86 yr old WWII veteran speaks about gay marriage

[tkhayes 126]

Quote

Whilst some may think I'm homophobic, I can't understand why they wish to enter an institution for man and women.

They want to enter into the 'institution' for the SAME REASONS that man and woman want to enter into the 'institution'. Just because you don't understand it does not make it so. Maybe you should read more books or something on the subject.

At least you are right about one thing - you ARE clearly homophobic.

[airborne47 0]

You say we should allow everyone to marry. Does that mean mothers should be able to marry their sons?
After all some people are into incest! It's even the grand design to some.
That is if you believe god created Adam and Eve.
If that's the case there is only one way that the human race was able to populate.
I personally don't think that's such a great idea either!
Sorry but we don't nead to redefine the meaning of words or allow anything anyone wants just to please those who want to be different.
If you want to be or are somehow different and you are an adult.
What you do with other adults is your bussiness.
But the rest of us should not be forced to accept it as normal.
And if you redefine the meaning of words to get what you want that is exactly what you are doing!!!!
Rather it's redefining the meaning of words or allowing ANYONE to marry!!!!!!!!!!

[billvon 2,400]

>Sorry but we don't nead to redefine the meaning of words . . .

Do you think women should be allowed to be firemen?

>If you want to be or are somehow different and you are an adult. What you
>do with other adults is your bussiness. But the rest of us should not be
>forced to accept it as normal.

I agree 100%. You don't have to accept anything as normal. You can dislike gays, blacks, muslims or the disabled if you like. But when the government passes laws to systematically deny a certain set of people rights, then it IS a problem - whether they are black, gay, muslim or disabled.

>And if you redefine the meaning of words to get what you want that is
>exactly what you are doing!

Marriage used to be between people of the same race. We changed that, too.

[airborne47 0]

Ok obviosly nothing anyone says will change your mind.
But you never answered my question. If as you say we should allow anyone to get married.
Should parents be allowed to marry their children? And as far as redefining the meaning of words. (firemen) i belive female fire fighters are refered to as fire fighters!!!!!!!!!!
No redefining just regonizing and accepting what they are.

[billvon 2,400]

>And as far as redefining the meaning of words. (firemen) i belive female
>fire fighters are refered to as fire fighters!

So you don't just want to change the definition of a word - you want to change the WORD ITSELF! Why should firemen change the name of their occupation just to deal with your sense of political correctness?

Pot, meet kettle.

>Should parents be allowed to marry their children?

I think the government should get out of the marriage business completely. Governments should set up the civil union part of a marriage, and churches/ministers should marry people. Any two consenting adults can get a civil union, and your church can do whatever it wants.

[airborne47 0]

First of all i don't have a church! I think the bible is a sick and twisted story. I mean really god created Adam and Eve who had two sons.
That makes it pretty obviose that incest is part of the grand design!
And the guy who heard the voice of god telling him to kill his child to prove his allegiance.
As i said sick and twisted!!
So i'm no right wing exteamist. And i have no problem with gay people what so ever.
And if you want to do away with marriage fine. I think it's a bullshit instatution as it excist anyhow.
But as far as MY politicale corretness forcing others to call themselves something else.
Now you're really reaching and twisting things. Men can still call themselfs FIREMEN and females can call themselfs fire fighters!
No one has to change anything. And to your earlyer commment about it marriage used to be between the same races only.
You are dead wrong! That (may) have been true in certain parts of this country ounce upon a time.
But i don't think so. Certainly whites and blacks getting married in the good old south was not (accepted)
But was interacial marriage illegale? How about whites and asians? Hispanics and blacks?
As i said i don't THINK interacial marriage was ever illegale in this country.
Although some were certainly not acceptable in some places.
But many cultures and socities throughout history have accepted interacial marriage.
How ever marriage has been a union between men and woman throughout the history of the world.
And only recently have some started to redefine the meaning of the word.
So as i said i don't care what adults do with other adults.
And i also think it's TOTTALE BULLSHIT that someone would be denyed the right to be with their partner as they lay dieing!
So im all for SOMETHING that gives gays the rights and priivalages of marriage.
But i don't think trying to force others to accept redefining the meaning of the word marriage is the answer.
All that is going to accomplish is to make the right wing christian types fight it that much harder.
And thus keep them from getting any form of legal union.
I know we are just expressing our thoughts. But as far as your comment about the government should get out of the marriage bussiness.
We both know that's not going to happen. So my thoughts and ideas are more likely to get gay people the rights and privalages of marriage.
While leaving that instatution to those who belive in it.
So what's wrong with saying there should be some kind of legal instatution to protect gays.
But those who belive in the sancturary (and holyness)of marriage should also be protected?
I may disagree with the whole concept of marriage. And TOTALLY disagree with religion. But i still think those people deserve to have their instatutions and belives protected as well.

[billvon 2,400]

>First of all i don't have a church!

OK, your minister or official. Or do it yourself.

> And to your earlyer commment about it marriage used to be between
>the same races only. You are dead wrong! That (may) have been
>true in certain parts of this country ounce upon a time.

>But was interacial marriage illegale?

Yes. In 1959, the Virginia Supreme Court reiterated that it was illegal. As part of their decision:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

>How about whites and asians? Hispanics and blacks?

See above. God did not intend for them to mix, so it was illegal. Other states had similar laws. It wasn't until 1967 that the US Supreme Court struck down those laws and declared interracial marriage legal.

>But i still think those people deserve to have their instatutions
>and belives protected as well.

I disagree there. We should not keep blacks from marrying whites because that's "tradition" in Virginia, nor should we keep blacks out of certain schools because that's part of the "institution."

People should be free to live their lives as they see fit, provided they do not infringe on the rights of others.

[airborne47 0]

Ok i didn't know for a fact that interacial marriage was ever actually illegal.
See i told you religion was messed up But i still have my opinion and you have yours.
As for the race thing. I'm sure as a jumper you know that AirBorne is milatary speak for Paratrooper.
And i'm proud of the fact that it was United States Paratroopers.
Who helped get civil rights for all races!
Dr. King had a great idea and led a great movement.
But it took armed Paratroopers to actually ensure that blacks were able to go to public schools!
A fact that historions seem to over look. And i would also defend gay people!
But i will also defend those who have other beliefes as well.
And simply think there are easyer solutions. And due to Thousands of years of history throughout the world.
Those who want to keep marriage as a union between men and woman have a damn good argument.
And deserve to have their beliefs respected. So the race thing is really not a good argument.
After all that's fairly recent history and not world wide.

[jonmurrell 0]

Paratrooper, in a profession where we offer (or used to) our lives to protect and preserve the freedoms of others, don't you find it contradictory to advocate restricting those freedoms, not for safety or welfare but for bigoted beliefs and tradition?

Can you defend them, ensure their freedom and deny them basic liberties at the same time? No.
The Supreme Court will inevitably fix this egregious slight just like it did with interracial marriage laws, and school segregation - each of those once esteemed legal principles is now renounced but they remain a stain on our national history.

This is all fairly obvious to anyone with an objective view (aka not a bigot)

This isn't flying, its falling with style.

[airborne47 0]

Well i certainly don't think i'm a bigot! But i also think there are certain things that have meaning to some people and are thereforth worthy of respect.
And civil unions could do the same thing as marriage as far as ensuring rights.
Which i've stated i'm all for. And marriage being between men and woman has thousands of years of history to support it.
And thus give it meaning to some. My only argument and originale reply/post was to marriage being a constiturional right for all.
I fully believe that is not so. And would be willing to bet the writers of the constitution did not have that in mind.
And think some are simply trying to redefine the meaning of the word.
I would also be opposed to parents being able to marry their adult children of the opposite sex.
Even though that would be a union between men and woman.
I would still think it wrong. But as i said I don't think it's any of my bussiness what adults do with one another!
But that does not mean everyone else should be forced to accept it!!!

[Caitlin89 0]

Quote

And civil unions could do the same thing as marriage as far as ensuring rights.

Civil unions do NOT ensure equal rights to gay and lesbian couples.

"If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state."

"A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege."

"Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples."

"The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them."

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

This information may also be cited here:
http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Sure... Civil unions could ensure these rights. That would involve changing the meaning of the word. You've already expressed your distaste for this in terms of 'marriage'.

You've made several ignorant and incorrect statements in this thread. Do your research.

[airborne47 0]

Ok you want to call me ignorant fine. But i'm sick of everyone saying they have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to wharever they want!
The worst extmple is the press! Please show me ANYTHING in the constitution that says they have A RIGHT TO KNOW ANYTHIGN!
They certainly do not have the right to know my sexuale practices!
But if i get caught having sex in public they have every right to report on it.
There's a world of difference between freedom of speech and a right to know.
Obviosly we have different opinions. And my main argument is that i DO NOT believe marriage to be a constitutional right for all.
Now you want to sit and say i'm ignorant. Then be intelectually honest and tell me.
Do you seriosly believe that the founding fathers who drafted and ratified the constitution.
Would suppot gay marriage as a constitutional right?????????

[Caitlin89 0]

Quote

Ok you want to call me ignorant fine. But i'm sick of everyone saying they have a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to wharever they want!
The worst extmple is the press! Please show me ANYTHING in the constitution that says they have A RIGHT TO KNOW ANYTHIGN!
They certainly do not have the right to know my sexuale practices!
But if i get caught having sex in public they have every right to report on it.
There's a world of difference between freedom of speech and a right to know.
Obviosly we have different opinions. And my main argument is that i DO NOT believe marriage to be a constitutional right for all.
Now you want to sit and say i'm ignorant. Then be intelectually honest and tell me.
Do you seriosly believe that the founding fathers who drafted and ratified the constitution.
Would suppot gay marriage as a constitutional right?????????

You not only stated that interracial marriage was never illegal, but also stated that civil unions ensure equal rights. These statements ARE ignorant.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but our constitution does not mention marriage. It does, however, promise equality.

Additionally, our founding fathers have little to do with this argument; I'm positive we have done many things which our founding fathers would question. They, when drafting the constitution, promised equality. That is the bottom line.

[DARK 0]

Quote

I see his point - and I'm all for freedom and equality but where exactly do you draw the line? In my view homosexuality is abnormal - a species could never survive if all were homosexual. It's as simple as that. Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another? No.

so your not all for freedom and equality then?

[airborne47 0]

First of all re read what i said. I never said interacial marriage was never illegeal.
I did say i wasn't sure if it was and asked it as a question.
And for the things that have been done which the founding fathers might question.
That is apsolutly true but a whole different subject.
And the promise of eguality for all being the bottom line is not being intalectualy honest!
The argument is rather or not gay marriage is a constitutional right.
And i have never read that and am sure the founding fathers would disagree!
Despite langauge which promises eguality for all. We both know peoples words are often misunderstood.
But i am positive that was never the intention of that document.

[Caitlin89 0]

Quote

First of all re read what i said. I never said interacial marriage was never illegeal.
I did say i wasn't sure if it was and asked it as a question.
And for the things that have been done which the founding fathers might question.
That is apsolutly true but a whole different subject.
And the promise of eguality for all being the bottom line is not being intalectualy honest!
The argument is rather or not gay marriage is a constitutional right.
And i have never read that and am sure the founding fathers would disagree!
Despite langauge which promises eguality for all. We both know peoples words are often misunderstood.
But i am positive that was never the intention of that document.

You said you didn't 'think' it was illegal... Correct. I think US History I covers this type of thing, but who am I to judge?

The argument is whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right? Straight marriage is not a constitutional right. The constitution does not promise marriage to ANYBODY. You seem to be overlooking my point.

Sure, words are often misunderstood. This is the constitution we are speaking of, however. Societal norms change over time; this is a fact. Therefore, the founding fathers' intentions mean nothing here.

[airborne47 0]

Ok now i get it at last!!!!! The founding fathers intentions are apsolutly meaningless as to what the U.S. Contitution means!!!!!
Thank you for clarifying that for me!!!!!!
Now who's being ignorant???
And as for redefining the meaning of words. I also said there should be civil unions (OR SOMETHING) I don't care if they call it the domestic partnership act or whatever.
BUT LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE!! And i never claimed straight marriage was a constitutional right just a historical norm.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Ok now i get it at last!!!!! The founding fathers intentions are apsolutly meaningless as to what the U.S. Contitution means!!!!!
Thank you for clarifying that for me!!!!!!

It's a legal document. What is written on it is all that counts. Unless you have some special knowledge about the inner workings of their minds, then I'd say that what you think they intended is, indeed, meaningless.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[airborne47 0]

Well then i guess that means you do not view women as eguals.
As it says ALL MEN ARE CREATED EGUAL

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Well then i guess that means you do not view women as eguals.
As it says ALL MEN ARE CREATED EGUAL

Eh? My own views have nothing to do with what's written on the constitution.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shell666 0]

Quote

Well then i guess that means you do not view women as eguals.
As it says ALL MEN ARE CREATED EGUAL

I believe it's the Declaration of Independence that states that, not the Constitution.

A quick google on the Constitution says this (note the use of the word "person")

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Definitely not gender specific.

'Shell

[Caitlin89 0]

Quote

Ok now i get it at last!!!!! The founding fathers intentions are apsolutly meaningless as to what the U.S. Contitution means!!!!!
Thank you for clarifying that for me!!!!!!
Now who's being ignorant???
And as for redefining the meaning of words. I also said there should be civil unions (OR SOMETHING) I don't care if they call it the domestic partnership act or whatever.
BUT LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE!! And i never claimed straight marriage was a constitutional right just a historical norm.

"The argument is rather or not gay marriage is a constitutional right." By saying this, you were suggesting that heterosexual marriage IS a constitutional right. Am I wrong? Please explain.

So, you're advocating that we take into consideration our founding fathers' intentions as they relate to historical norms? Brilliant! Let's over turn Loving vs. Virginia, as interracial marriage was SURELY not a historical norm these founding fathers intended on!

[airborne47 0]

Ok fine i'm tired of argueing. You have your opinion and i have mine.
Obviosly neither of us are going to change ours. And i think we're both fairly open minded even if we disagree.
Which just goes to show how contreversial the subject is.
Anyhow it's Friday night and i'm about to have dinner.
Then get on my bike and go have a few beers and chase girls.
And have plans for the weekend so i'm done with this debate.
Take care.
Peace out!!!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Well then i guess that means you do not view women as eguals.
As it says ALL MEN ARE CREATED EGUAL

I believe it's the Declaration of Independence that states that, not the Constitution.

A quick google on the Constitution says this (note the use of the word "person")

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Definitely not gender specific.

BIG OUCH

When a canadian girl gives one of the American good ole boys an American civics lesson

Good one Shell

[airborne47 0]

Wow now i'm a GOOD OL BOY because i have a different opinion but respect yours!
Doesn't civic have something to do with the word civil?
And yet you sink to personale attacks when someone disagrees with you!
That's one thing i love about your crowd. You preach respect for deversaty.
And yet when someone wants to be different then you.
You lose all respect and make personale attacks. And then can't understand why others don't respect your opinion!
Go figure.