Rosie gets married
- Thread starter Delw
- Start date
How would such a union between the same sex be consumated without breaking any laws, eg. sodomy, oral sex ? Most states have laws regulating such activities, even though they are not enforced to a great extent.
I going to wash my keyboard now. yukkkkkkk
I going to wash my keyboard now. yukkkkkkk
hogwild
New member
Colorado,
Appearently, you did miss something along the way.
Appearently, you did miss something along the way.
JoseCuervo
New member
Del,
Most of these "special laws" are designed to provide equal protection to minority groups. The original Pilgrims came to the US, as England did not afford equal protection for minority groups. There is a reason why every corner in every town has a Church with a different name on it. We allow people the Freedom to worship whatever God they want.
One of the Cornerstones of this country was (and hopefully still is) the Freedoms and Rights we afford to all, including people with Minority interests. Just providing Rights to the Majority is an incredibly oppressive way. Del, if you remember, we used to not allow Blacks to marry. We used to not allow whites to marry Asians.
As one of your "enviromental wakos", I am damn thankful we have Judges with courage who can interpert the Law and enforce it correctly, and kick Welfare Ranchers of MY public lands, which also allows more deer/elk/quail/grouse/etc... to roam around for YOU to hunt. I also am glad that we have other Judges with Courage who are helping me breach the dams on the Lower Snake River by enforcing un-popular laws, so YOU can come to Idaho and catch Salmon and Steelhead, 900 miles from the Ocean. I assure you, after landing a few Salmon in Johnson Creek, you will sell your Bass Boat, and never consider throwing a Texas Rig or a Topwater again.
Most of these "special laws" are designed to provide equal protection to minority groups. The original Pilgrims came to the US, as England did not afford equal protection for minority groups. There is a reason why every corner in every town has a Church with a different name on it. We allow people the Freedom to worship whatever God they want.
Probably the biggest reason, is that we have people getting killed like the kid in Wyoming, or the guy down in Texas who was dragged behind the pick-up due to his skin color. And then you have people like Bill, up above, advocating more murders, due to the same.
One of the Cornerstones of this country was (and hopefully still is) the Freedoms and Rights we afford to all, including people with Minority interests. Just providing Rights to the Majority is an incredibly oppressive way. Del, if you remember, we used to not allow Blacks to marry. We used to not allow whites to marry Asians.
As one of your "enviromental wakos", I am damn thankful we have Judges with courage who can interpert the Law and enforce it correctly, and kick Welfare Ranchers of MY public lands, which also allows more deer/elk/quail/grouse/etc... to roam around for YOU to hunt. I also am glad that we have other Judges with Courage who are helping me breach the dams on the Lower Snake River by enforcing un-popular laws, so YOU can come to Idaho and catch Salmon and Steelhead, 900 miles from the Ocean. I assure you, after landing a few Salmon in Johnson Creek, you will sell your Bass Boat, and never consider throwing a Texas Rig or a Topwater again.
Troy Jones
New member
You guys are some rude son of a guns. Ithaca and Elkgunner swing that way and we should be more sensitive to their feelings.
Can you say homo-phobic?
Can you say homo-phobic?
JoseCuervo
New member
Ahhh... more brilliance from Troy....
Having another bad week at work, Troy? And to think it is only Monday morning. Man, am I glad I don't have your life.
Having another bad week at work, Troy? And to think it is only Monday morning. Man, am I glad I don't have your life.
P
pawclaws
Guest
You still don't get it Elgunner. Let me state this as plainly as possible. Being queer does not qualify one as a minority group member with special protection rights. Sexual preference is clearly a matter of choice regardless of the presence of obsession, compulsion, demonic possession, oppressive spirits, or just plain self delusion. It is a chosen life style; one totally absent any redeeming moral, social, or cultural value. It is a representation of the most abhorant, hedonistic, self gratification, egotistical anti-normal bahavior imaginable and is destructive to the progression and development of a worthwhile society. All that does not excuse the exercise of criminal acts upon queers simply because they are queer; but, it can damned sure help to explain it.
Terry, sorry about the mail, I have two mail programs and your e-mail turned up on the one my wife usually uses, not my default program.
Still waiting for Dave to make his decision, I know what I am going to do. Go for a tag in a great area second choice will be for a mzl cow tag in that same unit, better chance of getting drawn and it would be a great way to get the lay of the land in the area we will be applying for till we draw our bull tags, next choice would be a mzl bull tag where we usually go.
Can you do anything about the weather this fall? A lot cooler and a few inches of snow would be ok . E- mail me your home phone # and I will try to give you a buzz sometime.
Oops ,I almost forgot to put this in:
DID YOU KNOW?
As you walk up the steps to the Capitol Building, which houses the Supreme Court, you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view - it is Moses and the Ten Commandments!
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door. As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy....the rule of few over many.
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
Still waiting for Dave to make his decision, I know what I am going to do. Go for a tag in a great area second choice will be for a mzl cow tag in that same unit, better chance of getting drawn and it would be a great way to get the lay of the land in the area we will be applying for till we draw our bull tags, next choice would be a mzl bull tag where we usually go.
Can you do anything about the weather this fall? A lot cooler and a few inches of snow would be ok
. E- mail me your home phone # and I will try to give you a buzz sometime.Oops ,I almost forgot to put this in:
DID YOU KNOW?
As you walk up the steps to the Capitol Building, which houses the Supreme Court, you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view - it is Moses and the Ten Commandments!
As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door. As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit, a display of the Ten Commandments!
There are Bible verses etched in stone all over the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.
James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".
Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.
Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.
Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law....an oligarchy....the rule of few over many.
The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
How, then, have we gotten to the point that everything we have done for 220 years in this country is now suddenly wrong and unconstitutional?
Colorado Oak,
You are absolutely correct! A Constitutional Amendment here is not only unwarranted, it represents a very scary precedence if it were to happen. The idea that the Constitution would be amended to restrict personal freedom rather than enhance it is a frightening proposition in my opinion.
Paws, I think the jury is still out regarding your comments. For some sexual preference may be a choice, for others it may be genetic. If it is a choice then I would agree with you that homosexuals should not be a protected class. However unless and until we know for sure that it is not genetic I would rather err on the side of caution than on the side of tyranny.
You are absolutely correct! A Constitutional Amendment here is not only unwarranted, it represents a very scary precedence if it were to happen. The idea that the Constitution would be amended to restrict personal freedom rather than enhance it is a frightening proposition in my opinion.
Paws, I think the jury is still out regarding your comments. For some sexual preference may be a choice, for others it may be genetic. If it is a choice then I would agree with you that homosexuals should not be a protected class. However unless and until we know for sure that it is not genetic I would rather err on the side of caution than on the side of tyranny.
What about M Jackson? The same logic used to support gay marriage should apply here as well. Who are we to deny him the freedom to fulfill his lifestyle choice? There are plenty of laws regulating behavior, can you say gays can't be regulated and still be consistant when you make others lifstyle choices illegal? The genetic arguement can be used equally as well for a lot of nasty actions. It was considered quite normal in Roman times to have sex with young boys. If you follow the gay arguement out, isn't putting an age limit on consent a moral issue?
smalls
Well-known member
First, pretty heavy topic for this bunch of rubes.
Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. That being said, if two men join in a "holy union" and call marriage, it doesn't make it so. It is like shooting a par in golf, I can call my par a "hole in one" but it is still a par no matter how many times I refer to it as a hole in one.
Many arguments presented here are insinuate (and state plainly) that we are not just a nation, but that we are a CHRISTIAN nation. That is scary, kinda sounds similar to how many MUSLIM nations see themselves.
All I know is that it is not MY purpose to judge people, that duty is left to someone far grander than myself. Can gays still be good people? Of course they can. People are worried that gay parents can't raise children! LOOK AROUND, it seems us hetero's can't keep a marriage together. The most screwed up kids I know came from perfectly heterosexual parents, some still married, some divorced.
Bill------lay off, you are a disgrace and if you truly believe the things you say you are far worse and far more dangerous to our society than any two men joining in civil union.
My solution? Grant all couples (gay, straight) civil unions as their government "marriage" bond. This would constitute equal rights for everyone. Then let our respective churches/faiths deal with the holy union aspect of marriage (holy union- the important part).
Please, lets now get back to silliness.
Marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman. That being said, if two men join in a "holy union" and call marriage, it doesn't make it so. It is like shooting a par in golf, I can call my par a "hole in one" but it is still a par no matter how many times I refer to it as a hole in one.
Many arguments presented here are insinuate (and state plainly) that we are not just a nation, but that we are a CHRISTIAN nation. That is scary, kinda sounds similar to how many MUSLIM nations see themselves.
All I know is that it is not MY purpose to judge people, that duty is left to someone far grander than myself. Can gays still be good people? Of course they can. People are worried that gay parents can't raise children! LOOK AROUND, it seems us hetero's can't keep a marriage together. The most screwed up kids I know came from perfectly heterosexual parents, some still married, some divorced.
Bill------lay off, you are a disgrace and if you truly believe the things you say you are far worse and far more dangerous to our society than any two men joining in civil union.
My solution? Grant all couples (gay, straight) civil unions as their government "marriage" bond. This would constitute equal rights for everyone. Then let our respective churches/faiths deal with the holy union aspect of marriage (holy union- the important part).
Please, lets now get back to silliness.
45 Hawken,
There is an age limit on consent because as a society we have chosen to protect children from abuse. The children M. Jackson or other pedaphiles abuse are victims because by law they lack the capacity to consent. The age of consent is a legal term that can and should be applied equally across the board and age based laws are intended to protect the innocent from a variety of criminal actions and also prevent punishment if the child lacks the ability to understand the nature of his actions.
I believe you would be hard pressed to make any logical analogy comparing child abuse with the relationship of two adults who have the legal capacity to consent to that relationship. They are two separate issues legally and in my opinion morally as well.
There is an age limit on consent because as a society we have chosen to protect children from abuse. The children M. Jackson or other pedaphiles abuse are victims because by law they lack the capacity to consent. The age of consent is a legal term that can and should be applied equally across the board and age based laws are intended to protect the innocent from a variety of criminal actions and also prevent punishment if the child lacks the ability to understand the nature of his actions.
I believe you would be hard pressed to make any logical analogy comparing child abuse with the relationship of two adults who have the legal capacity to consent to that relationship. They are two separate issues legally and in my opinion morally as well.
Calif. Hunter
Active member
There is no Constitutional separation of Church and State. The only reference is that there shall be no State established or sponsored church/religion. The Founding Fathers all felt that this nation was founded as a Christian nation, with tolerance for all religions. Freedom of religion does not mean absence of religion or morality, although that may be the individual right and he/she has the right not to have "a" religion forced upon them. However, it does not allow a minority the right to force their religion or their will upon the majority, either.
As I said earlier, it all comes down to semantics. "Marriage" means different things, I guess, to different people. To me, it means a relationship between a man and a woman, united before God and the community. If a gay couple wants to be united, then call it "civil union," because it ain't marriage. I could care less about health insurance or tax breaks for them. Let the homos have them. Just don't try to tell me it is the same thing as marriage. Since most homos are not Christian, why do they want to be in a Christian (Or other religious) relationship?
As I said earlier, it all comes down to semantics. "Marriage" means different things, I guess, to different people. To me, it means a relationship between a man and a woman, united before God and the community. If a gay couple wants to be united, then call it "civil union," because it ain't marriage. I could care less about health insurance or tax breaks for them. Let the homos have them. Just don't try to tell me it is the same thing as marriage. Since most homos are not Christian, why do they want to be in a Christian (Or other religious) relationship?
My point is we as a society have taken the position (rightly so) that we can set moral standards. Having sex with young children is immoral. This was not the case in Rome. The question is what text,belief,standard did we and do we use to set the moral standards we have? If being gay is not a choice, but genetic(born that way) as many gay groups like to claim, doesn't the logic follow that the child molesters could claim the same thing, they were born that way? I se this gay marriage issue as the first step down a very slippery slope. Were the gun grabbers content to stop with the Brady bill, or did they see it as the first step of many?
P
pawclaws
Guest
"Paws, I think the jury is still out regarding your comments. For some sexual preference may be a choice, for others it may be genetic" Uhhhhh, Toonces; "Genetic??? How does that work for normally "non child bearing" couples?? Buddy the jury is only still out because those with a vested interest insist that they are normal; which they aren't. I know far too many folk "personally" who have simply changed their minds and either given up or entered the gay lifestyle.
How does that work for normally "non child bearing" couples?? Buddy the jury is only still out because those with a vested interest insist that they are normal; which they aren't. I know far too many folk "personally" who have simply changed their minds and either given up or entered the gay lifestyle.muskrat89
New member
Again, if we can't say "no" to same sex couples, how can we say no to polygamists? What if someone wants to marry their dog? Who, then - is best suited to define marriage? If it needs no definition, why have it at all?
Paws,
Your smarter than that. It could work the same way as a birth defect, baldness, eye color, height, weight etc. The last time I looked couples don't bear clones, they bear children. Brush up on your Darwin.
I don't know what "normal" is, but I am fairly certain "normalcy" is not a viable standard for jurisprudence, at least not in a society that purports to value individual rights and diversity.
Your smarter than that. It could work the same way as a birth defect, baldness, eye color, height, weight etc. The last time I looked couples don't bear clones, they bear children. Brush up on your Darwin.
I don't know what "normal" is, but I am fairly certain "normalcy" is not a viable standard for jurisprudence, at least not in a society that purports to value individual rights and diversity.
Delw
Member
Wow I started a thread and it went 3 pages cool
Gay MArriage is wrong, just plain wrong,
while all states reconize marriage as a man and a women(or they did till fags came along and wanted it changed.
since alot of you are comparing other issues mainly separation from churh and state what about this.
On all our monies everything from a penny to a promisary note there is a saying " in god we trust" so should we take that off the monies to make the minority happy?
Why is it the minority gets thier way changed and the majority has to sit back and have it flaunted in there faces?
What would happen if the majority flaunted(not marriage but everything in general) it in there faces? you would probally be locked up, called mean spirited ,hate mongers blah blah blah....
kinda funny how the minority ie fags, enviromental wakos, white supremises and a few others get all the air time but yet when something goes for the majority its bad and dont make the news....
Dont forget the minority is trying to take away Christmas and thanksgiving( they pretty much got rid of christams decorations in any gov office.)
I believe fags should stay in the closet where they belong, I dont want to see them and I dont want my kids to be around them.
They passed many laws protecting fags but why?
It was already against the law to beat someone up(why didnt they just enforce the law)
its already against the law to kill someone, why have speacial laws if someone kills a fag, black, mexican etc?
What I am getting at is the law is there to begin with for all people wether they are gays, blacks or what ever. why do we have to make special ones?
cool now maybe we can hit 6 pages
Delw
Gay MArriage is wrong, just plain wrong,
while all states reconize marriage as a man and a women(or they did till fags came along and wanted it changed.
since alot of you are comparing other issues mainly separation from churh and state what about this.
On all our monies everything from a penny to a promisary note there is a saying " in god we trust" so should we take that off the monies to make the minority happy?
Why is it the minority gets thier way changed and the majority has to sit back and have it flaunted in there faces?
What would happen if the majority flaunted(not marriage but everything in general) it in there faces? you would probally be locked up, called mean spirited ,hate mongers blah blah blah....
kinda funny how the minority ie fags, enviromental wakos, white supremises and a few others get all the air time but yet when something goes for the majority its bad and dont make the news....
Dont forget the minority is trying to take away Christmas and thanksgiving( they pretty much got rid of christams decorations in any gov office.)
I believe fags should stay in the closet where they belong, I dont want to see them and I dont want my kids to be around them.
They passed many laws protecting fags but why?
It was already against the law to beat someone up(why didnt they just enforce the law)
its already against the law to kill someone, why have speacial laws if someone kills a fag, black, mexican etc?
What I am getting at is the law is there to begin with for all people wether they are gays, blacks or what ever. why do we have to make special ones?
cool now maybe we can hit 6 pages
Delw
