to do so under equal protection laws, that's why banning same sex marriage isn't unconstitutional. Who you want to have sex with is not a protected status. Who you can marry - male to female - is.

3 problems:

1. Black people could marry, just not white people. No difference here. Typical jargon you're using to exclude them happened as well. Thankfully both are unfounded.

2. Judges HAVE found it to be unconstitutional. Looks like your claim is without merit.

3. Sexuality is a protected status. You cannot discriminate based upon sexuality. Another claim without merit.

Oh how VW loves being wrong, and not just wrong, but waaaaay the #### wrong.

As usual, you added little more to the conversation.

I said children were the "primary" reason.

A screw driver was invented for one primary purpose... although it is quite handy for other uses as well.

and i quite clearly said that it was not the primary reason, but can be one reason of many? you asked why people bother to get married if they don't find co-habiting immoral and don't want children, i answered you. i refer you to post #173 for more information as i do not feel like repeating myself.

by the way, what exactly is it you think you add to the conversation? do you think being offensive and superior adds anything?

First of all; If in my honesty, my views are offensive, it's not my intention.

Let me remind you, most of my posted opinions are majority opinions.

Not only in this country but around the world.

Secondly, while I do like to "mix it up" with some of you Vjer's, as we kick ideas and even humor around, I never consider myself "superior" to you or anyone else.... I have no basis for this type delusion.

It's very clear here the majority cannot take the rights away of the minority. Wonder what ever led you to believe this was true.

on this we agree.... what is.. or is not a right we don't.

The Majority of people in Cal. voted and at this moment no alternative marriages are being preformed, does this contradict your last sentence?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

3 problems:

1. Black people could marry, just not white people. No difference here. Typical jargon you're using to exclude them happened as well. Thankfully both are unfounded.

There were Black and white marriages early on in the US and throughout history. Some states restricted them, but there was no absolutism in their restriction. Besides, people have married across many social constructs throughout time, but same sex marriage as not been commonly accepted anywhere in any major society in the past.

2. Judges HAVE found it to be unconstitutional. Looks like your claim is without merit.

Judges at one time also found separate but equal and ownership of other humans to be constitutional. Judges are not the measure of sole constitutionality, the masses are, and it is clear that the masses are not accepting of same sex marriage, which is why activist courts step in. In CA, 4 judges sought to overturn the popular mandate of the people's vote. They will try again, but that doesn't mean they will change society.

3. Sexuality is a protected status. You cannot discriminate based upon sexuality. Another claim without merit.

Sexuality is a protected status for the purposes of business and personal accomodation, as it should be, but that doesn't change the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Oh how VW loves being wrong, and not just wrong, but waaaaay the #### wrong.

I'm not wrong.

[IAMX 3,055]

There were Black and white marriages early on in the US and throughout history. Some states restricted them, but there was no absolutism in their restriction. Besides, people have married across many social constructs throughout time, but same sex marriage as not been commonly accepted anywhere in any major society in the past.

One would say it was not common in this country's history to accept blacks marrying either. Another strange comment. Homosexuality is not a recent human development.

Judges at one time also found separate but equal and ownership of other humans to be constitutional. Judges are not the measure of sole constitutionality, the masses are, and it is clear that the masses are not accepting of same sex marriage, which is why activist courts step in. In CA, 4 judges sought to overturn the popular mandate of the people's vote. They will try again, but that doesn't mean they will change society.

The people cannot subvert the rights of the minority. The judge determines constitutionality, not the people. Evidently you need to go back to government class until you can figure it out, or at least try not to use the laughable excuse you just did. The people do not write laws, nor do they judge constitutionality. There's a reason judges are judges. The only mistake in CA is the simple majority used in amending the state constitution, but that will surely change. Undoubtedly, so will the ban.

The judge did in fact rule it unconstitutional, and in all likelihood, if doing so again, will once again nullify the "people" taking rights away of the minority.

Sexuality is a protected status for the purposes of business and personal accomodation, as it should be, but that doesn't change the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

For the purposes of ANYTHING afforded to a person by the government cannot be rejected based upon sexuality no more than it could on gender or race. The DMV could not disqualify a person from getting a license because they are gay. The government cannot disqualify two loving gays from marriage because they're gay either.

I'm not wrong.

Edited November 23, 2008 by SRVT

[Danno 1,228]

Jeez,

I just wish some people would GET OVER THE ELECTION!

The People have spoken and Obama is President and Gay Marriage is finished in California.

Accept the "will of the voters" and GET OVER IT.

[peejay 327]

And what I can't figure out is why these people who feel Gov't has no right to dictate the sex of those in a marriage.... somehow firmly feel the State has a right to deem "2" as the limit of the persons in a marriage.

If these people were intellectually honest, they would stop defending "gay-marriage" and instead

go straight to "alternative Marriage" would would be much more inclusive of the many combinations which people in relationships.

"INCREMENTAL-ISM"

Liberal-ism's best friend.

Yeah...how about mix and match? Two men marrying one woman? Two women marrying one man and a trangender thrown in just for fun? How about minority rights for the NAMBLA crowd? Where does it end?

It ends when society as a whole decides what is relavent and appropriate for the advancement of our society. One judge's opinion and/or the screams from the lunatic fringe do not make for cultural, customary, or societal norms.

[Danno 1,228]

And what I can't figure out is why these people who feel Gov't has no right to dictate the sex of those in a marriage.... somehow firmly feel the State has a right to deem "2" as the limit of the persons in a marriage.

If these people were intellectually honest, they would stop defending "gay-marriage" and instead

go straight to "alternative Marriage" would would be much more inclusive of the many combinations which people in relationships.

"INCREMENTAL-ISM"

Liberal-ism's best friend.

Yeah...how about mix and match? Two men marrying one woman? Two women marrying one man and a trangender thrown in just for fun? How about minority rights for the NAMBLA crowd? Where does it end?

It ends when society as a whole decides what is relavent and appropriate for the advancement of our society. One judge's opinion and/or the screams from the lunatic fringe do not make for cultural, customary, or societal norms.

Wow, we agree again!

One Judge does not decide nor some lunatics on any fringe but rather society as a whole.

I think it is clear, more than 30-sum states; After having given people the opportunity to not only say "Alternative marriage" is not acceptable but lets even put it in our State constitution.... have done so.

The only fringe players I see in this situation are the ones invading Churches, destroying personal property and refusing to accept the process by which we are ruled in this country.

I don't blame Gays as a group for this, in fact

Again I must ask... why are these people always SO WHITE and appear to be the STARBUCKS CROWD no matter what part of the country these actions take place?

Edited November 23, 2008 by Danno

[rocks 494]

And what I can't figure out is why these people who feel Gov't has no right to dictate the sex of those in a marriage.... somehow firmly feel the State has a right to deem "2" as the limit of the persons in a marriage.

If these people were intellectually honest, they would stop defending "gay-marriage" and instead

go straight to "alternative Marriage" would would be much more inclusive of the many combinations which people in relationships.

"INCREMENTAL-ISM"

Liberal-ism's best friend.

Yeah...how about mix and match? Two men marrying one woman? Two women marrying one man and a trangender thrown in just for fun? How about minority rights for the NAMBLA crowd? Where does it end?

It ends when society as a whole decides what is relavent and appropriate for the advancement of our society. One judge's opinion and/or the screams from the lunatic fringe do not make for cultural, customary, or societal norms.

Wow, we agree again!

One Judge does not decide nor some lunatics on any fringe but rather society as a whole.

I think it is clear, more than 30-sum states; After having given people the opportunity to not only say "Alternative marriage" is not acceptable but lets even put it in our State constitution.... have done so.

The only fringe players I see in this situation are the ones invading Churches, destroying personal property and refusing to accept the process by which we are ruled in this country.

I don't blame Gays as a group for this, in fact

Again I must ask... why are these people always SO WHITE and appear to be the STARBUCKS CROWD no matter what part of the country these actions take place?

repeating yourself again? what is it that this adds to the conversation? look at post #25 for more information.

[IAMX 3,055]

They both like to repeat themselves. Without a complete misunderstanding of this government, freedoms guaranteed to each individual (like marriage), and slippery slopes about pedophiles, animal marriages, and polygamy (you should be weary of this from the Mormon church, not gays marrying), there is nothing more for them to say.