|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
j/c
But as far as prostitution goes.. I think it should be legalized as far as the state should not be dictating beliefs.. But that does not mean that human trafficking nor blackmailing women into prostitution should be.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
And for the record, I am not gay, but I just believe the government should not be imposing beliefs onto others. We should not be the morality police.
That's what I'm getting at! Recongnizing gay marriages is imposing the beliefs of one group onto others! You are telling me I can't call marriage one thing ... but another group is free to tell me what it is?? If this had anything to do with "rights" you would have a point ... but this doesn't deal with rights. It's about one group forcing the rest to accept their "belief".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
And for the record, I am not gay, but I just believe the government should not be imposing beliefs onto others. We should not be the morality police.
That's what I'm getting at! Recongnizing gay marriages is imposing the beliefs of one group onto others! You are telling me I can't call marriage one thing ... but another group is free to tell me what it is?? If this had anything to do with "rights" you would have a point ... but this doesn't deal with rights. It's about one group forcing the rest to accept their "belief".
Another group does have the right to tell you what marriage is, not that you have to accept it, but the problem with Prop 8 is that it is a mandate by government stating what marriage is and that you have to accept it in a legal aspect. If it were up to me, I would get rid of marriage in the eyes of government to begin with. Call it Civil Unions which some groups still have a problem with but others against gay marriage are happy to call it. The belief of marriage and what it is should not be decided by the Government.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845 |
You actually succeeded in making debate points for the side you oppose Excl: Quote:
Recongnizing gay marriages is imposing the beliefs of one group onto others!
NOT Recongnizing gay marriages is ALSO imposing the beliefs of one group onto others!
Quote:
You are telling me I can't call marriage one thing ... but another group is free to tell me what it is??
That statement is exactly, perfectly, just as valid being directed the other way.
Quote:
It's about one group forcing the rest to accept their "belief".
No matter which direction it ends up going, that is EXACTLY what this is.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
Another group does have the right to tell you what marriage is, not that you have to accept it,
So, a gay group can tell us what marriage is, and we need to accept it becuase it's their right to tell us, but a different group doesn't have the right to dictate what marriage is? Got it.
You see, marriage has already been defined, normalized, and accepted. But becuase a minority wants it changed, it's supposed to change? And the majority should just deal with it?
My suggestion to California is flat out put it on a ballot. No hidden anythings - vote. And be done with it.
The staus quo doesn't work for the minority, so they force a vote. Big deal. Vote. However it goes is how California goes.
Majority wins.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
No matter which direction it ends up going, that is EXACTLY what this is.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Which is exactly why Government should not be in the business of defining what marriage is.. which is why we should just remove "marriage" from government completely.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
My suggestion to California is flat out put it on a ballot. No hidden anythings - vote. And be done with it.
That's what Prop 8 is, plain and simple. Except we aren't voting for calling gay marriages legal. That was already voted on (I think) and it failed. So then judges said it was legal. So we voted saying that it shouldn't be legal ... and that passed. Except judges decided it was unconstitutional. So now we are voting (Prop 8) on what the constitution should say, so we can get away from these judges imposing their moral beliefs on us. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
My suggestion to California is flat out put it on a ballot. No hidden anythings - vote. And be done with it.
That's what Prop 8 is, plain and simple. Except we aren't voting for calling gay marriages legal. That was already voted on (I think) and it failed. So then judges said it was legal. So we voted saying that it shouldn't be legal ... and that passed. Except judges decided it was unconstitutional. So now we are voting (Prop 8) on what the constitution should say, so we can get away from these judges imposing their moral beliefs on us.
Until the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional and everyone will be clamoring to put it in the U.S. Constitution.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
Quote:
My suggestion to California is flat out put it on a ballot. No hidden anythings - vote. And be done with it.
That's what Prop 8 is, plain and simple. Except we aren't voting for calling gay marriages legal. That was already voted on (I think) and it failed. So then judges said it was legal. So we voted saying that it shouldn't be legal ... and that passed. Except judges decided it was unconstitutional. So now we are voting (Prop 8) on what the constitution should say, so we can get away from these judges imposing their moral beliefs on us.
So, it sounds to me like what school districts do around here: We need more money, let's vote. The vote is no. So, the school district puts it on the ballot again. The vote is still no. So the school district puts it on the ballot again, but this time says "if it fails again, we will not bus students, we will not have sports, we will not have field trips," etc etc.
So then it passes, and next thing you know, the school district hires more people like assistant curriculum advisers, and assistant library technicians, and playground instructors, etc.
California, flat out put it on a ballot. Yes or no, no other stuff involved: Do you want the state of California to endorse gay marriage or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
My suggestion to California is flat out put it on a ballot. No hidden anythings - vote. And be done with it.
That's what Prop 8 is, plain and simple. Except we aren't voting for calling gay marriages legal. That was already voted on (I think) and it failed. So then judges said it was legal. So we voted saying that it shouldn't be legal ... and that passed. Except judges decided it was unconstitutional. So now we are voting (Prop 8) on what the constitution should say, so we can get away from these judges imposing their moral beliefs on us.
So, it sounds to me like what school districts do around here: We need more money, let's vote. The vote is no. So, the school district puts it on the ballot again. The vote is still no. So the school district puts it on the ballot again, but this time says "if it fails again, we will not bus students, we will not have sports, we will not have field trips," etc etc.
So then it passes, and next thing you know, the school district hires more people like assistant curriculum advisers, and assistant library technicians, and playground instructors, etc.
California, flat out put it on a ballot. Yes or no, no other stuff involved: Do you want the state of California to endorse gay marriage or not.
Well they put it on the ballot before and it passed marginally. The problem was that it wasn't worded or filed in the right area of the law and the Court System in California, threw it out. Research Prop 22.
Edit: It was found by the California Supreme Court to be against the State Constitution. Thus, Prop 8 will add what was Prop 22, to the State Constitution.
Last edited by ~TuX~; 10/23/08 05:01 PM.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Lovely. See, this is what I'm talking about............prop this, prop that, prop jack.
Put it on a freaking ballot worded like this: Should California support, as legal in any way imaginable, gay marriage.
Yes.
No.
Vote on that. Don't put all the hooey ass legal terms in anything. Damn lawyers screw everything up.....hell, you can read some of the propositions here in Ohio and when it comes time to vote yeah or nay, even college educated people don't know what the hell is going on.
Fire all the damn lawyers.
Do you want the state to recognize gay marriage? Yes. No. Then be done with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Lovely. See, this is what I'm talking about............prop this, prop that, prop jack.
Put it on a freaking ballot worded like this: Should California support, as legal in any way imaginable, gay marriage.
Yes.
No.
Vote on that. Don't put all the hooey ass legal terms in anything. Damn lawyers screw everything up.....hell, you can read some of the propositions here in Ohio and when it comes time to vote yeah or nay, even college educated people don't know what the hell is going on.
Fire all the damn lawyers.
Do you want the state to recognize gay marriage? Yes. No. Then be done with it.
Well it has to be in legal terms. but well I will say lawyers do have their place, otherwise we will see props such as
The Cute Puppy Intiative
article 1: The state shall deem that all citizens believe what the Church of Spaghetti with Meatballs believes in.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845 |
Quote:
The Cute Puppy Intiative
article 1: The state shall deem that all citizens believe what the Church of Spaghetti with Meatballs believes in.
Ummm, get it right... that would be The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (a.k.a. Pastafarians)
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
The Cute Puppy Intiative
article 1: The state shall deem that all citizens believe what the Church of Spaghetti with Meatballs believes in.
Ummm, get it right... that would be The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (a.k.a. Pastafarians)
Completely different church.. The Church of Spaghetti with Meatballs never believed that the Spaghetti could fly nor was it a monster.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 Likes: 516 |
Quote:
Quote:
Lovely. See, this is what I'm talking about............prop this, prop that, prop jack.
Put it on a freaking ballot worded like this: Should California support, as legal in any way imaginable, gay marriage.
Yes.
No.
Vote on that. Don't put all the hooey ass legal terms in anything. Damn lawyers screw everything up.....hell, you can read some of the propositions here in Ohio and when it comes time to vote yeah or nay, even college educated people don't know what the hell is going on.
Fire all the damn lawyers.
Do you want the state to recognize gay marriage? Yes. No. Then be done with it.
Well it has to be in legal terms. but well I will say lawyers do have their place, otherwise we will see props such as
The Cute Puppy Intiative
article 1: The state shall deem that all citizens believe what the Church of Spaghetti with Meatballs believes in.
Yeah.
Or we may see propositions that say "hey, you voted against it last year, so this year we really clouded the thing up with lawyer speak. Do you support banning church, so that all might feel free to do as they wish, when they wish, with no consequence whatsoever."
Or "do you support beating the hell out of people that earn money so as to give to those that don't, in order to keep things fair".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,163 Likes: 845 |
Ahh, my bad.. I misunderstood your proposition then.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,852 Likes: 159
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,852 Likes: 159 |
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
NOT Recongnizing gay marriages is ALSO imposing the beliefs of one group onto others!
Purp ... I KNOW that ... the argument you always get from people supporting gay marriage is, "You can't impose your beliefs on us!" Then what is legalizing gay marriages?? It's imposing their beliefs on the rest of us! So what's the difference? The majority agrees with me ... and this is supposed to be a democracy.
Quote:
Quote:
You are telling me I can't call marriage one thing ... but another group is free to tell me what it is??
That statement is exactly, perfectly, just as valid being directed the other way.
Uh, yes ... that was my point. I'm telling him his statement goes the other way, and now you're telling me my statement goes back the other way too. I know! 
Quote:
No matter which direction it ends up going, that is EXACTLY what this is.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Is this like a triple reverse or something?? 
I'm pointing out that they are being hypocrits because they constantly use the "you can't impose your beliefs on me" argument as the reason why the majority can't ban gay marriages. So then when I point out that they are imposing moral beliefs on me by forcing the state to recongnize it ... you know, doing what claim is wrong to begin with ... you tell me that it goes both ways. Yes, I know ... that's what I was pointing out to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,547 Likes: 987
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,547 Likes: 987 |
Imposing a set of beliefs is the way humans keep order.
I understand the point in the context of this discussion, but it is a argument that leads nowhere.
Without imposing a set of beliefs on various groups, we wouldn't function as a society.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
I completely agree! That's where majority rule comes into play. But for some reason we've gone away from Democracy and just want to let minorities impose their beliefs on the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 Likes: 55
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 Likes: 55 |
Yes, how dare minorities believe that they should be treated like the majority. Silly people.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
They ARE being treated like the majority. They get ALL the same rights and privledges as married couples in the state of California, due to another law that was passed a few years ago. This has nothing to do with that ... this is about attaching the word "marriage" to gay marriages as well. From what you've told me in the past, you would be perfectly happy with what we have in place now. "Who cares what they call it, just give us all the rights of married couples" ... well that's what's in place. This is about forcing the rest of the state to accept it as a "marriage"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
JC.. Would the world be better off without 'marriage' ? It is not the life-long commitment it originally was, it is now 'Til I'm sick of you or the hot secretary flirts with me, do we part'. How many people get married because they think it is what is expected of them? There is still a stigma attached to never being married. A 40 year old women, never been married, "Must be something wrong with her.". Same for a man, but probably not as bad. PS. Ppl, you need to do something about the "The Latest Swimsuits" ad, it's distracting me. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum San Fran considering
decriminalization of prostitution
|
|
