Gay Marriage in California

2012-02-11 06:07:47

#251

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5359|London, England

The stupidity of DoMA hit home last night for me. We were out to dinner with two of our friends that are a lesbian couple and the conversation got around to the difficulty one was going to have in securing a visa when she finishes her studies in England this May. She has to secure a job first and then apply for the visa and deal with a whole drawn out tedious process before she can move here.

By contrast, my cousin recently moved home from Argentina where he lived for two years, and he brought home his girlfriend. He's planning to marry her in order for her to secure a green card so she can stay here. Whatever, not really fraud as they were likely to marry anyway, my countries immigration policies simply speed the process.

Even though gay marriage was recently legalized here in New York, that option isn't open to them because of the legislated discrimination known as the Defense of Marriage Act. The federal government does not recognize any of the gay marriages performed at the state level and thus, among many other things, they can't do the marriage for green card bit available to straight people. It's a small thing, sure, but I'd hate to be in their shoes with all the hurdles they have to clear just because of bigotry.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-02-11 08:22:51

#252

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6682|Disaster Free Zone

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Government has no right to tell us who we can and can't marry. That has nothing to do with government. I'm against homosexuality but if they want to marry that's their deal and we're to have no say in it.

Errrr, the government is the only ones with the right to tell you who can and can not marry. They are the ones who make the laws, keep the records and give out all the benefits depending on marital status. It is a 100% government issue and only has any legality if it is government approved.

Should the government on the other hand discriminate? imo; No.

2012-02-11 11:22:16

#253

HITNRUNXX: Member; +220|6711|Oklahoma City

DrunkFace wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Government has no right to tell us who we can and can't marry. That has nothing to do with government. I'm against homosexuality but if they want to marry that's their deal and we're to have no say in it.
Errrr, the government is the only ones with the right to tell you who can and can not marry. They are the ones who make the laws, keep the records and give out all the benefits depending on marital status. It is a 100% government issue and only has any legality if it is government approved.

Should the government on the other hand discriminate? imo; No.

DF has a good point, which is actually part of the argument a lot of the ridiculously religion people were making against gay marriage... They were concerned that once the government loses control of dictating who can be married and who can't, it will get worse...

Examples they used (Not necessarily my opinions on things):
What about religions that believe in more than one spouse? Are we going to allow them to marry several people?
What about people who like animals? Are we going to legalize sex and marriage with them?
What about inanimate objects? Can a woman marry her vibrator and collect more tax breaks?
etc...
Basically a "where does it stop, and where do we draw the line" mentality.

Now here are my opinions:
I believe homosexuality is a sin... BUT, I also believe lying, cheating, murdering, etc are all sins... And we don't outlaw any of them from getting married... The church doesn't stand up and argue that a guy that cheats on his wife repeatedly should not be ALLOWED to get married again by law. Murderers get married in jail. Churches are putting a number limit on things, so some people I know have been married 4, 5, and 6 until death do us parts.

I think religion strikes out against homosexuality more than any other group of people because they have a line of demarcation between them. I can't very well condemn a liar, because hey, I am human and I might lie. I can't condemn a cheater, because I can see some situations where I might do something that might blur the line on cheating... Or under the right (or wrong) circumstances step over that line entirely. I can see situations where I might have to take another human life, regardless of how opposed I am to doing it, I know I probably would if I was put into a situation where I felt it was the only way to protect me or my family.

But I sure as hell know I am not going to be banging some other dude, so THEM I can condemn.

This is totally and completely wrong, even from a religious standpoint. Especially a religion that preaches "All sin is equal in the eyes of the Lord" and "Judge not, lest ye be judged." We, as humans, can turn a blind eye to things we could see ourselves doing, but damn anything that is outside of out comfort zone.

I don't think "homosexuality is the plague that will wipe away all civilization." I personally feel that even lying (which people consider the smallest thing you can do wrong, for some reason) hurts our civilization more than being gay ever could.

I would rather live next to a nice gay married couple than next to the straight psycho bitch that I live next to now.

I would rather live next to a nice gay couple than a murderer, habitual liar, child abuser, animal abuser, thief, or even a reckless driver.

I would rather live next to a nice gay couple than to a mean straight couple.

I would rather live next to a nice straight couple than to a mean gay couple.

So before anyone decides to try to go "fix" other people, they better be damn sure they have fixed themselves first... AND THEN they had better approach it as trying to help, and be supportive, rather than damn you all to hell.

2012-02-11 11:44:08

#254

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5260|foggy bottom

and minorities

Tu Stultus Es

2012-02-11 11:48:24

#255

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6406|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
OK, Cindy Williams. We all get free food at the commissary and free TVs at the BX, too.

One of your more uninformed posts, Turq.

Well, I guess I could've been more honest.

I'd mostly prefer that we cut military spending so that I didn't have to pay for people like you.

2012-02-11 11:49:00

#256

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6406|North Carolina

Jay wrote:
eleven bravo wrote:
i never understood how a soldier would have a family on welfare. the military pays more than twice as much for people with dependants. if a soldiers pay including all the extra money is not enough to raise a family of several members then its because that soldier had previous financial issues
People always talked about it like it was an issue that pre-dated our time in service anyway. I know they raised pay a lot in the late 90s which removed the whole soldier on welfare thing. I know some people still collected food stamps, but like you said, that had more to do with shit like trying to raise six kids on an E-2's salary.

I can't believe I read turq's post. I felt dumber when I finished it.

I'll say it again. Fuck off.

2012-02-11 12:01:56

#257

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5260|foggy bottom

somebody is on their period

Tu Stultus Es

2012-02-11 12:08:01

#258

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6406|North Carolina

When people are rude, I don't hold back. You, of all people, should know that.

2012-02-11 12:16:41

#259

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6412|'Murka

13urnzz wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Government has no right to tell us who we can and can't marry. That has nothing to do with government. I'm against homosexuality but if they want to marry that's their deal and we're to have no say in it.
you, apparently, are not a Republican. g t f o of my country.

not really

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-11 12:18:14

#260

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6412|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
OK, Cindy Williams. We all get free food at the commissary and free TVs at the BX, too.

One of your more uninformed posts, Turq.
Well, I guess I could've been more honest.

I'd mostly prefer that we cut military spending so that I didn't have to pay for people like you.

Very nice.

Would you rather I did point-by-point refutation of that post? Would it make you feel more or less smug to have your lack of understanding on the topic pointed out in that way?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-11 12:20:46

#261

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5260|foggy bottom

Turquoise wrote:
When people are rude, I don't hold back. You, of all people, should know that.

lol

Tu Stultus Es

2012-02-11 12:23:16

#262

SEREMAKER: BABYMAKIN EXPERT √; +2,187|6569|Mountains of NC

soooooooooo cali peeps voted against prop 8 ......... and its back in the courts

hmmm government of the people, by the people, for the people

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg

2012-02-11 12:25:28

#263

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6406|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
OK, Cindy Williams. We all get free food at the commissary and free TVs at the BX, too.

One of your more uninformed posts, Turq.
Well, I guess I could've been more honest.

I'd mostly prefer that we cut military spending so that I didn't have to pay for people like you.
Very nice.

Would you rather I did point-by-point refutation of that post? Would it make you feel more or less smug to have your lack of understanding on the topic pointed out in that way?

If my assumptions were wrong, I guess I'll take your word for it. I was trying to give a general view on it that would appeal to more people, but if it was all false, then yes, I can honestly say that I prefer less military spending in general because I think we get involved in things we don't belong in.

I really couldn't give a shit less about what's going in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think the War on Terror is bullshit, and we have a military so utterly fucking bloated that it needs to be cut tremendously, jobs be damned.

You said it yourself in the other thread. The government's reasoning on these interventions are mostly just political, so why not cut it?

2012-02-11 12:30:02

#264

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5359|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

Well, I guess I could've been more honest.

I'd mostly prefer that we cut military spending so that I didn't have to pay for people like you.
Very nice.

Would you rather I did point-by-point refutation of that post? Would it make you feel more or less smug to have your lack of understanding on the topic pointed out in that way?
If my assumptions were wrong, I guess I'll take your word for it. I was trying to give a general view on it that would appeal to more people, but if it was all false, then yes, I can honestly say that I prefer less military spending in general because I think we get involved in things we don't belong in.

I really couldn't give a shit less about what's going in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think the War on Terror is bullshit, and we have a military so utterly fucking bloated that it needs to be cut tremendously, jobs be damned.

You said it yourself in the other thread. The government's reasoning on these interventions are mostly just political, so why not cut it?

Because pretty much everything you listed was wrong. We don't have a bunch of military people on welfare. We don't upgrade our equipment all that often (We're using 1960s technology in our rifles and tanks from the late 70s).

Yes, I agree that our military needs to be drastically shrunk, but if you're going to make that argument, don't riddle it with bad information and assumptions.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-02-11 16:28:12

#265

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6412|'Murka

Jay wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
FEOS wrote:

Very nice.

Would you rather I did point-by-point refutation of that post? Would it make you feel more or less smug to have your lack of understanding on the topic pointed out in that way?
If my assumptions were wrong, I guess I'll take your word for it. I was trying to give a general view on it that would appeal to more people, but if it was all false, then yes, I can honestly say that I prefer less military spending in general because I think we get involved in things we don't belong in.

I really couldn't give a shit less about what's going in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think the War on Terror is bullshit, and we have a military so utterly fucking bloated that it needs to be cut tremendously, jobs be damned.

You said it yourself in the other thread. The government's reasoning on these interventions are mostly just political, so why not cut it?
Because pretty much everything you listed was wrong. We don't have a bunch of military people on welfare. We don't upgrade our equipment all that often (We're using 1960s technology in our rifles and tanks from the late 70s).

Yes, I agree that our military needs to be drastically shrunk, but if you're going to make that argument, don't riddle it with bad information and assumptions.

This. And while we're at it, let's look at the REAL source of our budget deficits and debt: entitlement spending.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-11 16:32:37

#266

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5359|London, England

FEOS wrote:
Jay wrote:
Turquoise wrote:

If my assumptions were wrong, I guess I'll take your word for it. I was trying to give a general view on it that would appeal to more people, but if it was all false, then yes, I can honestly say that I prefer less military spending in general because I think we get involved in things we don't belong in.

I really couldn't give a shit less about what's going in Iraq or Afghanistan. I think the War on Terror is bullshit, and we have a military so utterly fucking bloated that it needs to be cut tremendously, jobs be damned.

You said it yourself in the other thread. The government's reasoning on these interventions are mostly just political, so why not cut it?
Because pretty much everything you listed was wrong. We don't have a bunch of military people on welfare. We don't upgrade our equipment all that often (We're using 1960s technology in our rifles and tanks from the late 70s).

Yes, I agree that our military needs to be drastically shrunk, but if you're going to make that argument, don't riddle it with bad information and assumptions.
This. And while we're at it, let's look at the REAL source of our budget deficits and debt: entitlement spending.

*cough*

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-02-11 16:35:42

#267

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6412|'Murka

Thanks for making my point, Jay.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-02-11 16:39:28

#268

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5179|Sydney

What's "discretionary" spending? Sounds convenient.

2012-02-11 16:44:43

#269

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5359|London, England

Jaekus wrote:
What's "discretionary" spending? Sounds convenient.

Funding for programs set up by the government that require a yearly budget in order to receive money. Mandatory spending is the same, except the programs have built in budgets and don't require an annual vote. Or close enough.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-02-11 16:46:10

#270

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5179|Sydney

Oh ok. Just when it comes to governments and spending, the idea that some amount so huge is considered "at their discretion" always makes me suspicious

2012-02-11 16:48:41

#271

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5359|London, England

Jaekus wrote:
Oh ok. Just when it comes to governments and spending, the idea that some amount so huge is considered "at their discretion" always makes me suspicious

It's all at their discretion The shit actually required by the constitution for them to fund probably takes up less than 1% of the overall budget

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-02-11 16:56:47

#272

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5179|Sydney

Oh, right. My world view stands intact then

2012-02-11 19:42:45

#273

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5586

SEREMAKER wrote:
soooooooooo cali peeps voted against prop 8 ......... and its back in the courts

hmmm government of the people, by the people, for the people

If it was left to the voters, or decided on a state by state basis, blacks would still be slaves, segregation would still be legal, etc.

Any meaningful social change in this country has always come from the federal government from forcing it down the states throats.

Rousseau was onto something when he said you sometimes have to force people to be free.

2012-02-11 19:57:49

#274

HITNRUNXX: Member; +220|6711|Oklahoma City

Macbeth wrote:
SEREMAKER wrote:
soooooooooo cali peeps voted against prop 8 ......... and its back in the courts

hmmm government of the people, by the people, for the people
If it was left to the voters, or decided on a state by state basis, blacks would still be slaves, segregation would still be legal, etc.

Any meaningful social change in this country has always come from the federal government from forcing it down the states throats.

Rousseau was onto something when he said you sometimes have to force people to be free.

Sere's comment sums up how I have always felt about it... But Macbeth makes a damn good point here... Nicely done sir. I love it when instead of pointless bashing, or opinion without any basis, someone says something that makes me think instead.

2012-02-11 21:14:19

#275

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6406|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:
This. And while we're at it, let's look at the REAL source of our budget deficits and debt: entitlement spending.

Well, I guess there's always soilent green.

Yes	67%	67% - 112
No	27%	27% - 45
I don't know	0%	0% - 0
Plead the fifth	3%	3% - 5
Other? (Please State)	1%	1% - 3
Total: 165

BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in California

Poll

-Sh1fty- wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

13urnzz wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer