Supreme court to rule on gay rights today? - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 26th, 2013, 10:14 AM   #21
dreezy
Haggard Fab
 
dreezy's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-28-08
Location: Holland Mi
Posts: 10,163
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to dreezy Send a message via MSN to dreezy
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8PTBUCK View Post
Damn. One more reason why I don't like this country.
SCOTUS did the right thing. This should be left up to the states to decide.
__________________
"you think you're precious, I think you're shit."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
Ryan, if I wanted any shit from you, I'd go looking for Leah's strap-on.
dreezy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old June 26th, 2013, 10:21 AM   #22
feva4u
LCG
 
feva4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-01-07
Location: Petoskey, MI
Posts: 10,441
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Yes, you are correct. I am missing the point. What is the connection between this supreme court case regarding same sex marriage and illegal immigration?
They are holding a case to decide whether or not half of the less than 1.8% population(or how ever many people it is) are entitled to federal benefits while 10x that many people are sucking the current systems dry...........bigger issues to worry about.
__________________
My Jeep
feva4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 10:29 AM   #23
addicted
Senior Member
 
addicted's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-31-08
Location: Byron, MI
Posts: 2,279
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
What two people do is not the issue. The issue is should those two people be treated the same if they are same sex.
What two people do is the issue. It all stems from two people choosing to do something that most other people don't understand or are afraid of. Those people want to control them because of their ridiculous fears. If that is what they want to do then let them. It's not up to me, you or anybody else to tell them they can, cannot, or to treat them differently because they choose to do something that isn't infringing on anybody else's freedoms.

Why should two dudes or two chicks getting together and living their lives like a man and woman have any effect on what type of health coverage they can have or who they leave their belongings to when they die? It's not my job, the governments or any other persons to treat them different or tell them that what they are doing is wrong. I don't agree with it on the basis that it is just wrong naturally. Do I really care that Steve and Joe want to play hide the salami? Nope, as long as they don't try and force me to join in.

There are much bigger issues to deal with. Issues our government is actually supposed to be dealing with. Controlling the people at the state or federal level by stripping their freedoms away with petty BS laws is not one of them.
addicted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 10:50 AM   #24
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,507
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by feva4u View Post
They are holding a case to decide whether or not half of the less than 1.8% population(or how ever many people it is) are entitled to federal benefits while 10x that many people are sucking the current systems dry...........bigger issues to worry about.
So what do you think the supreme court should be doing to stop illegal immigration?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 10:59 AM   #25
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,507
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted View Post
What two people do is the issue. It all stems from two people choosing to do something that most other people don't understand or are afraid of. Those people want to control them because of their ridiculous fears. If that is what they want to do then let them. It's not up to me, you or anybody else to tell them they can, cannot, or to treat them differently because they choose to do something that isn't infringing on anybody else's freedoms.

Why should two dudes or two chicks getting together and living their lives like a man and woman have any effect on what type of health coverage they can have or who they leave their belongings to when they die? It's not my job, the governments or any other persons to treat them different or tell them that what they are doing is wrong. I don't agree with it on the basis that it is just wrong naturally. Do I really care that Steve and Joe want to play hide the salami? Nope, as long as they don't try and force me to join in.

There are much bigger issues to deal with. Issues our government is actually supposed to be dealing with. Controlling the people at the state or federal level by stripping their freedoms away with petty BS laws is not one of them.
We have many laws that treat two people that are "married" differently that two people that are not. The question that court should be trying to decide is is it constitutional to define "marriage" as a union between one man and one woman, or does the concept of equality mean that we need to allow any two people to get married.

Arguments based on morality, or love, or what people do with each other in private are just distractions.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 11:11 AM   #26
feva4u
LCG
 
feva4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-01-07
Location: Petoskey, MI
Posts: 10,441
iTrader: (12)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So what do you think the supreme court should be doing to stop illegal immigration?
Overturned Obama's executive order to stop deportation of illegal immigrants using the current immigration laws last year.
__________________
My Jeep
feva4u is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 11:17 AM   #27
GreaseMonkey
Senior Member
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 18,003
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreezy View Post
SCOTUS did the right thing. This should be left up to the states to decide.
Agreed. Yet it's shocking to me how many people fail to recognize how State's rights plays into this. They think the Federal Government says this is good, and now everyone else has to play ball.

I think gay marriage should be allowed, or at least called something else with the same benefits of traditional marriage. However, I have a greater concern for the Federal Government trampling the States to accomplish this. A lot of people seem to want that which really opens the door for other things.
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 11:24 AM   #28
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,507
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreaseMonkey View Post
Agreed. Yet it's shocking to me how many people fail to recognize how State's rights plays into this. They think the Federal Government says this is good, and now everyone else has to play ball.

I think gay marriage should be allowed, or at least called something else with the same benefits of traditional marriage. However, I have a greater concern for the Federal Government trampling the States to accomplish this. A lot of people seem to want that which really opens the door for other things.
I understand how states rights play into it. The problem is that there are federal laws involve treating married people differently than unmarried people. Because of that it also becomes a federal government issue.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 11:32 AM   #29
GreaseMonkey
Senior Member
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 18,003
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I understand how states rights play into it. The problem is that there are federal laws involve treating married people differently than unmarried people. Because of that it also becomes a federal government issue.
Of course. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm just bring up my concern that there are a lot of people that just want the Federal Government to overrule the states on this issue. I think part of the strength we have as the United States, is that we have State's rights.
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 12:18 PM   #30
GreaseMonkey
Senior Member
 
GreaseMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-04-05
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 18,003
iTrader: (22)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	realequality.jpg
Views:	296
Size:	20.0 KB
ID:	107573  
GreaseMonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 12:29 PM   #31
curbdog17
Mini Van
 
curbdog17's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-10-08
Location: 49415
Posts: 32,375
iTrader: (23)
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post

I was looking forward to the gay riot. I bet there would have been whips n chains.
__________________
Scratchin' ma Scraves
curbdog17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 12:30 PM   #32
addicted
Senior Member
 
addicted's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-31-08
Location: Byron, MI
Posts: 2,279
iTrader: (46)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreaseMonkey View Post
addicted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 12:37 PM   #33
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,507
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreaseMonkey View Post
I agree.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 01:07 PM   #34
wolverine 00 xj
Senior Member
 
wolverine 00 xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-22-06
Location: Ypsilanti
Posts: 139
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted View Post
What two people do is the issue. It all stems from two people choosing to do something that most other people don't understand or are afraid of. Those people want to control them because of their ridiculous fears. If that is what they want to do then let them. It's not up to me, you or anybody else to tell them they can, cannot, or to treat them differently because they choose to do something that isn't infringing on anybody else's freedoms.
Why should two dudes or two chicks getting together and living their lives like a man and woman have any effect on what type of health coverage they can have or who they leave their belongings to when they die? It's not my job, the governments or any other persons to treat them different or tell them that what they are doing is wrong. I don't agree with it on the basis that it is just wrong naturally. Do I really care that Steve and Joe want to play hide the salami? Nope, as long as they don't try and force me to join in.
You're wrong in supposing that everyone who opposes this does so based on “fears” and failing to “understand” the issue. I opposed same-sex “marriage” because of what the homosexual activists and their allies want to do to marriage.

“If that is what they want to do then let them. It's not up to me, you or anybody else to tell them they can, cannot, or to treat them differently.”

Are you saying that if, say, three people want to get “married,” they should be able to, with all the gov’t benefits that come along with it? How about six people? Or 20? Or 99? If marriage is just about the state validating somebody’s affections, then there is no basis to not call these relationships “marriage,” if the people love each other. How about the poor little bisexual, who “loves” a man and woman each? If you’re really advocating true “equality,” then why shouldn’t they be allowed to “marry”? Why not a father and a daughter? Why not two (or more) siblings? Limiting marriage to one man and one woman sets a bright line based on biology; if it doesn’t meet this requirement – you can do what you want in private, but it’s not a marriage. Of course I’ll be ridiculed for suggesting these things, but just do your research, all of these things are being proposed and advocated by the “experts,” and soon you’ll be labeled a “bigot” if you don’t support them.

The fact is that traditional marriage and the family have always been scorned and hated by the hard core left. They market this idea by saying they just want to take part in a great old institution, and "make it stronger," when in reality, what they want is to fundamentally change it into what they think it should be. Here’s a good quote from Masha Geeshen, a lesbian journalist that Obama appointed as head of Radio Free Europe: “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.” Link: http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexual...jJVkE.facebook

Of course you’ll never see quotes like this in the mainstream media; they’re into the “Bill and Steve just want a house and a white picket fence” story.

As far as no one forcing you to "join in," that will depend on what you do for a living, and whether you dare to state a position that the homos don’t like. There are numerous cases going on right now across the country where people in the wedding industry are being sued for not wanting to participate in same-sex “weddings.” In one, I believe it’s in Washington, a florist has sold flowers to a guy numerous times, knowing he was a homo. So, it’s clear she had no problem serving him as an individual. However, when she said she did not want to provide flowers for his same-sex “wedding,” he sued her, and got the state Attorney General to file suit against her as well. Photographers and bakers have also been sued under similar circumstances. There will be more cases like this if the coercive power of the state is used to impose an unnatural definition of marriage on people. And please, if anyone is going to make a ridiculous analogy between old laws forbidding marriages between blacks and whites, and restricting marriage to one man + one woman, please provide and explanation of how race and homosexual behavior are the same.

The problem with the Prop. 8 ruling is that the voters approved a statewide definition of marriage, the homosexuals and their allies challenged it in court, and then the state officials simply refused to defend it. Representatives of the voters stepped in to challenge it, and the court says that they lose be default because they don't have standing to bring suit. That just give a blueprint for invalidating the will of voters in the future, as long as you can get the state officials to cooperate - just file suit and then you win because the people can't defend it. Ballot initiatives were meant to allow citizens to get legislation on the books when public officials refused to act. Now the gov't can invalidate ballot initiatives through this technique.

Last edited by wolverine 00 xj; June 26th, 2013 at 01:14 PM.
wolverine 00 xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 03:02 PM   #35
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,507
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine 00 xj View Post
You're wrong
Yep, slippery slopes abound on this issue.

Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing the marriage of any number of people and any thing animal vegetable or mineral getting married.

Restricting marriage is akin to laws forbidding inter-racial marriage.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 03:14 PM   #36
disorder xj
Happy,happy,joy,joy
 
disorder xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 08-13-06
Location: Mio MI.
Posts: 2,900
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
x2
disorder xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 04:20 PM   #37
Steve-in-Petoskey
Looking to ride
 
Steve-in-Petoskey's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-28-07
Location: Petoskey area
Posts: 1,718
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via Skype™ to Steve-in-Petoskey
Default

let them do it, i dont care one way or the other
Steve-in-Petoskey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 04:25 PM   #38
wolverine 00 xj
Senior Member
 
wolverine 00 xj's Avatar
 
Join Date: 06-22-06
Location: Ypsilanti
Posts: 139
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Restricting marriage is akin to laws forbidding inter-racial marriage.
Sorry, but you're going to have to prove that one to me, not just state it like it's self-evident. The fact is that laws against, for example, white and blacks marrying were based on a recognition of the biological basis of marriage - that it produces children (mixed race children). They were not laws that tried to alter the fundamental basis of marriage as between man and woman - they recognized it and tried to keep races apart to avoid mixed race children. That is not a valid comparison at all with laws that limit marriage to man and woman.

"Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing the marriage of any number of people and any thing animal vegetable or mineral getting married."

You can ridicule my statement, but it's just a fact that places that have legalized same-sex "marriage" are moving toward recognizing, for example, "group marriage."

Link: "Just one week after the passage of gay ‘marriage’ legislation in New Zealand, it has been revealed that a group has been formed whose goal is to have group marriages recognized in law." http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gro...rriage-in-new/

Last edited by wolverine 00 xj; June 26th, 2013 at 04:29 PM.
wolverine 00 xj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 04:33 PM   #39
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,507
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolverine 00 xj View Post
Sorry, but you're going to have to prove that one to me, not just state it like it's self-evident. The fact is that laws against, for example, white and blacks marrying were based on a recognition of the biological basis of marriage - that it produces children (mixed race children). They were not laws that tried to alter the fundamental basis of marriage as between man and woman - they recognized it and tried to keep races apart to avoid mixed race children. That is not a valid comparison at all with laws that limit marriage to man and woman.
I didn't mean to sound like I believe it, just that it is the other side of the slippery slope. i.e. loosening restrictions leads to no control, tightening restrictions leads to total control.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2013, 04:39 PM   #40
HVYRTFT
Reed my teef
 
HVYRTFT's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-17-07
Location: Whitehall,MI
Posts: 2,445
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

I don't want it to happen because it makes scouting the local poontang that much harder. HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW YOU LIKE OTHER GIRLS!?
HVYRTFT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.36717 seconds with 82 queries