Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Gay Marriage and bike split times
Quote | Reply
What are people's opinion on gay marriage. I really support it, anyone who wants to form more stable relationships and loving families gets all my support. Also, it doesnt hurt me at all, i have never once been affected adversely because someone else is gay. After a race ive never turned to a buddy and said, "I would have pulled a 2:30 bike split, but those damn gays just keep getting married..."
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Goverment has no place making laws about marraige and anyone should marry anyone they want. If it is two hot older asian chicks...GAME ON!!!

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Part of me will always be like...yuck! (with the exception that I'm with Tibbs! :) ) But the part that can think believes it is a matter of equal protection under the law. No one wants to tell any religion what to do with this issue. Only to give everyone the same rights to everyone. I'm afraid the people on the other side of this issue are going to be remembered by history the same way the people on the wrong side of the civil rights stuff are remembered. No one has been able to explain to me what the difference is between separate marriages (i.e. civil unions), and separate bathrooms, schools, etc.

Chris
Quote Reply
I love racing with gays... [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I had a great run at Bay to Breakers. When all those naked guys came out of the alley, I hit the afterburners and dropped my splits by nearly a minute per mile...

As Richard Pryor said: "You got to keep that n##### laughing 'cuz I am NOT gonna give up the booty.


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [triiowa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Only to give everyone the same rights to everyone."
- - Actually, the homosexual agenda is about special rights for gays. The only big deal about marriage is the creation of a family for the sake of children. All the other stuff, i.e, health insurance, power of attorney to make decisions in an emergency, joint buying power, etc., are already available to same-sex couples.

What they want is special rights, and the ability to sue for "discrimination." It's like the trans-gender freaks who want to use the ladies room just because they're wearing a dress, but still have a dick. The ladies should have the right to NOT be exposed (!) to that.

I'm currently unmarried, but living with a great lady. We're committed to each other, but as we're both WAY too old to have kids (and don't want them anyway, because they screw up your training schedule) so we just share a house and living expenses. We get a couples rate on car insurance, and we're on the same health plan. No advantage to getting married, except that it would make it more difficult for her (red tape) if she decides to dump me.

On second thought...


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm all for faster bike splits, and if promoting gay marriage will help me....

Seriously though, there is no logical reason for not allowing gay couples to marry, or recieve the same benefits that non-gay couples enjoy. Sexual orientation has no bearing on one's ability to love, think rationally, or raise a child. Some of the best people I've ever met have been gay, while some of the most evil people I've ever met have been straight. (This is not to say that gay people are good and that straight people are evil - no misinterpretations of my words, please).

I'm guessing that there was some ruling in the US regarding this issue recently (I live in a hole) and truly hope that one day very soon, sexual orientation will cease to be an issue for the majority of people.


<If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough>
Get Fitter!
Proud member of the Smartasscrew, MONSTER CLUB
Get your FIX today?
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [triiowa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would have a lot less of a problem with gay marriage if its advocates would just get it approved legislatively. My Civics course said the legislative branch makes the laws. Go ahead and pass the law. They did in Vermont, sort of. I will oppose such laws, but if they are legitimately passed in a democratic process, so be it.

This nonsense in MA, where 4/7 judges rewrite the constitution is garbage. They just make up rights that they want out of thin air. That path leads to disaster.
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
:) That's why I got marrried, now she can't just open the door and kick me out.

I believe in equal rights not special treatment. I wish the world were that simple.

As for the chicks-with-dicks...I can't even form a rational opinion about all that...where does it end?

Chris
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, yes and no. If we're talking about new laws, I agree with you. But if were talking about the constituionality of existing laws, that an issue for the courts. The question of the denial of equal protection under the law (14th ammendment), it's a question for the courts. I see this question as a matter of the equal application of marriage laws. Some people are being denied the right to marry (by the state) based on sexual orientation. In that case it is a matter for the courts. Without some judicial activism we wouldn't have Roe v. Wade, civil rights, etc. It's a double edged sword, but I'd like to believe in the long run the system works (and yes, I'm probably naive).

Chris
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [triiowa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Yes, perhaps you are right. Maybe we should just dissolve all the legislatures. Judges are much wiser than these elected officials. We should just let them make all the policy decisions. Why have to go to all that work of forming consensus and making compromises when it is so much easier just to convince four judges rather than a majority of citizens? This democracy stuff is such a pain and so untidy. It is way too much work.

Sorry, but my version of history says that Congress passed major Civil Rights legislation on a bipartisan basis in 1964. Without judicial activision America would have legal abortion in some states gained by way of legitimate legislation. The judicial selection process wouldn't be the disaster it is now. Without the judicial activism in the Dread Scott case, we probably would have never had a Civil War as slavery would have fallen apart as an institution in the wake of the Industrial Revolution.

Somehow, I doubt the Puritians who wrote the MA Constitution wrote gay marriage into it. If they had, please explain to me how they would have known they had done it. While you are at it, please explain how the drafters of the 14th amendment would have known the same thing.

Now that I think about, maybe we should stick with elections.
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How does all this relate to crank length, or did I skip threads?
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's a 50/50 split for me. I'm not homophobic in any way but just don't think of two guys or gals living together as "family". A couple OK, but not "family".

I've been thru the legalities of divorce and wonder why they even want the legal institution of marriage. If the relationship fails, and statistically it's even higher in gay relationships, it's a lot easier to just walk away without that big legal contract hassle. If gay marriage becomes legal, gay divorces are just going to make more work for the lawyers.
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
In Reply To:
"Only to give everyone the same rights to everyone."
- - Actually, the homosexual agenda is about special rights for gays. The only big deal about marriage is the creation of a family for the sake of children. All the other stuff, i.e, health insurance, power of attorney to make decisions in an emergency, joint buying power, etc., are already available to same-sex couples.


This isn't the case in many places. I know that if you work for the State of North Carolina you cannot have your domestic partner on the same health plan. Maybe we're a little slow down here in NC, but it's a problem for gay couples. There are other issues at work as well, such as legal rights of adopted children. As of now, only one person is able to adopt a child/children, and the other "parent" does not hold legal rights over the child. On the flip side, the person is technically counted as a "single" parent since their partner is not a legal guardian, which can qualify the family for free school lunch and other benefit programs. My view is that if a homosexual couple is committed, let them be committed with all of the rights, privileges, and benefits of a heterosexual couple. And if it's going to help my bike split, all the more reason :) Adam
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm all for it. I'd vote for it, and I couldn't care less if gays/lesbians want to adopt kids. However, I think it would work better if they stopped referring to it as 'marriage'. The word 'marriage' has special meaning to religious people (not me), and that's where the big backlash is coming from. Technically it would be what straights know as marriage (though obviously not in the eyes of a church), though maybe referred to by some other name.

Also, anyone know why this is suddenly a big issue around the world. It's cropped up in the US, here in Australia, and I think also in France & Britain. I guess it's a sign of the ol' gloabl village?
Last edited by: WebSwim: Jul 5, 04 19:19
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [gcpicken] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
You said crank length in a gay marriage thread.

snicker snicker snicker

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [ajfranke] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you are correct, what is the purpose of the judicial branch? If not to pass judgement on the constitutionality of the laws (passes by the legislative branch), what is their purpose?

The 14th Ammendment doesn't have ANYTHING to do with gay marriage! The application of the 14th ammendment in this case is in the unequal application of the law. States discriminate against a group of people based on sexual orientation, in other words they are not equally applying the law.

In MA, the issue is not gay marriage directly, it is the issue of discrimination and equal protection. It just so happens that the question of equal protection applies to marriages between same-sex couples. That is an issue for the courts.

What about checks & balances? If the legislature passes a law that is unconstitutional, who decides that question?

In this case, the court's decision seems to be very un-popular with many people. I suspect that Brown v. Board of Education was not well received in many quarters in the South. :) Does that mean separate but equal was okay back then...after all those laws came from the legislatures of the time.

I guess my real question to you is: Do believe it is okay to treat one group of people by different rules based on a trait/characteristic?

Chris

PS. Believe me, I hear what you're saying. Pick the right issue and I'd be making your argument. I can't stand activist judges/courts when I disagree with them. :)
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [apolack1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If their agenda wasn't to educate my children I wouldn't care less. From my religious perspective, it's wrong, and like all the things I do wrong, I try not to. From a natural perspective, it's wrong, as it doesn't propagate the species. I don't think about it much, but you asked.
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [triiowa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I can't stand activist judges even when I agree with them. That is where we diverge.

Gay men are not treated differently. They can marry members of the opposite sex just as you and I can. If you disagree with that, then what about poor Mr. Tibbs above? He wants to marry two hot chicks (as if he could handle them, but I digress). He is not being treated equally.

Reality check. We treat men and women differently all the time. Try walking into the girls locker room if you don't agree. I think it might have a lot to do with the fact that they are different. Legislatures have a way of realizing such things and writing laws in the spirit of compromise to make suitable accomodations. That is why democracies work. Well, they work better than anything else anyway.

It is the job of the courts to interpret the laws and the constitution according to my Civics course. Brown vs. Board of Education is a simple equal protection argument. Abortion, gay marriage, and the constitutional right to sodemy are not. They are plucked out of thin air by activist judges.

I don't want to be ruled by judges and other lawyers. I will take my chances with the people. I will lose my fair share with them, but I will accept it.

Pardon me, but we have 1,000 years of common law establishing marriage as between a man and a woman. Maybe the precedent should merit a little respect.

I am really waiting for your explaination of how it was that the Puritians wrote gay marriage into the MA constitution. This should be good. The MA court specifically wrote their decision so as to avoid any mention of the federal constitution. That would have invited Supreme Court review. They couldn't allow that, since they would lose. They based their decision on the MA constitution.
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [marko16] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"From a natural perspective, it's wrong, as it doesn't propagate the species. "

Hot guy on guy action is everywhere in the animal kingdom.



This question is for everyone. Why do you wan't the goverment involved in marriage? I think it is up to your church to decide. If your church doesn't want to marry gay couples then you should not do it if your church want too then marry away. My issue is why do you want the goverment to say any marriage is ok?

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the gov wanted it. The money they make is my guess. I feel no need for my govt to approve or dissaprove. Got to be the taxes and license fee.
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [triiowa] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
One of the strongest arguements against homosexual marriage is that it violates the Harm Principle. Homosexuals often want to marry so that they can adopt children together; parenting involves other people (children) who can neither consent to their situation nor leave it. Many people contend that gays' relationships have a much higher failure rate than their straight counterparts. Marital failure is harmful to children who cannot consent to be harmed; marital failure is a violation of JS Mill's Harm Principle. Gay parenthood results in statistically deviant rates of harm (high failure rate involving children). Because gay parenthood harms others at an abnormally high rate it can be banned.

Insert "X" in place of homosexual marriage and much of our modern law is explained. If a behavior is "other regarding" and unusually harmful, the public, acting through its elected leaders, has a right and obligation to stop it.

This arguement has several weaknesses, among them the disputable assumption of greater rate of gay breakup. Even if statistics show that gay relationships are shorter lived than straight, this may be to confuse the chicken and the egg: gays may be less commited due to lacking formal commitments, such as marriage and shared property.

Nonetheless, the format of the arguement involving the Harm Principle is valid. If a particular behavior is unusually harmful it can, and should, be banned. If instituational marriage applied to social subgroups has different results it is no longer a case of equal protection.

Caleb
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [Mr. Tibbs] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Marriage is a subcategory of property law. Governments originally became involved in it prior to the feminist movement and working women in an effort to protect children from deadbeat fathers. If a woman had a child out of wedlock she was entitled to no support from the father. With churches holding the sole charge for marriage tracing the entitlement of the mothers and children was often difficult. By legalizing the marital commitment a contract was formed entitling women and children to basic protections and a share of the collective property in the event of a divorce.

In a post-feminist state where child support entitlements exist regardless of marital status at birth the state may not have any business in marriage. Presently, state involvment in marriage seems well intrenched and widely accepted.

Caleb
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [caleb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I posted earlier that there have been psychological studies following children of gay parents (most have been done on 2 lesbian parents), and finding that the children turned out no differently from the children of heterosexual parents on measures of gender identity, sexual orientation, psychological health, etc. if anyone has access to a university library, search for this article: also,

Flaks, David; Ilda Ficher; Masterpasqua, Frank; Joseph, Gregory; Lesbians Coosing Motherhood: A Comparative Study of Lesbian and Heterosexual Parents and Their Children. Developmental Psycholgy, 1995, Vol 31(1)



also, it is emphatically not the case that same-sex marriage is against religion. the Unitarian-Universalist church has conducted such marriages for decades (and if their divorce rate is any higher than the national average, I have yet to hear of it). the Episcopal church ordained an out gay bishop with a partner (long term partner). there are organizations that fight for gay rights in many Christian denominations, including the Catholics (Dignity), Lutherans (More Light), American Baptists (Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists), Mormons (Affirmation), Presbyterians (More Light Presbyterians)... in my opinion, the best way of respecting the institution of marriage is to welcome everyone into it. we used to think that the races shouldn't mix, and we got over that. and, consider that sexual orientation is unchangeable. if we force gay people to be dishonest with themselves, and pretend that they are straight, many of their marriages will dissolve. Gene Robinson's marriage dissolved, because he was gay. he did have kids. he later found a partner, and his wife was OK with it, as were his kids. and he is now an Episcopal bishop. his story turned out all right. many stories do not. if we cling to the notion that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, I fear that we disrespect the institution of marriage.
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [adampom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I know that if you work for the State of North Carolina you cannot have your domestic partner on the same health plan."
- - OK, but if you're not married, and don't have children, maybe your domestic partner should have a job? The whole health plan for families was about raising children. Most young folks today don't realize that the majority of households "back in the day..." had one wage-earner, and a stay-at-home mom.

"Maybe we're a little slow down here in NC, but it's a problem for gay couples."
- - It's a problem for unemployed singles, too.

"There are other issues at work as well, such as legal rights of adopted children."
- - I don't think gays should adopt. My personal belief (strongly held) is that a child needs a mother and a father, not a dad and queen. You may have different views, but the studies I've seen demonstrate that orphans have a tough enough time without having to figure out the birds and the birds.

"which can qualify the family for free school lunch and other benefit programs."
- - More social programs, all of which I abhor to begin with.

"And if it's going to help my bike split, all the more reason :) "
- - OK, well now we may be onto something...


Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...
Quote Reply
Re: Gay Marriage and bike split times [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"I don't think gays should adopt. My personal belief (strongly held) is that a child needs a mother and a father, not a dad and queen. You may have different views, but the studies I've seen demonstrate that orphans have a tough enough time without having to figure out the birds and the birds. "

Hey there super rebulican are you for against the goverment being involved in marriage.

My bigger question is what makes you think that orphans don't have to figure out the birds and the bees.

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.
Quote Reply

Prev Next