Gay Couples Rush to Get Married in California

[WLIRRIP]

Okay well you folks are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine.

I resent the gay marriage ruling because

a) It overturned a vote of the PEOPLE (Prop 22),

b) It validates something that by Biblical *OR* secular evolutionistic standards is dysfunctional,

c) It equated homosexuality to heterosexuality,

d) It may contribute to the demise of traditional marriage as it has where it has been legalized elsewhere in the world. E.g., it is in the Netherlands I believe that gay marriage has been legal for maybe 11 years now. *Since that time* straight marriage as rapidly declined and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed. The theory is this: take the children part of the equation out of marriage (gay marriage is about "love", not about bringing children into the world), then the straight couples are rationalizing then that they don't need to get married to have kids, since marriage isn't about providing a stable, strong environment for them -- it's only about love.

True, hetero-marriage has been declining in the west, largely since this "progressive" mentality took firm root in the 60s. And since then we've had hoards of social problems that seem to stem from broken families. The unintended consequences of gay marriage could be enormous. And gay marriage should not be justified by the problems in straight marriage. That's a whole other ball of wax that we are also trying to contend with. (BTW, in Europe I believe the average gay marriage lasts about 18 months. So the rate of divorce may also shoot through the roof.)

As for letting them live their lives, no one on my side of the issue was advocating otherwise, so that argument's misdirected. I'll tell them that they're sinning against God, that they need Him. I'll express my belief and opinions to them. They'll likely express theirs. And if they don't accept it, oh well! I warned them. Now they can run off into their apartments and homes and do what they want. I won't try to stop them. But this gay marriage ruling (as well as other aspects of the gay agenda, like teaching our first-graders about the wonderfulness of "alternative" families) takes it from the privacy of their bedrooms and throws it out onto our TVs, our streets, our faces. If you're okay with that then you're okay with that. I am not and I have more than just the overly simplistic, short-sighted reasoning of "Oh why not?" on my side, nor do I require personal attacks to make my points.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.
Psalm 33:12

[phillyidol]

My God isn't a dick.
Live and let live does not mean going up to a person and telling them they are sinning against God.




Worlds GREATEST Photographer!

[NuWaveRx]

[quote][i]Originally posted by WLIRRIP[/i]

a) It overturned a vote of the PEOPLE (Prop 22),

[/quote]

You mean the way "activist judges" (an assinine term if I ever heard one--funny how I don't think we would hear that term bandied about by crypto-theocrats if "Roe vs Wade" were overturned) overruled the "will of the people" in "Brown vs Board of Education" or "Loving vs Virginia"? That's one of the problems crypto-theocrats have--no sense of history. You do realize this inane "gay marrigage is going to ruin society" arguement is almost word for word the same arguments used by those from the pulpit, the streetcorner, and the legistature throughout out history to condemn the ending of slavery, a women's right to vote, inter-racial marriage, and in some cases, dancing on Sunday. Society didn't end then, and it won't end now.

Bottom line: There is no definitive proof gay marriage is going to do anything harmful to "society". They are consenting adults who are harming no one--including you. Curb your unbelievable hubris enough to let them live their lives.

[i_like_lectric_motors]

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]

You do realize this inane "gay marrigage is going to ruin society" arguement is almost word for word the same arguments used by those from the pulpit, the streetcorner, and the legistature throughout out history to condemn the ending of slavery, a women's right to vote, inter-racial marriage, and in some cases, dancing on Sunday. Society didn't end then, and it won't end now.



[/quote]

I'm not defending Wlirrip's argument in any way, but a case could be made that none of the things you mentioned above did much, if anything to actually improve society.

[NuWaveRx]

I must be misunderstanding you Motors. The ending of Slavery did not improve society? I guess it depends on your definitons of "improving" and "society". However, even if you assume that that is the case, mine is not a "zero-sum" argument. That is, I'm not claiming that any of the above should improve society--only that their implimentation did not harm society as a whole. As this is the arugment used incessently by Crypto-Theocrats, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate how allowing same-sex marriage would do so--especially when you consider that historically these claims have proved groundless.

[WLIRRIP]

To address these points I'd have to virtually repeat my last post -- a waste of my time. I'm just not sure what else would be profitable for me to say. You folks will believe what you want to believe and no stats or well-founded arguments are apparently going to make any difference (I mean, denying the existence of far-left activist judges is absurd -- this is something I could probably devote an entire thread to with more than enough evidence for, well, most people) nor will they help you to resist using negative and unfair terminology to describe me. I did however try my best to keep my commentary civil and on-point. I insulted no one, called no one any names. Because of this (and other reasons), it's really just a waste of my time to continue participating in this sophomoric thread.

Y'all can go back to your little love fest of mutual agreement. I threw my pebble in and disrupted the waters a bit. I used my right as a member of this site to express my POV. Time to move on.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.
Psalm 33:12

[i_like_lectric_motors]

[quote][i]Originally posted by NuWaveRx[/i]
<br>I must be misunderstanding you Motors. The ending of Slavery did not improve society? I guess it depends on your definitons of "improving" and "society". However, even if you assume that that is the case, mine is not a "zero-sum" argument. That is, I'm not claiming that any of the above should improve society--only that their implimentation did not harm society as a whole. As this is the arugment used incessently by Crypto-Theocrats, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate how allowing same-sex marriage would do so--especially when you consider that historically these claims have proved groundless.
[/quote]

I think you got what I meant but maybe you just don't think I'd really say it? To clarify - No, I'm not sure ending slavery did improve society. It should have ... and could have ... and probably would have ... had we done it right. But we didn't.

[i_like_lectric_motors]

[quote][i]Originally posted by WLIRRIP[/i]
<br>To address these points I'd have to virtually repeat my last post -- a waste of my time. I'm just not sure what else would be profitable for me to say. You folks will believe what you want to believe and no stats or well-founded arguments are apparently going to make any difference (I mean, denying the existence of far-left activist judges is absurd -- this is something I could probably devote an entire thread to with more than enough evidence for, well, most people) nor will they help you to resist using negative and unfair terminology to describe me. I did however try my best to keep my commentary civil and on-point. I insulted no one, called no one any names. Because of this (and other reasons), it's really just a waste of my time to continue participating in this sophomoric thread.

Y'all can go back to your little love fest of mutual agreement. I threw my pebble in and disrupted the waters a bit. I used my right as a member of this site to express my POV. Time to move on.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance.
Psalm 33:12
[/quote]

Do you by any chance moderate any other boards? Just wondering.

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by WLIRRIP[/i]
<br>Y'all can go back to your little love fest of mutual agreement.
[/quote]
You have some serious fucking blinders on you presumptuous ass. Love fest? Motors? NuWaveRx? SallyLightFoot? Shovelbum? Philly? Me? There have been and continue to be heated disagreements between many many parties - go check the hundreds of pages of history here. But like clockwork, seemingly every couple of months, the all too-typical arrogant prick comes around who thinks they solely own the high ground. It's uncanny. They drop into a brand new scene and rather than even get much warm-up on the primary topics, think that it's immediately critical that everyone else ought to know his or her own epiphanous interpretation of the universe.

[mod from another board]

"I will give you props for at least contribuing to the music side of the Outpost before diving in the NNNW end of the pool." - NuWaveRx

Yes, props, but no consideration of your views because you don't happen to share the 'approved' opinion on this matter. Oh, and for the record, I think this decision is a positive one.

What a bunch of jokers! So tolerant and open on the gay rights issue, yet quick to attack like a bunch of rabid dogs when one dares to differ with their thoughts. Selective tolerance is so convenient, isn't it?

[WolverineSyr]

[quote][i]Originally posted by WLIRRIP[/i]
I did however try my best to keep my commentary civil and on-point. I insulted no one, called no one any names.
[/quote]

Not good enough. Your commentary was not "civil" and you certainly did insult anyone on this board who may be gay, lesbian, or have family members or friends who are. Do not hide behind your fundamentalist superiority.

I am much less civil - please stick your "profitable posts" up your ass & jump off the high horse you rode in on.

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">It was put to a vote and even when they tried to gain special rights the governor vetoed it twice, but, hey, diff'rent strokes for different folks. I don't agree with overturning the will of the voters. Oh, well, c'est la vie[}:)]

[BffloGrl85]

[quote][i]Originally posted by WLIRRIP[/i]
<br>8<-- * Start SNIP* -->8

I threw my pebble in and disrupted the waters a bit. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
8<-- * End SNIP* -->8


[/quote]

You threw more than a pebble here so I am compelled to delurk long enough to say that I live in a glass house so I choose not to throw stones, especially in this forum.

Having been a devoted lurker on NWO for several years now, I have learned the villagers in these parts will light their torches, gather their dogs and storm the castle to confront the monster.

Don't take it personally; that's just how it happens in all the Saturday Morning Monster Movie Matinee features that I've ever seen.[:D]

[NuWaveRx]

If the "monster" is fundamentalist nitwits who have the incomparable arrogence to force their religous beliefs on others by trying to codify those beliefs into law--guilty as charged.[^]

And, XXX your point about the "will of the people" reflects my post before.

By 1954 popular laws--passed by the "will of the people" through traditional legislation and local referenda established racial segragation as the law of the land in many western and southern states. Fortunately the Supreme Court at that time did their job: interpreted (rightly) the Constitutional support of equal rights under the law for all people regardless of race. They protected the minority from the tyranny of the majority (which observers like de Tocqueville astutely noted is one of the strengths of our form of democracy). Interestingly, if you read several papers from noted religious fundementalists of the time (especially those from the South) the same Sturm und Drang is echoed precisely with the arugments I've heard from fundementalists today concerning same-sex marriage--basically it boils down to "our religion doesn't believe in this, so if it is enacted the world will fall apart". It didn't happen then and it won't now.

Again--if consenting adults are engaged in an activity that hurts no one else why do some people feel the overwhelming compulsion to interfere with said activity--just because they personally don't believe in it?

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">Your statement doesn't jibe in light of the fact race - as far as I know - is considered a "normal" trait whereas homosexuality is not. Therefore, de-segregation is normalising what is already normal whereas "gay marriage" is redefining societal norms to fit something abnormal. If we're gonna draw parallels to other things, then a simple analogy would be trying to pass a English class by writing essays in Spanish... thereby redefining English class to in order to fit those few who don't meet the requirements.