In Defense of the Marriage

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Garden of Eden, c. 4400 B.C. Humans didn't procreate before that.

You believe in creationism? Just as well I had so little respect for your opinions in the first place, you just dropped of the scale entirely. How can you argue the case for legislation on the basis of Old Testament myths. It must really annoy you that you can`t stone adulterers to death.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I agree, but I do value tradition, and this is not harming anyone.

Translation - It's not harming Jerrek, and as long as Jerrek is not suffering in any way then why should he give a damn about the fact that a section of the population are being denied the same rights that everyone he can enjoy.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Bifta

Sorry to take this off track once again, but you actually believe that people on welfare shouldn't have the right to vote?

Yes. Absolutely. They are not productive in society, so why have them decide? They will just vote who will give them the most free money.

I am intrigued that you don't object to waddy's arbitrary assignment of votes based on who agrees with him, but me wanting to exclude non-productive people from voting gets the attention.

Originally Posted by Sociable

Well leaving asside the ways they do often influence governments the key thing is your assertion that they should still be able to discriminate, even if such "unions" were made lawful, is obviously unsupportable.

I think influence is entirely too mild a term, at least in the context of the US government. Given the dubious ties that seemingly everyone in the administration has to big business and the obscene amount of money spent on political lobbying I think over there big business does pretty much run the country. If I had my way political lobbying by corporations would be entirely illegal.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Sociable

Well leaving asside the ways they do often influence governments the key thing is your assertion that they should still be able to discriminate, even if such "unions" were made lawful, is obviously unsupportable.

They would have to recognise the union for all official aspects of benefits, pensions and other employee rights. As to use your phrasing "They are not above the law either".

No. I will specifically write my benefits for married couples then.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

You believe in creationism? Just as well I had so little respect for your opinions in the first place, you just dropped of the scale entirely. How can you argue the case for legislation on the basis of Old Testament myths.

Absolutely. And, don't pretend, you've never had respect for anyone that doesn't agree with you. In fact, you're openly displaying hostility towards people that are religious and base their decisions on that. Get over it. That is why we left Europe. No freedom!

It must really annoy you that you can`t stone adulterers to death

More dribble from you. If you want people to be able to think before allowing them to vote, don't forget to exclude yourself. You're making senseless accusations in an attempt to claw to the few straws that is left, and they're slipping.

Translation - It's not harming Jerrek, and as long as Jerrek is not suffering in any way then why should he give a damn about the fact that a section of the population are being denied the same rights that everyone he can enjoy.

No, they're not harming anyone. Read what I write. No one so far has provided ANY reasons why we should allow gays to marry, and what the benefits to society will be.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I think influence is entirely too mild a term, at least in the context of the US government. Given the dubious ties that seemingly everyone in the administration has to big business and the obscene amount of money spent on political lobbying I think over there big business does pretty much run the country. If I had my way political lobbying by corporations would be entirely illegal.

Like in the Soviet Union?

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No. I will specifically write my benefits for married couples then.

And that would be the exact reason why it would be dangerous to draw a distinction between marriage and civil unions in the law.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

But if civil unions were written into the law, you are arguing that Corps should be exempt from or allowed to ignore that law. Which I am arguing would set a precedent for corporations discarding/ignoring other laws in the future, I didn't say that that they would immediately gain governance of the country

The law will merely provide recognition by the state government. Individuals, churches, employers, and organizations can choose whether to recognize them or not.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

I think influence is entirely too mild a term, at least in the context of the US government. Given the dubious ties that seemingly everyone in the administration has to big business and the obscene amount of money spent on political lobbying I think over there big business does pretty much run the country. If I had my way political lobbying by corporations would be entirely illegal.

When these overpriced and overpaid biggots are running the country there is no true democracy...

IMO - the country should operate a phone poll. Every registered votor gets a pin number. When a rule, law or country critical isue needs voting on everyone just calls in - enters there pin and votes... Now that would be democratic !!

I truely believe that marrage is not just a legal thing - It is something speciel that a man and a woman share - It says that you are comited to each other for ever.... I dont think that it should be taken lightly....

Just my 2p's worth

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by stuartbe

IMO - the country should operate a phone poll. Every registered votor gets a pin number. When a rule, law or country critical isue needs voting on everyone just calls in - enters there pin and votes... Now that would be democratic !!

No, that would be mob rule. "Vote now! Should we take $1 million from all the rich people and give to the poor people?"

I truely believe that marrage is not just a legal thing - It is something speciel that a man and a woman share - It says that you are comited to each other for ever.... I dont think that it should be taken lightly....

Just my 2p's worth

Exactly.

[Sociable]

I have only one wish for you Jerrick and that is one day life will teach you a few much needed lessons about how to think and form opinions based on respect for other human beings rather than your own very narrow perspective.

I dread to think just how low your opinion of yourself will fall the day you inevitably need the help of others and yes also the need to rely on welfare.

There, but for the grace of whichever god you believe in, you will inevitably end up facing the impact of your own ill considered opinions and prejudice.

I for one feel sad for you, and the price you will pay for your current viewpoint in later life, because of this.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No, that would be mob rule. "Vote now! Should we take $1 million from all the rich people and give to the poor people?"

How is it mob rule m8 ???? If the majority of people in a country say yes to something then it should be yes.... That is what democracy is !

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

The law will merely provide recognition by the state government. Individuals, churches, employers, and organizations can choose whether to recognize them or not.

I can agree with you on the individuals and the churches, they can and should be allowed to hold their own opinion. Organisations (sorry, I'm stuck in the world of z's at the monent ), is a bit of a loose term because it can be applied to so many things, i.e. churches and companies are organisations but very different, so can't say for them. But I disagree with you on employers. It is largely for the reason of benefits etc, which predominately come from employers, that people are arguing for same-sex unions/marriages to be legal. If an employer offers a benefit to a heterosexual couple, then that benefit should be available to homosexual couples.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

If an employer offers a benefit to a heterosexual couple, then that benefit should be available to homosexual couples.

Only if he so chooses.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Sociable

I have only one wish for you Jerrick and that is one day life will teach you a few much needed lessons about how to think and form opinions based on respect for other human beings rather than your own very narrow perspective.

I dread to think just how low your opinion of yourself will fall the day you inevitably need the help of others and yes also the need to rely on welfare.

There, but for the grace of whichever god you believe in, you will inevitably end up facing the impact of your own ill considered opinions and prejudice.

I for one feel sad for you, and the price you will pay for your current viewpoint in later life, because of this.

So now I will end up on government welfare? No. I plan on WORKING. I find it fascinating how you've managed to connect my opinion on same-sex "marriages" and end up with "one day you will end up on welfare." And, my opinions are "ill considered" because they disagree with YOURS? GET A LIFE.