RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8

It gets the ball rolling & breaks some barriers.

You don't mind "breaking some barriers" illegally?

Like I said: Irrational and reactionary.

Its the wrong way. Its not how the country works.

how many times in this same thread have people pointed out that marriage is a privilege, not a right? if driving were a right you wouldn't need a license for it, now would you? basically it sounds like people want the legal perks of marriage, like the example given of access to terminally-ill patients and the like. well there are already a lot of provisions in place that grant certain of those perks - in the case of the terminally ill, a living will can specify who gets to do what with what with full force of law. seems to me that the people clamoring for this are either after the perks - which can be gotten in other ways - or are simply interested in imposing themselves into yet another institution they'd have no interest in if there were no controversy (attention!) attached to it.

It's not even that.

Actually I think it is how this country works. If you want something like the right to vote, own land or marry someone from a different race you push & keep pushing for it & pursue it at any legal avenue availlable.

Ding! We have a winnah!

That's why you will never get what you want. You'd rather wait around for the government to do something for you.





That's why I hate the liberal mindset.

Like the Bolsheviks!


Democracy was the legal avenue available. Coercing the courts into enforcing conflicting fiats on a consensus is not a legal avenue. It's fascism. And it breaks the legal system.

Captain I can honestly tell you it's not a case of just seeking attention. Despite all the partisan back & forth that goes on here, you should remember I'm still a person that cheers on the same comic book goodguys that you do.

you know a great way to get to do something you're not allowed to do? move someplace where you're allowed to do it.

I'm not referring to you specifically - hell, for all I know you're a pretty decent guy. but seriously - why is it such a big deal? as I said, there are avenues in place in many jurisdictions to obtain some of the same legal benefits. so what's it really about to you? why is this marriage thing so important that you feel the need to circumvent the proper channels of democracy to make it fit your lifestyle? I seriously want to know.

You skipped over that it's just the opposite of waiting for the government to do something for me. I look at it as one of many battles that will require more work & effort on my part.

IN THE ASS!

MEM is terrified of me.



You mean more complaining and more whining when people who dissent against your POV don't adhere to the demographic pressure you try to impose upon them?

Waiting for activist judges and mayors to change laws for you is the very definition of the government doing something for you. You really need to learn how things work.

It's a case where it's different when it's you being told that you have some rights & that should be good enough.

We all have some rights that are good enough. We can't just go around inventing rights.

If that was it you would be correct but as I said it's just part of the effort to change things. You seem to be locked into that being the only way gays are trying to get that right.

see that's where it sounds like a plea for attention. that may not be your intent but it really comes across that way - I have a hard time seeing it as gays wanting in on a tradition that badly.

It is the only legal and constitutional way. Why can't you understand that?

Actually gays have access to traditional marriage, as in they can get married. It's the legal license & the rights that come with it that isn't there for most of the country. Why would gays be any different than hetrosexuals? Some want to marry that special some one. Some don't.

BTW Pariah, I am reading your posts but just don't agree with your opinions thus far.

we could be here a while...

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I think you misunderstood what you were saying.

Distinguishing marriage as "traditional" is superfluous since there is no other kind of marriage. Marriage is marriage. The underlying principles of the institution remain the same; you can't change them. Therefore, you can't consider anything that you define as "non-traditional" to be a form of marriage.



This has already been explained to you. Gays are not different, which is exactly why they're not being treated any differently when it comes to getting married. Two straight people of the same sex cannot get married anymore than two gay people of the same sex can get married.

One man. One woman. Government supports the family unit. Sexuality is irrelevant to the state.



If all you care about is titular concerns, there are plenty of Protestant churches out there that would perform a ceremony and give you a certificate that says you're married.



Yes, and you don't respond to them. Meaning that you're terrified of arguing with me on this. You can't argue against truth.

Rex I didn't make that judge or mayor decide gay marriage was legal so you make as much sense as Pariah when he continues to state so many of his opinions as facts.

I don't understand this. It is okay for gays to rub their POV in non-gays faces but not the other way around?

wouldn't be news to me.

No, it would be like me going to a KKK rally with a gay rights sign & not expect trouble.

?!

Mem, you're borderline retarded, aren't you? Just admit it.

But it would be wrong for them to assault you for exercising your freedom of speech.

So, under MEM's standard, Matthew Shepherd got what was coming to him, coming out like that in a redneck community?

You actually think the idea that there's a difference between privileges, rights, and institutions constitutes an opinion?

No wonder you think the courts are just one big magical concierge that was designed to circumvent the democratic process.

How can you say that? I said it wasn't right to trample the woman's styrafoam cross. How & why do you make the jump to me having a standard like you say I do?

You said that the woman getting her cross trampled would be like you (a gay man) "going to a KKK rally with a gay rights sign & not expect[ing] trouble."

The implication of your statement was "blame the victim."

I am sure you don't really think that Shepherd got what was coming to him. However, the analogy you used was not particularly well thought out and, by its own logic, leads to the conclusion I drew, facetiously, about Shepherd.

So you said something that only works as long as you ignore what doesn't fit.

Everything fits under your inartful analogy. That is why I pointed out it was flawed.

I don't see where it fits in that I said it wasn't right to assault someone (as in they don't deserve it)

You however compare a boy beaten to death to a bit of trampled styrafoam.