A "NO" vote on Prop. 8 won't give us freedom to marry who we choose

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225699393][quote author="graphrix" date=1225683997][quote author="WINEX" date=1225682413]I'm sorry. I can see how you are confused. (You really are confused quite easily) The problem is that I don't write at a level that a 3rd grader can understand then make comments about how "snarky" I am.



Given the choice between writing things that a moron could understand to appease you and communicating with adults, I'm afraid I'll just have to leave you in the dark while I talk with the adults.</blockquote>


That would mean you would actually have to start writing above a 3rd grade level, and writing and behaving like an adult. Until then, it is you who will be left in the dark and thinking that you are an adult, when you have proven that you enjoy behaving like a name calling child. It is too bad you still don't understand that after I, and many other people, have pointed that out to you over and over again. It's not what you say that I and others have an issue with, it is how you say it. If only you could be the bigger person and stop behaving like a name calling child, then maybe you could have some self respect and the respect of others.



I mean, YOU are the one who posted the article about marrying cartoon characters, not ME. Yeah... that makes you so adult like and smarter than me. Good job in pointing that out.</blockquote>


I'll leave you to yourself to play this game of "I know you are, but what am I?". It should be a good way for you to prove how mature you are.</blockquote>


Thanks for proving my point.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225694936]



And, of course, if the state promotes one alternative lifestyle, why should it stop there? What about polygamy? Incest? Why shouldn't the state be forced to recognize all alternative "lifestyles"?</blockquote>


Polygamy and incest are crimes dickhead. Gay sex isn't.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225632640]We won't achieve that goal unless we <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/3283463/Japanese-launch-campaign-to-marry-comic-book-characters.html">do what the Japanese are doing...</a></blockquote>


The Japanese have some interesting laws on the subject.



<a href="http://www.interpol.int/public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaJapan.asp">Japanese sexual offense laws</a>:



I. Ages for legal purposes



Article 2 - Definitions



For the purpose of this Law, a 'child' means a person under the age of 18 years.



Age of majority



The Article 3 of the Japanese Civil Code states that the age of majority is twenty (20) years old.



Age of consent for sexual activity



The Article 177 of the Penal Code puts <strong>the age of consent for sexual actitvity at thirteen (13) years.</strong>



Age of consent for marriage



Articles 731 and 737 of the Civil Code provides that the age of consent for marriage is eighteen (18) years for men, and sixteen (16) for women.



But when a minor wants to get married, he or she needs the consent of his or her parents.
 
[quote author="GOTTI" date=1225700540][quote author="WINEX" date=1225694936]



And, of course, if the state promotes one alternative lifestyle, why should it stop there? What about polygamy? Incest? Why shouldn't the state be forced to recognize all alternative "lifestyles"?</blockquote>


Polygamy and incest are crimes dickhead. Gay sex isn't.</blockquote>


Until recently gay sex was in several states too. Then the US Supreme Court using precedence set in European courts changed that with Lawrence vs. Texas.
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225706422][quote author="GOTTI" date=1225700540][quote author="WINEX" date=1225694936]



And, of course, if the state promotes one alternative lifestyle, why should it stop there? What about polygamy? Incest? Why shouldn't the state be forced to recognize all alternative "lifestyles"?</blockquote>


Polygamy and incest are crimes dickhead. Gay sex isn't.</blockquote>


Until recently gay sex was in several states too. Then the US Supreme Court using precedence set in European courts changed that with Lawrence vs. Texas.</blockquote>




And the law in states like Texas was right? Until not so very recently we've had some pretty crappy laws, like ones that banned blacks and whites from marrying. My husband and I are intimate with ZERO intention of procreating. Some religions deem this as against God. It's one of many ways that we express and share our love for one another. When two people love each other, they express it with physical intimacy along with other expressions. Since the same religion that wants to ban gays from marrying and having sex also go ahead and ban my husband and I from getting it on since we prevent pregnancy?
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1225706906][quote author="WINEX" date=1225706422][quote author="GOTTI" date=1225700540][quote author="WINEX" date=1225694936]



And, of course, if the state promotes one alternative lifestyle, why should it stop there? What about polygamy? Incest? Why shouldn't the state be forced to recognize all alternative "lifestyles"?</blockquote>


Polygamy and incest are crimes dickhead. Gay sex isn't.</blockquote>


Until recently gay sex was in several states too. Then the US Supreme Court using precedence set in European courts changed that with Lawrence vs. Texas.</blockquote>




And the law in states like Texas was right? Until not so very recently we've had some pretty crappy laws, like ones that banned blacks and whites from marrying. My husband and I are intimate with ZERO intention of procreating. Some religions deem this as against God. It's one of many ways that we express and share our love for one another. When two people love each other, they express it with physical intimacy along with other expressions. Since the same religion that wants to ban gays from marrying and having sex also go ahead and ban my husband and I from getting it on since we prevent pregnancy?</blockquote>


Why only two? Why not three people? Or four or more? Should all laws be based on what YOU deem to be sensible? My reading of the 9th and 10th amendments of the US Constitution say that any powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are left to the states and the people. So why should someone posting on the internet from a home in California have the right to decide what is legal in Texas? I'd rather let the mores of society determine that.



And under no circumstances should precedent set by a court in a foreign country be used to form a decision on a US case.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1225708553]If you are so libertarian, then you should darn well agree that the law should keep itself out of our adult bedrooms.</blockquote>


Can you tell me why three people shouldn't be allowed to get married?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225709779][quote author="stepping_up" date=1225708553]If you are so libertarian, then you should darn well agree that the law should keep itself out of our adult bedrooms.</blockquote>


Can you tell me why three people shouldn't be allowed to get married?</blockquote>


Lawrence vs Texas had nothing to do with marriage.
 
[quote author="stepping_up" date=1225710331][quote author="WINEX" date=1225709779][quote author="stepping_up" date=1225708553]If you are so libertarian, then you should darn well agree that the law should keep itself out of our adult bedrooms.</blockquote>


Can you tell me why three people shouldn't be allowed to get married?</blockquote>


Lawrence vs Texas had nothing to do with marriage.</blockquote>


I never said it did. I brought it up because the Federal government used case law from European courts to overrule states rights in an issue they had no business being involved in.



I introduced the question about three people getting married because it is more closely related to the gay marriage issue at hand here. So, what's your opinion on the subject? Should three people be able to get married?
 
[quote author="WINEX" date=1225711881][quote author="stepping_up" date=1225710331][quote author="WINEX" date=1225709779][quote author="stepping_up" date=1225708553]If you are so libertarian, then you should darn well agree that the law should keep itself out of our adult bedrooms.</blockquote>


Can you tell me why three people shouldn't be allowed to get married?</blockquote>


Lawrence vs Texas had nothing to do with marriage.</blockquote>


I never said it did. I brought it up because the Federal government used case law from European courts to overrule states rights in an issue they had no business being involved in.



I introduced the question about three people getting married because it is more closely related to the gay marriage issue at hand here. So, what's your opinion on the subject? Should three people be able to get married?</blockquote>


Don't attack me for asking this, but I'm genuinely curious about the same question. Do many No on 8 supporters feel polygamy should be legal? To me, it would just seem logical that a live-and-let-live philosophy would include plural marriage... but then again, maybe not, as everyone draws their own line somewhere. If anyone is interested on learning more about plural marriage - there is a great book I read called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Carolyn-Jessop/dp/0767927567">"Escape" by Carolyn Jessop. </a> It is about her life inside the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints. It is an extremely captivating true story that gives a peep into the world of this little-known culture. It is an incredible book... even moreso recently as the trials have made headline news.
 
Oh my goodness, I step away from the computer for a day and look what happens. WINEX, strikes again.



I don't want to feed the troll, so this is all I have to say:



I am not deviant. If you believe in g-d, then your g-d made me this way. I am a human being. And I am apparently, a better person than you.



No on Proposition 8 people !!! Two days left !!!



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top