Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Off-topic » Anything goes




 Page 1 of 2 [ 28 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next



Author Message
 Post subject: Gay Marriage in AZ
 Post Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2014 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Katy, TX
Finally.

Besides the gain in personal liberty for approximately 200,000 Arizonans, it's also going to help revive the tourism industry throughout the state and make significant positive impacts to the economy. We desperately need to grow spending and investment.

One study this year by lawyers and economists for UCLA found that legalizing gay marriage could bring $60million to Arizona's economy and support up to 500 jobs around the state, with tourism businesses a key beneficiary.

The figures exclude weddings in Arizona by out-of-state couples.

_________________
Vin Scully.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
 Post Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:37 am
Posts: 5048
There is really no reason for it not to be legal. forget the money aspect - its the right thing to do.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
 Post Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Katy, TX
qudjy1 wrote:
There is really no reason for it not to be legal. forget the money aspect - its the right thing to do.

That's never stopped us before…

It's kind of shocking that this blatant denial of access to benefits/protections to a specific set of the population has been upheld for so long. Regardless of whether private churches agree or refuse to participate, there always should have been a nondiscriminatory civic option, like Civil Unions, available to all.

_________________
Vin Scully.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
 Post Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:37 am
Posts: 5048
dirtygary wrote:
Regardless of whether private churches agree or refuse to participate, there always should have been a nondiscriminatory civic option, like Civil Unions, available to all.


This part i agree with 1000000%


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
 Post Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2014 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:35 pm
Posts: 790
x2
have a very good friend who came out after many years of being married with kids, etc. Couldn't do it any longer. He is in a committed long term relationship but until now couldn't make anything official. Glad to know that everyone, regardless of their orientation, can marry those they love.

_________________
"Grit Happens"
YBC-Dog, DBBP

"There's NO Crying in Baseball"
Tom Hanks- "A League of Their Own"


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
 Post Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2015 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 7721
Location: Tucson
A friend of my mom's, whom I've known since I was little, is now engaged. Him and his partner have been together for at least 10 years.

_________________
Per Mare, Per Terras
32


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Katy, TX
Finally.

_________________
Vin Scully.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
 Post Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:09 am
Posts: 775
Location: San Tan Valley
Scalia's head exploding is a supplementary reason to celebrate.

_________________
"Tomorrow is not promised to any of us." - Kirby Puckett


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
 Post Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:29 pm
Posts: 3600
Location: Katy, TX
Barney Frank wrote:

_________________
Vin Scully.


Top 
 Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
 Post Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:09 pm
Posts: 1513
    dirtygary wrote:

    Homophobe or not, and using that term to describe any person who doesn't think the definition of marriage should not change:
    Quote:
    "Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.

    "This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."


    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 6_3204.pdf Dissensions start page 40.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-g ... z3eHLhIYgf

    _________________
    There's no success like failure
    And failure's no success at all


    Top 
     Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
     Post Posted: Sat Jun 27, 2015 2:05 pm 
    Offline
    User avatar

    Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:48 am
    Posts: 5373
    Location: The carpark outside Milliways
    dirtygary wrote:


    So: It's wrong for someone to refer to Barney Frank, or anyone else who is a homosexual, using derogatory terms,some of which might even lead to being charged with "hate speech"; but perfectly acceptable to refer those who are opposed to the decision of the SCOTUS striking down laws and state constitutions defining marriage as being the union of one man and one woman with a term that is equally derogatory?

    Liberalism at its finest.

    dirtygary wrote:
    Regardless of whether private churches agree or refuse to participate, there always should have been a nondiscriminatory civic option, like Civil Unions, available to all.


    I would agree. That ship, however, has sailed...

    _________________
    Meet the new new FO... Same as the old new FO. The bag may be permanent.


    Top 
     Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
     Post Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 10:18 am 
    Offline
    User avatar

    Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:29 pm
    Posts: 3600
    Location: Katy, TX
    EvilJuan wrote:
    dirtygary wrote:


    So: It's wrong for someone to refer to Barney Frank, or anyone else who is a homosexual, using derogatory terms,some of which might even lead to being charged with "hate speech"; but perfectly acceptable to refer those who are opposed to the decision of the SCOTUS striking down laws and state constitutions defining marriage as being the union of one man and one woman with a term that is equally derogatory?

    Liberalism at its finest.

    I would agree if Mr. Frank had blankly referred to all SCOTUS dissenters as Homophobes - except he didn't. He limited that claim to only one of the dissenters and then presented the arguments for why he believed that to be the case. He displayed the ability to consider mitigating circumstances, instead of only being able to see one extreme or the other regardless of specifics or changes in available information. If that's "Liberalism at its finest", I can live with that.

    Just like not every opponent to interracial marriages or integration was a racist, not every opponent to same-sex Unions is a Homophobe; but some of them certainly are. And when there are statements and behaviors that lead to that conclusion, that's not name-calling, that's just proper classification.

    _________________
    Vin Scully.


    Top 
     Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
     Post Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:00 pm 
    Offline
    User avatar

    Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:19 pm
    Posts: 8566
    Location: Phoenix, AZ
    Glad this finally happened, for the reasons mentioned above.

    _________________
    When giant corndogs and ice cream are more important than winning baseball


    Top 
     Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
     Post Posted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 5:03 pm 
    Offline

    Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:09 pm
    Posts: 1513
    Reading material for "proper classification" of this particular target.

    http://www.mrctv.org/blog/scalia-slams- ... e-decision

    _________________
    There's no success like failure
    And failure's no success at all


    Top 
     Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
     Post Posted: Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:00 pm 
    Offline
    User avatar

    Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:29 pm
    Posts: 3600
    Location: Katy, TX
    All I heard was societies finally began to acknowledge the new precept 15 years ago. How much longer should the court have waited to catch up to society?

    Further, Scalia slamming others for hubris and arrogance is hilarious. The most bombastic and never-wrong justice on the bench asking "Who are we to make this decision?" You're the Supreme-F'ing-Court. You're supposed to be there to protect the rights of the minority when they're trampled by the state/majority. And it isn't marriage, that's a religious institution and entirely up to those bodies. But now the state can, and must, offer Civil Unions to those who request it. That is in no way an act of redefining marriage, that's an act of expanding liberties and freedoms to the citizens of this country.

    At least Rand Paul made a decent point that all adults should be allowed to enter into contract, and the government has no business in the institution of marriage, one way or another.

    _________________
    Vin Scully.


    Top 
     Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
     Post Posted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:07 pm 
    Offline
    User avatar

    Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:17 pm
    Posts: 2262
    Location: Oakland, CA
    EvilJuan wrote:
    dirtygary wrote:


    So: It's wrong for someone to refer to Barney Frank, or anyone else who is a homosexual, using derogatory terms,some of which might even lead to being charged with "hate speech"; but perfectly acceptable to refer those who are opposed to the decision of the SCOTUS striking down laws and state constitutions defining marriage as being the union of one man and one woman with a term that is equally derogatory?

    Liberalism at its finest.


    Wait, you're really playing that "You can't be intolerant of our intolerance" card? I'm sorry but there comes a point in time that you have to call out people for being bigots. People tried to hide behind religion to continue segregation and deny interracial marriage but society eventually pushed back and those people are appropriately labeled as bigots. The good news for those people is that we allow them to keep those beliefs in their religions. Nobody is going to force Catholic churches to perform marriages for gay couples. Yea bigotry!

    EvilJuan wrote:
    dirtygary wrote:
    Regardless of whether private churches agree or refuse to participate, there always should have been a nondiscriminatory civic option, like Civil Unions, available to all.


    I would agree. That ship, however, has sailed...


    Nope, that's "separate but equal" we got rid of that a long time ago. Besides it's just silly. What is the point of setting up something that is exactly the same in every way but just with a different name? If the opponents cared so much about the sanctity of marriage we'd outlaw divorce.

    Anyways, it's over. Move on. The GOP has an opportunity to completely remove a wedge issue that they were losing from the platform. Smart politicians like Lindsay Ghram are moving on. Dumb ones like Jindal will get smacked down by the Courts.


    Top 
     Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
     Post Posted: Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:12 am 
    Offline

    Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:09 pm
    Posts: 1513
    dirtygary wrote:
    All I heard was societies finally began to acknowledge the new precept 15 years ago. How much longer should the court have waited to catch up to society?

    Further, Scalia slamming others for hubris and arrogance is hilarious. The most bombastic and never-wrong justice on the bench asking "Who are we to make this decision?" You're the Supreme-F'ing-Court. You're supposed to be there to protect the rights of the minority when they're trampled by the state/majority. And it isn't marriage, that's a religious institution and entirely up to those bodies. But now the state can, and must, offer Civil Unions to those who request it. That is in no way an act of redefining marriage, that's an act of expanding liberties and freedoms to the citizens of this country.

    At least Rand Paul made a decent point that all adults should be allowed to enter into contract, and the government has no business in the institution of marriage, one way or another.


    Not so sure the battle for "rights" is over. And Rand Paul's point nails it, since the only reason for the state to be involved is to encourage population growth and protect those involved in that process, especially those who cannot defend themselves.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/W7cuGgfr6P0

    _________________
    There's no success like failure
    And failure's no success at all


    Top 
     Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
     Post Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:44 am 
    Offline
    User avatar

    Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:17 pm
    Posts: 2262
    Location: Oakland, CA
    ReTired wrote:
    dirtygary wrote:
    All I heard was societies finally began to acknowledge the new precept 15 years ago. How much longer should the court have waited to catch up to society?

    Further, Scalia slamming others for hubris and arrogance is hilarious. The most bombastic and never-wrong justice on the bench asking "Who are we to make this decision?" You're the Supreme-F'ing-Court. You're supposed to be there to protect the rights of the minority when they're trampled by the state/majority. And it isn't marriage, that's a religious institution and entirely up to those bodies. But now the state can, and must, offer Civil Unions to those who request it. That is in no way an act of redefining marriage, that's an act of expanding liberties and freedoms to the citizens of this country.

    At least Rand Paul made a decent point that all adults should be allowed to enter into contract, and the government has no business in the institution of marriage, one way or another.


    Not so sure the battle for "rights" is over. And Rand Paul's point nails it, since the only reason for the state to be involved is to encourage population growth and protect those involved in that process, especially those who cannot defend themselves.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/W7cuGgfr6P0


    Watched the vid, this is just standard use of religion to justify bigotry. It's scary because these people actually believe they are right. Sensible people don't stand for this crap any more. His speech was full of hateful things.

    "feminization of men"
    "demonically driven liberal establishment"
    "perverted version of America"

    This case has zero impact on the lives of any straight person.


    Top 
     Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
     Post Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:21 am 
    Offline

    Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:09 pm
    Posts: 1513
    Agree that some of the rhetoric is way too over the top, as is calling those who disagree with the decision, or believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman bigotry.

    As for the perversion of America, one need only to watch television, movies, or listen to popular music for examples of perversion presented as entertainment, complementing Planned Parenthood's drive to "educate" preteens and to continue Margaret Sanger's assistance in the race toward the elimination of the unfit.

    _________________
    There's no success like failure
    And failure's no success at all


    Top 
     Post subject: Re: Gay Marriage in AZ
     Post Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:22 pm 
    Offline
    User avatar

    Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 6:17 pm
    Posts: 2262
    Location: Oakland, CA
    ReTired wrote:
    Agree that some of the rhetoric is way too over the top, as is calling those who disagree with the decision, or believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman bigotry.

    As for the perversion of America, one need only to watch television, movies, or listen to popular music for examples of perversion presented as entertainment, complementing Planned Parenthood's drive to "educate" preteens and to continue Margaret Sanger's assistance in the race toward the elimination of the unfit.


    History will be the final judge. I'm sure lots of segregationists didn't think they were bigots. 60 years removed and it's completely obvious. The next generation will correctly view the traditionalist view as bigotry.

    "Perversion" in media is nothing unique to current events. It has been around forever, things changed when we stopped letting people in power decide what we are allowed to watch and listen to. The shock factor grows as the next generation needs to one-up the previous.


    Top 
    Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
     
     Page 1 of 2 [ 28 posts ] Go to page 1, 2  Next




    Board index » Off-topic » Anything goes


    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

     
     

     
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot post attachments in this forum

    Search for:
    Jump to: