Prop. 8 backers: Marriage promotes procreation

I would suggest that as this law does not ban marriage between heterosexualists who have been sterilized, nor whom are over the age of fifty, nor it does not specifically include Larry King; that it be thrown out as unconstitutional.

this is a pretty weak statement, however I do surport Prop 8.

Here is another matter that has not received much attention;

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

May God bless and have mercy on us.

Be sure and Check the Right Box,...

As a Libertarian, who is the government to say who can and can not get married? Since when does the government have that power? No matter the state governments or the Federal government. Not just that, who are we to say who can and can not get married? Is it our place to do that?

Really ask yourself this question. Why is that we as people do not allow homosexuals the same dismal union as marriage as the rest of us?

Id having 2 gay men or women getting married going to affect your personal life or infringe on your rights as declared by our creator and backed in our constitution? What I find amussing about the procreation comment is that majority of the government officials and elites that have power want to reduce the worlds population by 50%. Ted Turner, Bill Gates, Nigbel Brezinski, Rosey Odonnell, Woddy Allen, etc..

Robert wrote:

Here is another matter that has not received much attention;
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
May God bless and have mercy on us.

So, lets see. If I repent now, abstain from any sin between now and 11 May 2011, I am o.k.? Does that give absolution for the time after 11 May? Or will we all have to be judged again? Can I put off repenting until say 1 May 2011 and then repent? Isn't there something in the bible about mankind not knowing the hour and/or date? My, my, what a quandry.

at least comparison of this, and the civil rights movement of the 60's seems to have stopped...

how stupid was THAT?

carey529 wrote:

at least comparison of this, and the civil rights movement of the 60's seems to have stopped...
how stupid was THAT?

Unfortunately, it hasn't stopped.
Just yesterday, a poster was ranting (and I do mean RANTING) about how the homosexual battle is exactly the same as the black civil rights movement, a righteous fight against modern day "Jim Crow laws", etc, etc.

RalphB wrote:

<quoted text>
So, lets see. If I repent now, abstain from any sin between now and 11 May 2011, I am o.k.? Does that give absolution for the time after 11 May? Or will we all have to be judged again? Can I put off repenting until say 1 May 2011 and then repent? Isn't there something in the bible about mankind not knowing the hour and/or date? My, my, what a quandry.

No. It is a trick. They will move the date back again.

Mr_Bill wrote:

I would suggest that as this law does not ban marriage between heterosexualists who have been sterilized, nor whom are over the age of fifty, nor it does not specifically include Larry King; that it be thrown out as unconstitutional.

These arguments are about as lame as I have ever heard.

Since their main argument is procreation I also propose that all heterosexual couples seeking a marriage licenses undergo exams to determine whether they are able or not to procreate.

Also the argument about the divorce rate. What about the divorce rate being up to about 50% in the heterosexual community.

Why don't we just ban marriage for everyone. That way we won't have to worry about divorce anymore.

Legal_American wrote:

<quoted text>
These arguments are about as lame as I have ever heard.
Since their main argument is procreation I also propose that all heterosexual couples seeking a marriage licenses undergo exams to determine whether they are able or not to procreate.
Also the argument about the divorce rate. What about the divorce rate being up to about 50% in the heterosexual community.
Why don't we just ban marriage for everyone. That way we won't have to worry about divorce anymore.

Mr_Bill is a happy heterosexualist who cannot feel any threat from the inimate activities of homosexualists.

I don't get why these people are so fired up about homosexuality, but have no problem with shaved heads, or pierced ears or lips.

If homosexual marriage were allowed, Mr_Bill would be happy to marry homosexualists.(Mr_Bill is authorized to perform marriages.)

carey529 wrote:

at least comparison of this, and the civil rights movement of the 60's seems to have stopped...
how stupid was THAT?

It's not stupid, it's completely apt. When one of us isn't free, none of us are.

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
It's not stupid, it's completely apt. When one of us isn't free, none of us are.

Then you think that denying polygamists the right to marry as many times as they want is also a "civil rights" issue?

And that the laws against it are "Jim Crow" laws targeting polygamists?

Free the polygamists! They have civil rights, too, and NONE OF US ARE FREE until we remove the Jim Crow laws denying their right to practice polygyny, polyandry and group marriage!

JRobert wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you think that denying polygamists the right to marry as many times as they want is also a "civil rights" issue?
And that the laws against it are "Jim Crow" laws targeting polygamists?
Free the polygamists! They have civil rights, too, and NONE OF US ARE FREE until we remove the Jim Crow laws denying their right to practice polygyny, polyandry and group marriage!

You're going to get a lot of argument (if they even reply to this) on these threads. I, however, agree, so long as no one is forced against their will, and all of legal age of consent. If you get a group together to fight for it, I will sign whatever petitions you want, provided they meet those guidelines.

JRobert wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you think that denying polygamists the right to marry as many times as they want is also a "civil rights" issue?
And that the laws against it are "Jim Crow" laws targeting polygamists?
Free the polygamists! They have civil rights, too, and NONE OF US ARE FREE until we remove the Jim Crow laws denying their right to practice polygyny, polyandry and group marriage!

Jesus, I cant hardly handle 1 wife let alone more n 1

sue wrote:

this is a pretty weak statement, however I do surport Prop 8.

Prop H8.
Why are you against equality?

RalphB wrote:

<quoted text>
You're going to get a lot of argument (if they even reply to this) on these threads. I, however, agree, so long as no one is forced against their will, and all of legal age of consent. If you get a group together to fight for it, I will sign whatever petitions you want, provided they meet those guidelines.

Um, I was using sarcasm to point out the utter foolishness of equating same sex marriage to "Civil Rights" and "Jim Crow."

But let's run with it. If you'd sign a petition for polygamists, is there any place you'd draw the line in advocating for "civil rights?"

Careful, now. "Civil rights" aren't only about marriage and no matter where you draw the line, you'll be "denying civil rights" to those on the other side of it.

For example, who gives you the right to arbitrarily decide what the "correct" age of consent is?(It varies from state to state) How about marrying relatives?(Those laws vary from state to state, too)

This labeling everything as a civil right is kind of a slippery road to go down, isn't it?

JRobert wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you think that denying polygamists the right to marry as many times as they want is also a "civil rights" issue?
And that the laws against it are "Jim Crow" laws targeting polygamists?
Free the polygamists! They have civil rights, too, and NONE OF US ARE FREE until we remove the Jim Crow laws denying their right to practice polygyny, polyandry and group marriage!

Polygamists already have the same rights I do.
If I go into the JP office and ask to marry more than one person, I'll be told "No". If a polygamist walks into the JP office and asks to marry more than one person, he'll be told the same thing.
So, while there may be good arguments for and against polygamy, it's not an equal rights issue.

If I walk into the JP and ask to marry a woman, I'll be told, "No".
If a man does the same thing, he'll be told, "Yes". That's not equal, so same sex marriage is an equal rights issue.

JRobert wrote:

<quoted text>
Unfortunately, it hasn't stopped.
Just yesterday, a poster was ranting (and I do mean RANTING) about how the homosexual battle is exactly the same as the black civil rights movement, a righteous fight against modern day "Jim Crow laws", etc, etc.

I think the fights are very similar.
And I'm a black woman who lived under Jim Crow.
It's the fight for equal treatment under the law.

Robert wrote:

Here is another matter that has not received much attention;
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
May God bless and have mercy on us.

that was quite entertaining. Poor old man making a fool out of himself.