At the center of it all

[Thulsa Doom]

The point we're arguing is not about the legality of the situation...at least I'm not. My main argument is this...if you intentionally break the law, regardless of how bad that law may be, you've still broken the law. If the law needs to be changed, then it should be challanged in the courts first, and, if that doesn't work, then go ahead and do your 'civil disobedience'.

So then do you agree that the law is wrong currently and should absolutely be changed?

So what does that say about his whole plan to legalize gay marriage? It says that all he's done is waste the time, energy, and money of several thousand people.

Im thinking the vast majority of those people know this is an issue in flux and certainly dont see it as a waste of money on their part. In fact for many it might be the most significant day in their lives. And I mean all it cost them was what like $100? Less? And just as an aside Im sure the local chamber of congress has been quite delighted with the outcome of thousands of happy people desending on their area ready to spend money on hotels and restaurants and such in a new marriage delerium. Its an unprecedented event for them. Im not using this as a point against your argument about the legality process but its interesting to note nonetheless.

 

[The Other One]

For WHAT reason should it be illegal to join two men or two women of adult age and sound mind in a marriage?

"There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples..."

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01&v=PRINT

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is about destroying one of the last cornerstones of our culture. As Karl Marx said in The Communist Manifesto: "The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting."
The communists, as a part of their class warfare, sought to abolish property in general and they considered family to be property. In order to abolish the State they had to first abolish the culture; step by step, institution by institution, tradition by tradition, which is why marriage between man and a woman is such an important mainstay.

 

[freako104]

OMG!!!! now its a commie thing??!!! my god what a load of bullshit!!! how does this undermine shit? because you think its some commie thing? thats a first. it really is. you are the only one I have heard compare the two. and for teh record: communism is a different idea than capitalism. does that make it bad? lastly it has its own traditions. so does everyone else.

 

[Gonz]

he's right freak...go read your manifesto, it's all right there.

and yes, communism is a bad thing. the only tradition it carries is the destruction of the individual

 

[freako104]

is it bad because you disagree with it? personally I like capitalism as I think it works in get paid for the work you do and you earn it. it is different that is really all.

 

[Gato_Solo]

So then do you agree that the law is wrong currently and should absolutely be changed?

Duh...yes.

Im thinking the vast majority of those people know this is an issue in flux and certainly dont see it as a waste of money on their part. In fact for many it might be the most significant day in their lives. And I mean all it cost them was what like $100? Less? And just as an aside Im sure the local chamber of congress has been quite delighted with the outcome of thousands of happy people desending on their area ready to spend money on hotels and restaurants and such in a new marriage delerium. Its an unprecedented event for them. Im not using this as a point against your argument about the legality process but its interesting to note nonetheless.

Are you so sure about that? Most of those people didn't know about the states stand until after they went to get their licenses registered. Why do you think the media didn't stick with the story? They (the media) knew the truth, and (most likely) suppressed it in order to 'enlghten' the general population on the 'degradation' of homosexuals because they can't marry legally. How do you think those people felt when they found out that the state wouldn't honor their commitments? How would you feel? Thousands of people out, say, $25 to $50...how much money went into local coffers illegally? Homosexuals got used, and abused, by a local government, with help from the media, and you blame society at large because of existing laws against homosexual marriage? What a load of crap! If anything, those same gay couples, who were illegally married, should be outside of San Francisco city hall, protesting the mayors lack of judgement. Those people were cheated out of their money and, indirectly, cheated out of their happiness. Where is your outrage over that?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

"There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples..."

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01&v=PRINT

Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It is about destroying one of the last cornerstones of our culture. As Karl Marx said in The Communist Manifesto: "The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting."
The communists, as a part of their class warfare, sought to abolish property in general and they considered family to be property. In order to abolish the State they had to first abolish the culture; step by step, institution by institution, tradition by tradition, which is why marriage between man and a woman is such an important mainstay.

Nevermind that this argument is completely bogus and trying to somehow link homosexual marriage with communism is laughable, you still havent answered the question. Why SHOULD homosexual marriage be ILLEGAL? You certainly didnt give a reason here. And all the garbage that the right wing fundamentalist family council site says about it ALSO cant be used for making a LAW because they base their thinking on this issue in religion which you CANT DO. You cant make a law that certain people cant do something because its "harmful" for society. Well why is it harmful exactly? BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO!!! BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALS ARE COMMUNISTS!! *bzzz* sorry. Case dismissed.

 

[Gato_Solo]

You cant make a law that certain people cant do something because its "harmful" for society. Well why is it harmful exactly?

Actually...all laws are made so that certain people can't do something because it's harmful to society. Why it's harmful is up for debate. I'm sure that serial killers believe that what they are doing when they murder is just and upright...just as speeders, thieves, liars, prostitutes, pedophiles, etc ad nauseum. In all cases, it's how the majority feels when the law is written.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Are you so sure about that? Most of those people didn't know about the states stand until after they went to get their licenses registered. Why do you think the media didn't stick with the story? They (the media) knew the truth, and (most likely) suppressed it in order to 'enlghten' the general population on the 'degradation' of homosexuals because they can't marry legally. How do you think those people felt when they found out that the state wouldn't honor their commitments? How would you feel? Thousands of people out, say, $25 to $50...how much money went into local coffers illegally? Homosexuals got used, and abused, by a local government, with help from the media, and you blame society at large because of existing laws against homosexual marriage? What a load of crap! If anything, those same gay couples, who were illegally married, should be outside of San Francisco city hall, protesting the mayors lack of judgement. Those people were cheated out of their money and, indirectly, cheated out of their happiness. Where is your outrage over that?

Oh my god what planet are you from. Find me all these poor gay couples who voluntarily went through this and are outraged now because they really thought the entire state of california was legally on board with this decision. Where are they? There arent any. In fact I saw an interview just the other day of a few couples who had gotten married in San Francisco and they were so happy with what had happened they could hardly express it. If an elected mayor decided to marry me in a society that discriminates against me I would be delighted to give my $50 for the symbolic and emotional nature of the event in my eyes and the eyes of my partner if nothing else. What paranoia pill did you take to convince yourself that this is actually a big left wing conspiracy involving the mayor and the media in cahoots to rob poor unsuspecting homosexuals of their hard earned money $50 at a time? And how were they so fabulously successful that the homosexuals themselves are STILL delighted with what happened?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Oh my god what planet are you from. Find me all these poor gay couples who voluntarily went through this and are outraged now because they really thought the entire state of california was legally on board with this decision. Where are they? There arent any. In fact I saw an interview just the other day of a few couples who had gotten married in San Francisco and they were so happy with what had happened they could hardly express it. If an elected mayor decided to marry me in a society that discriminates against me I would be delighted to give my $50 for the symbolic and emotional nature of the event in my eyes and the eyes of my partner if nothing else. What paranoia pill did you take to convince yourself that this is actually a big left wing conspiracy involving the mayor and the media in cahoots to rob poor unsuspecting homosexuals of their hard earned money $50 at a time? And how were they so fabulously successful that the homosexuals themselves are STILL delighted with what happened?

The same could be said of you. Re-read my post, and, this time, think before you type out something as dim as this...

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Actually...all laws are made so that certain people can't do something because it's harmful to society.

ok allow me to spell it out for you more simply then...

You cant make a law that CERTAIN people cant do something because its "harmful" for society while OTHER people can do the exact same thing. That is called discrimination. And since you acknowledge that the WHY its harmful portion of it is very much up for debate then thats really the area we should be focusing on, no? How is two men getting married harmful to society?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

The same could be said of you. Re-read my post, and, this time, think before you type out something as dim as this...

ah I see weve reached your standard point avoiding argument already on this then. denegrate, roll eyes and dont say anything about the merit of the post. That was quicker then I thought.

 

[Gato_Solo]

ok allow me to spell it out for you more simply then...

You cant make a law that CERTAIN people cant do something because its "harmful" for society while OTHER people can do the exact same thing. That is called discrimination. And since you acknowledge that the WHY its harmful portion of it is very much up for debate then thats really the area we should be focusing on, no? How is two men getting married harmful to society?

Let me answer more simply, then...

1. Laws are written by the majority to protect the majority.
2. Certain people will be discriminated against because those laws were written by the majority.
3. As times change, the reasons why such laws were written become obsolete and/or invalid, and the law should be changed or repealed.
4. There are at least 3 ways I can think of off the top of my head to get a law changed, or repealed, besides civil disobedience.

Doesn't matter whether some people can something legally and some people can't do the same thing under the same law. That's an argument for 4-year olds in the park over who gets to get on the seesaw next. If a law is unfair, and society has evolved/adapted enough to change or repeal that law, then the law will be changed or repealed.

 

[freako104]

Actually...all laws are made so that certain people can't do something because it's harmful to society

that is debateable. there are sodomy laws. I do not see how sodomy is harmful to society. there are old laws that well dumb laws the name says it all.

 

[Gato_Solo]

that is debateable. there are sodomy laws. I do not see how sodomy is harmful to society. there are old laws that well dumb laws the name says it all.

Actually, it's not debatable at all. You have to look at 3 things when determining the validity of any statement.

1. Context
2. Time period
3. Validity

I'm sure that, when those laws were written, they had some ideas about sodomy, and decided that it was harmful to society. What you're saying, is that sodomy was never wrong. To you, maybe, but to the folks who wrote the law, it was seen as doing great harm. Don't ask me to reason for them because I wasn't there. In fact...niether were you.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

1. Laws are written by the majority to protect the majority.
2. Certain people will be discriminated against because those laws were written by the majority.
3. As times change, the reasons why such laws were written become obsolete and/or invalid, and the law should be changed or repealed.
4. There are at least 3 ways I can think of off the top of my head to get a law changed, or repealed, besides civil disobedience.

I dont necessarily disagree with you on how to deal with changing a law. I think ive said that before. Thats not really my point here. You just picked up on a sentence in a post I made and i was correcting your interpretation of it thats all. Although I would ask what you mean exactly by "laws are written by the majority to protect the majority." Does the word "majority" in that sentence have the exact same definition? Is this saying laws are written by the biggest group to protect the biggest group?

 

[freako104]

nope we werent. but i have heard that there are other laws regarding sexuality and again it isnt harmful. let me ask you this Gato. If a person is having sex with someoen in their own room and it doesnt affect you at all how are you harmed by it? the rape laws and homocide laws, speeding laws etc are all for the better of society. that is why I said it is debatable.

 

[Gato_Solo]

ah I see weve reached your standard point avoiding argument already on this then. denegrate, roll eyes and dont say anything about the merit of the post. That was quicker then I thought.

Here's my point, and I'll use your words so that you can't mistake, twist, or spin this conversation any more, and then claim your lack of understanding is me denigrating your opinion...

In fact I saw an interview just the other day of a few couples who had gotten married in San Francisco and they were so happy with what had happened they could hardly express it. If an elected mayor decided to marry me in a society that discriminates against me I would be delighted to give my $50 for the symbolic and emotional nature of the event in my eyes and the eyes of my partner if nothing else.

Now...how many couples out of the 2000 or so did you see?
Now do you get my point? It's not paranoia. It's cynical, but not paranoid. You think my opinion is bad? Just say so, but don't try and denigrate me because you don't fully comprehend what I said. If you need clarification, just ask, and I'll be happy to point you in the right direction.

Just because you, yourself (an experiment of 1) would be delighted to pay $50 or so for some symbolism, it doesn't mean that everyone who does the same thing would also be delighted.

The only thing that really matters here is this...What the mayor did was wrong. Not symbolism. Not the medias viewpoint or agenda, and certainly not the public reaction to whether or not some people shouldn't marry.

 

[Gato_Solo]

nope we werent. but i have heard that there are other laws regarding sexuality and again it isnt harmful. let me ask you this Gato. If a person is having sex with someoen in their own room and it doesnt affect you at all how are you harmed by it? the rape laws and homocide laws, speeding laws etc are all for the better of society. that is why I said it is debatable.

I say that hindsight is 20/20. You make todays argument for what was deemed yesterdays problem. Society changes. You can't put todays morals on the people who wrote those laws. Does it really matter to them what you think now? That's the reality of our system of laws. We can change them if we deem it neccesary. I'm not going to answer your question because it's based on false data.

 

[freako104]

ahh but you just made my argument. you cant put todays values on yesterday. and vice versa.