Wanna see how easy it is to give have your rights violated? 4th Amend.

[tt11758]

For the same reason the religious right is very good (and quite correctly so) at defending the free excersize of religion, and yet is the first in line to censor what they consider pornography. Folks don't seem to undersand two basic home truths:

The first is that you don't get to choose which of the first ten ammendments you defend. You either protect all of them or you protect none of them, because if we get to pick and choose, sooner rather than later, the government will do the choosing for you.

Secondly, its because its a difficult concept for most people to understand that the price of living in a free society is tolerating people whose lifestyle offends you. Some people don't like homosexuality, some people don't like guns. If we want to be free, we must realize that we are NOT our brother's, much less our neighbor's, keeper, and learn to live and let live. This seems simple, yet its not, because the urge to control other's behavior seems to be hardwired into us. You can't truly be free until you recognize that impulse and reject it. Most folks don't. Hopefully they will, and we will see a majority Libertarian country.
FQ13 who is holding his breath (honest)

Which is why, although I am against gay marriage, I feel I must support the Iowa Supreme Court decision in that regard.  It made some thought provoking points about the civil rights of same sex couples.  If I'm going to fight for my constitutional rights, I must be willing to support the constitutional rights of those with whom I disagree, even if I disagree vehemently. 

It's easy to support free speech, for example, if you agree with what's being said.  The true test is to support the right of somebody to say something, at the top of his lungs, that you would spend the rest of your life opposing at the top of your's.

[tombogan03884]

Which is why, although I am against gay marriage, I feel I must support the Iowa Supreme Court decision in that regard.  It made some thought provoking points about the civil rights of same sex couples.  If I'm going to fight for my constitutional rights, I must be willing to support the constitutional rights of those with whom I disagree, even if I disagree vehemently. 

It's easy to support free speech, for example, if you agree with what's being said.  The true test is to support the right of somebody to say something, at the top of his lungs, that you would spend the rest of your life opposing at the top of your's.

My argument against "Gay Marriage" is this;
1) "Marriage" per se, is a RELIGIOUS  ritual, NOT a legal one. That is why they have "Civil ceremonies" for atheists
2) Couples joined in marriage through church ceremonies must still go through the "Civil" actions of getting a license and filing it.
3) The Bible expressly condemns homosexuality as an "Abomination before God", that should pretty much exclude it's adherents from the rites of Christian churches.
This leads me to believe that gays who wish a formal union should therefore utilize the contractual structures of a "Civil" union.

[twyacht]

I'm all for civil unions. After all, how could I deny Bert & Ernie?



 

LMAO.

[TAB]

you know its funny, here in CA gay couples have had exactly the same rights as married ones.  they fought long and hard to for those.  Just about every one agress that its a good thing.  Infact every gay couple I know, ( I work on a lot of victorians, trust me I know alot of gay couples.) has said they could careless about the term married.   Its just a small group in SF that is making it a big deal.  The bad part is, its turning public opinion against gays with there repeated court cases after the voters have told them to STFU twice now.

[brosometal]

With the talk of conservation officers I thought  I would post a little anticdote:

While living down in South Florida (Naples) I was driving along a long strait heavily used county road.  The lower half of this road touches some Florida State park at some point.  The afformentioned conservation officer was driving a large Bronco with blue lights.  He seemed upset with my rate of speed.  Neither he or I were in the state park at this time.  I was heading home from community college for work.  Needless to say, his lights were flashing and he was gesturing wildly for, at my best estimation, about 15 miles when he finally pulled up along side of my vehicle and motioned more wildly than before.  I could not, in good conscience, say I had missed this final attempt by the fine, upstanding conservation officer so I pulled over.  The minute he could roll himself out of his vehicle (he was a body double to the featured officer here) he was standing red faced and panting at my window.  In my most innocent voice I asked him if there was a problem.  The first words out of his donut disposal were, "If I had my ticket book...".  At that point I knew there would be no real reprocutions to my rebellious streak.  He proceeded to read me the riot act with his face roughly the color of the topic summary bar below (you can see it when you reply).  I continued with my innocent act (hold the jokes, please).  I even asked him to explain a few things about the law, etc.  In the end he "agreed to let me off with a verbal warning" (missing ticket book anyone?) and drove 10 miles out of the way in the process of doing so.

The moral of the story, sometimes you can play dumb with dummys and have a real good time doing it.  That, and stay calm.  It will add a couple of years to your life along with a bit lower blood pressure.

[Sponsor]