City of San Francisco issuing marriage licenses to gays, weds 1 couple so far...

[David Floyd]

Now you see why that is an unfair question.

Oh I quite agree. Allowing people to do anything shouldn't be about "positive benefits to society", because freedom for freedom's own sake is a positive benefit. And that includes the ability to contract freely

[Ben Kenobi]

So what more needs to be done, to rid the world of the evil Homophobia?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what more needs to be done, to rid the world of the evil Homophobia?

Why not? I am suggesting not by getting rid of people lol.. but by education.

[Ben Kenobi]

What?

You don't suggest Listerine?

[David Floyd]

So what more needs to be done, to rid the world of the evil Homophobia?

We don't need to do anything. People will associate with whomever they want, and think whatever they want. And, hopefully, marry whomever they want. If some people have a problem with certain other people, that's their loss.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What?

You don't suggest Listerine?

Well just some education that gay people aren't evil or bad, and many are successful people.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well just some education that gay people aren't evil or bad, and many are successful people.

Well, I think they are evil and bad, but no worse than anyone else.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Well, I think they are evil and bad, but no worse than anyone else.

I think most people are good at heart. Except we have little Hitlers running around like Robertson, Falwell and Phelps who are truly evil at heart. Those are the evil people in this world.

[Ramo]

Good old fashioned civil disobedience.

[Ben Kenobi]

Those are the evil people in this world.

No one gets a pass. Evil is like a drop of phenophalein. One drop transforms the solution.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


No one gets a pass. Evil is like a drop of phenophalein. One drop transforms the solution.

People like Hitler, Hussein, Robertson are more evil in this world because they support violence and hatred.

What the hell are you ranting on about anyways?

[Dis]

now this is civil disobience I like.

For over a century San Fransisco has been ahead of the curve over the rest of the U.S.

Way to go San Fransisco

[Ben Kenobi]

are more evil in this world because they support violence and hatred

But why should violence and hatred be worse than sheep ********?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


But why should violence and hatred be worse than sheep ********?

What are you ranting about? What does that have to do with anything?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Then why does the state restrict people from marrying two others at once? Why have any state involvement at all?

Finally, why should the state provide benefits, if this is merely a private contract?

they shouldnt restrict polygamy or marriage of more then two individuals. and the state should not provide benefits.

[Shi Huangdi]

I'd prefer Civil Unions, but I guess this is preferable to unequal laws. I worry though that this will cause a backlash though, when mainstream America sees the image coming out of San Fransisco and probably soon Massachusets. The more victories gays have won, the worse they do in the polls. It's looking more and more likely that we will get a constitutional amendment that will enshrine discrimination into the Constitution.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The more victories gays have won, the worse they do in the polls. It's looking more and more likely that we will get a constitutional amendment that will enshrine discrimination into the Constitution.

I strongly disagree. I think people are getting more open minded. Again I have not seen any poll done on this topic as of late. But I believe people are getting more and more open minded with time.

[Az]

At first thought, I supported this. Then, I thought about it a lot, and then I figured out that this is against the law, and thus opposed it. Then, I thought, this law itself is unconsititutional, and thus the law is against the law, and thus these people are breaking an illegal law. Thus I think they were in the right.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I'd prefer Civil Unions, but I guess this is preferable to unequal laws. I worry though that this will cause a backlash though, when mainstream America sees the image coming out of San Fransisco and probably soon Massachusets. The more victories gays have won, the worse they do in the polls. It's looking more and more likely that we will get a constitutional amendment that will enshrine discrimination into the Constitution.

I expect a backlash. But I hope there will be a backlash against the backlash.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Well, I think they are evil and bad, but no worse than anyone else.

So why don't you start flogging yourself instead of ragging on homosexuals all the time.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That's not really the issue here. I wanted other examples of how homosexuals are treated by law as second-class citizens. None of your points stand to scrutiny.

That not how your phrased it originally... you asked about second clas treatment, not laws. So all my points are still valid

Would you force churches to marry two men to each other?

No... I wouldn't force churches to marry them... just the government. But the fact remains, that churches treat them like second class citizens. Nothing you can say changes that fact.

Second class treatment already targetted by laws. Fez talks about steps. Steps to ensure equality. Now, if in law they are already accorded equal treatment, then this is a salient point.

Again... now you bring up the "law" again and that wasn't your question. However, he fact that they can't get married is just one example of how the Law discriminates against them.

Again, laws cannot prevent something from occurring, they can only deter. The fact that the state deters is a provision of equality. Another salient point.

the law doesn't stop the second class treatment... and since you keep bringing up the law, let me repeat that the laws on marriage are discriminatory... so in reality, and by law, the government is treating gays as second class citizens.

No. I merely admit that not all problems with marriage can be traced to homosexuality.

All I can do is speculate on the effects of marriage, and frankly, all I see are negative effects. Can you show me a single positive benefit to all marriages by marrying homosexuals?

What does having to prove a postitive benefit to "all" mariages have to do with this? You keep saying that it would HURT or have a negative effect on straight marriages...And what are those negative effect, and where is your proof. As stated before, any marriage that can be effected simply because some gay people that you don't even know get married is truely troubled already and has nothing really to do with gay marriages.

Gay people getting married has no effect on regular marriages... Your comments in other threads about lost benefits (which is a crock to begin with) doesn't hold water, because in your own words, it's ok if gays marry, but only if to members of the opposite sex... so the net effect of total marriages would remain the same...

So again... please tell us all how it has a negative effect, and supply proof to support your position. Feel free to finally admit that your whole point of view is solely based on religious reasons and nothing else.

[DinoDoc]

I get it now. We apparently only support violating the law when it makes us feel good. How far can we extend this rule?

[Ramo]

Do you think it was ok to lock up Gandhi and MLK? Since they were evil criminals.

[DinoDoc]

So you think it was OK for the judge in Alabama to put the Ten Commandments on the Courthouse property?

[Ramo]

No. I never said that any act of civil disobedience is ok.

And you didn't answer my question.

[DinoDoc]

I fail to see the substantive difference between this case and the question I asked, Ramo. After all they are both examples of "Good old civil disobedience."

[Ramo]

I consider the state promoting religion wrong, and fighting for freedom and equality right. And you still didn't answer my question.

[DinoDoc]

The answer to your question is that if you are going to violate the law in order to push for what you consider to be a societal good be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions. Do I support people like MLK and Ghandi? Yes. Do I support governments that exceede the authority given to them in order to push a cause they consider fashionable? Absolutely not.

[Ramo]

If there's no substantive difference between those two cases, there's no substantive difference between the actions of MLK and OBL. The only way in which they're similar is that were both illegal.

[Ramo]

The answer to your question is that if you are going to violate the law in order to push for what you consider to be a societal good be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.

Is that a yes? You do support locking up Gandhi and MLK?

Do I support governments that exceede the authority given to them in order to push a cause they consider fashionable? Absolutely not.

Well, what you so blithely dismiss as a fashion statement, I consider fighting a fundmental injustice in this country.