I am wondering gays and k-1 visas?

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

after consultation with the mod gods, i'm moving this thread to another forum as the topic is based on curiosity, not seeking immigration advice.

[pushbrk 12,279]

Good thing is, you don't have to be gay to be compassionate, and differentiate your beliefs from others rights.

This really says it all better than anything else.

I get where you're coming from but you are ascribing a "right" not granted by any law or tradition. One does not have a "right" simply by desiring or it or presuming it should be conferred.

One can be compassionate, without legalizing the desires of all those who follow another value system. I don't agree with legalizing pedophilia or incest either. Must I show my compassion for the thief, pedophile, polygamist, or honor killer by legalizing their desired behavior? If I (or perhaps more the the point "you") don't, is it out of "hate"?

Your pre-occupation with gays is their sexual behavior, which is none of your business anyways. It only takes living in an area with plenty of them to figure out there is nothing abnormal about them. They go about their daily things the same way we do. So really your moral outrage stems from sticking your nose into their bedroom. And last I checked gays aren't intrinsically pedophiles, thieves, or having relations with family members of the same sex, so mentioning those along with gays is rather silly. These laws were recent events, and knee-jerk, much like putting god on our currency and pledge of allegiance was a knee-jerk to the red scare and holocaust. You want "live and let live", but it seems you don't prescribe to it when it comes to others and two gay people being happy together just like you and your SO, or myself and my fiancee. Part of this mantra means giving up something. I'd like to see religion demolished for these acts, but instead I live and let people have their beliefs. Time for some compromise.

This is the kind of reactionary, over the top kind of rhetoric I'm talking about. I've expressed no moral outrage. I'm not pre-occupied with the secual behavior of others but it is, in fact, the central issue being discussed, so I'm not ignoring it either. I support the right of all people to privacy in their bedroom activities and prefer my nose be elsewhere. What we are discussing is "marriage" which generally occurs outside a bedroom.

I mention other choices because when we use choose the desires or behavior of one group to "legalize" we must be aware of the desires and behavior of other groups and make a value judgment on all such scenarios. When we do, we realize we are, in fact making value judgments regardless of which side of the issue we favor. When we realize that, we can start to respect that others make their judgments based on their own value system just like we do and we choose whether or not to tolerate or respect the values of those with whom we disagree.

I, for one can respect the values and choices of others without legalizing them. I can also choose to disrespect their values without ligalizing them. Everybody else can too, or not.

I'm asking that when discussion such issues, the respect one desires, be shown to others.

[*Robert* 2]

after consultation with the mod gods, i'm moving this thread to another forum as the topic is based on curiosity, not seeking immigration advice.

Good move Charles!

[IAMX 3,055]

This is the kind of reactionary, over the top kind of rhetoric I'm talking about. I've expressed no moral outrage. I'm not pre-occupied with the secual behavior of others but it is, in fact, the central issue being discussed, so I'm not ignoring it either. I support the right of all people to privacy in their bedroom activities and prefer my nose be elsewhere. What we are discussing is "marriage" which generally occurs outside a bedroom.

Yet two people who love each other and marrying is your business? I guess I should invite myself to people's weddings, then, to see if I approve of it. After all, it occurs outside of a bedroom.

I mention other choices because when we use choose the desires or behavior of one group to "legalize" we must be aware of the desires and behavior of other groups and make a value judgment on all such scenarios. When we do, we realize we are, in fact making value judgments regardless of which side of the issue we favor. When we realize that, we can start to respect that others make their judgments based on their own value system just like we do and we choose whether or not to tolerate or respect the values of those with whom we disagree.

I, for one can respect the values and choices of others without legalizing them. I can also choose to disrespect their values without ligalizing them. Everybody else can too, or not.

Problem is, two happy, gay people are not offered the same protections and the same legal institution because some people's personal, subjective "values" are well intruding on their rights. If it is not, then I think your marriage should be illegal because it intrudes on people's values as well, and it merits a serious discussion about tolerating and respecting these values which clearly plenty disagree with.

This you propose is not "live and let live", as you put in a previous post. It's only that way on a convenience basis, much like where you got your views from. It isn't convenient for your beliefs to allow others the same rights, so live and let live does not apply. Yet it should for me and your views about hindering others rights simply because one should respect views. It simply makes no sense at all.

[pushbrk 12,279]

This is the kind of reactionary, over the top kind of rhetoric I'm talking about. I've expressed no moral outrage. I'm not pre-occupied with the secual behavior of others but it is, in fact, the central issue being discussed, so I'm not ignoring it either. I support the right of all people to privacy in their bedroom activities and prefer my nose be elsewhere. What we are discussing is "marriage" which generally occurs outside a bedroom.

Yet two people who love each other and marrying is your business? I guess I should invite myself to people's weddings, then, to see if I approve of it. After all, it occurs outside of a bedroom.

I mention other choices because when we use choose the desires or behavior of one group to "legalize" we must be aware of the desires and behavior of other groups and make a value judgment on all such scenarios. When we do, we realize we are, in fact making value judgments regardless of which side of the issue we favor. When we realize that, we can start to respect that others make their judgments based on their own value system just like we do and we choose whether or not to tolerate or respect the values of those with whom we disagree.

I, for one can respect the values and choices of others without legalizing them. I can also choose to disrespect their values without ligalizing them. Everybody else can too, or not.

Problem is, two happy, gay people are not offered the same protections and the same legal institution because some people's personal, subjective "values" are well intruding on their rights. If it is not, then I think your marriage should be illegal because it intrudes on people's values as well, and it merits a serious discussion about tolerating and respecting these values which clearly plenty disagree with.

This you propose is not "live and let live", as you put in a previous post. It's only that way on a convenience basis, much like where you got your views from. It isn't convenient for your beliefs to allow others the same rights, so live and let live does not apply. Yet it should for me and your views about hindering others rights simply because one should respect views. It simply makes no sense at all.

As a citizen of the USA, the laws of my country are my business. They are my business with regard to a mother wanting to marry her son, a father his daughter, a sister, her brother and my neighbor a second spouse.

Actually two gay people are offered the same right to marry as I have. If I'm of age and free to marry, I may marry one spouse who is also free to marry, of age, not my mother, sister (incest issues vary by state) and of the opposite sex. I did not gain that right by virtue of my sexual orientation and whether love is a part of my decision to marry is entirely my choice.

There was a time in this country when polygamy was legal. It's not now. Did the people who supported that change in law invite themselves into the private lives of others as you say those of my ilk are doing? Is the same true of Washington State lawmakers and voters who don't allow first cousin marriages? People love and have sex with animals too. Shall we legalize marriage for those relationships? Of course that's obsurd. Nevertheless, we as a society make those value judgments collectively and in this country through a prescribed democratic process.

One of your rights is to disrespect or belittle those who hold opposite views based on different values. I respect that right and respectively ask you to cease and desist from doing so out or the same respect for others, you request from them. If your answer is no, please own that decision.

[IAMX 3,055]

As a citizen of the USA, the laws of my country are my business. They are my business with regard to a mother wanting to marry her son, a father his daughter, a sister, her brother and my neighbor a second spouse.

Not in terms of denying or accepting marriages. These choices are not yours, as much as denying blacks or women rights given to the people never being your choice.

Actually two gay people are offered the same right to marry as I have. If I'm of age and free to marry, I may marry one spouse who is also free to marry, of age, not my mother, sister (incest issues vary by state) and of the opposite sex. I did not gain that right by virtue of my sexual orientation and whether love is a part of my decision to marry is entirely my choice.

Er, no, their choice is made by other people deciding for them something they cannot help.

There was a time in this country when polygamy was legal. It's not now. Did the people who supported that change in law invite themselves into the private lives of others as you say those of my ilk are doing? Is the same true of Washington State lawmakers and voters who don't allow first cousin marriages? People love and have sex with animals too. Shall we legalize marriage for those relationships? Of course that's obsurd. Nevertheless, we as a society make those value judgments collectively and in this country through a prescribed democratic process.

Not everything should be a democratic process.

Look, these slippery slope arguments mean nothing in regards to gay marriage. Slippery slope analogies are fud. Address those decisions individually, because gays are not likely to have sex with animals or children or cousins.

One doesn't limit speech entirely just because one CAN use it to yell FIRE in a building. This analogy to limit gay marriage based upon other things not related is just as ridiculous. The belief to limit gay marriages is entirely through subjective, personal, likely religious beliefs. In which case, one's religion holds no dominion over another.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Brother SRVT, I like your thinking

[pushbrk 12,279]

As a citizen of the USA, the laws of my country are my business. They are my business with regard to a mother wanting to marry her son, a father his daughter, a sister, her brother and my neighbor a second spouse.

Not in terms of denying or accepting marriages. These choices are not yours, as much as denying blacks or women rights given to the people never being your choice.

Actually two gay people are offered the same right to marry as I have. If I'm of age and free to marry, I may marry one spouse who is also free to marry, of age, not my mother, sister (incest issues vary by state) and of the opposite sex. I did not gain that right by virtue of my sexual orientation and whether love is a part of my decision to marry is entirely my choice.

Er, no, their choice is made by other people deciding for them something they cannot help.

There was a time in this country when polygamy was legal. It's not now. Did the people who supported that change in law invite themselves into the private lives of others as you say those of my ilk are doing? Is the same true of Washington State lawmakers and voters who don't allow first cousin marriages? People love and have sex with animals too. Shall we legalize marriage for those relationships? Of course that's obsurd. Nevertheless, we as a society make those value judgments collectively and in this country through a prescribed democratic process.

Not everything should be a democratic process.

Look, these slippery slope arguments mean nothing in regards to gay marriage. Slippery slope analogies are fud. Address those decisions individually, because gays are not likely to have sex with animals or children or cousins.

One doesn't limit speech entirely just because one CAN use it to yell FIRE in a building. This analogy to limit gay marriage based upon other things not related is just as ridiculous. The belief to limit gay marriages is entirely through subjective, personal, likely religious beliefs. In which case, one's religion holds no dominion over another.

The law is my business and yours no matter what the law addresses.

I didn't say anything about a choice. I asserted we all have the same rights when it comes to marriage.

But this is the USA, and that's how we make our laws, whether you like it or not.

I didn't make a slippery slope argument. Read again. A slippery slope argument must assert one thing is downhill from another. Apparently you've made some value judgments for there rest of us, if you saw a slippery slope in my examples.

To my knowledge, there is no law limiting gay marriages. The laws define marriage as between a man and a woman. In such jurisdictions "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, not "limited".

[IAMX 3,055]

The law is my business and yours no matter what the law addresses.

I didn't say anything about a choice. I asserted we all have the same rights when it comes to marriage.

But this is the USA, and that's how we make our laws, whether you like it or not.

I didn't make a slippery slope argument. Read again. A slippery slope argument must assert one thing is downhill from another. Apparently you've made some value judgments for there rest of us, if you saw a slippery slope in my examples.

To my knowledge, there is no law limiting gay marriages. The laws define marriage as between a man and a woman. In such jurisdictions "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, not "limited".

Well, since two men want to marry each other, something a few courts, at least, have defined as perfectly within the scope of freedoms offered to Americans, and in many states they cannot, then no, they do not have the same rights, because their choices are limited away from their own genetic inclinations. It's the same as denying blacks the right to marriage with a white woman. No different. This whole "all the same rights" bullshit is just that -- equivocating bullshit.

Also, your slippery slope arguments pertain to your persistent trivializing two loving men or two loving women, comparing them to sex/relationship/marriage with a child, sex/relationship/marriage with an animal, and sex/relationship/marriage with multiple persons. Making the same issue of things that aren't the same is an attempt to use a slippery slope as a crutch for your argument, like being gay, or allowing gays to marry, is a gateway to all of the others. A complete farce.

[pushbrk 12,279]

The law is my business and yours no matter what the law addresses.

I didn't say anything about a choice. I asserted we all have the same rights when it comes to marriage.

But this is the USA, and that's how we make our laws, whether you like it or not.

I didn't make a slippery slope argument. Read again. A slippery slope argument must assert one thing is downhill from another. Apparently you've made some value judgments for there rest of us, if you saw a slippery slope in my examples.

To my knowledge, there is no law limiting gay marriages. The laws define marriage as between a man and a woman. In such jurisdictions "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, not "limited".

Well, since two men want to marry each other, something a few courts, at least, have defined as perfectly within the scope of freedoms offered to Americans, and in many states they cannot, then no, they do not have the same rights, because their choices are limited away from their own genetic inclinations. It's the same as denying blacks the right to marriage with a white woman. No different. This whole "all the same rights" bullshit is just that -- equivocating bullshit.

Also, your slippery slope arguments pertain to your persistent trivializing two loving men or two loving women, comparing them to sex/relationship/marriage with a child, sex/relationship/marriage with an animal, and sex/relationship/marriage with multiple persons. Making the same issue of things that aren't the same is an attempt to use a slippery slope as a crutch for your argument, like being gay, or allowing gays to marry, is a gateway to all of the others. A complete farce.

I didn't enter the discussion to debate the issue. I entered to ask for some civility and respect for the other side. I'll just move on, knowing my pleas went on deaf ears with one poster. I can live with that.

[IAMX 3,055]

I didn't enter the discussion to debate the issue.

Now isn't that a blatant lie.

Edited August 16, 2008 by SRVT

[pushbrk 12,279]

I didn't enter the discussion to debate the issue.

Now isn't that a blatant lie.

Proving my point.

Edited August 16, 2008 by pushbrk

[IAMX 3,055]

I didn't enter the discussion to debate the issue.

Now isn't that a blatant lie.

Proving my point.

Of what? You've debated from the start, and you're still debating now. If you don't want to, don't. Very simple.

Edited August 16, 2008 by SRVT

[pushbrk 12,279]

I didn't enter the discussion to debate the issue.

Now isn't that a blatant lie.

Proving my point.

Of what? You've debated from the start, and you're still debating now. If you don't want to, don't. Very simple.

Not debating gay marriage. My opening post and all to follow, have been about respecting the other point of view. This is a polarizing issue. Nobody is going to convince anybody to change their mind about it through debate but we don't need to refer to the other side as haters. That one group thinks the laws of God are the highest priority, does not trivialize the views of others. We all have our values and priorities and can respect or disrespect them. You've been debating gay marriage. I've been debating about the civility and respect associated with that debate in this forum. Only you have continued the disrespect.

I have debated one point as to the overall issue but for the same reason. I've simply stated we all have the same rights to marriage. You've countered with the other side doesn't have the right they desire. That's a given. They are asking for a right nobody else has. The fact that only one group wants that right for themselves and some want them to have it doesn't change the fact it's a right nobody else has.

I understand the debate of the issue, but cannot with any degree of intellectual honesty, surrender to the other side, due to my long and stongly held religious beliefs. I respect that others do not share those beliefs and simply ask that you and others show similar respect by refraining from referring to good honest religious people as "haters" or "homophobes" etc. and filing your assertions with the kind of value judgments you wish to impose on others, while belittling them for imposing their values on you.

We are all subject to the same laws. If you want to advocate changing them, go right ahead. Others will advocate the other side and we'll see the end result at some point in the future.

The ONLY reason I posted in this thread was to object to somebody (who should well have known better) referring to me and those who think like me as "haters".

[IAMX 3,055]

I didn't enter the discussion to debate the issue.

Now isn't that a blatant lie.

Proving my point.

Of what? You've debated from the start, and you're still debating now. If you don't want to, don't. Very simple.

Not debating gay marriage. My opening post and all to follow, have been about respecting the other point of view. This is a polarizing issue. Nobody is going to convince anybody to change their mind about it through debate but we don't need to refer to the other side as haters. That one group thinks the laws of God are the highest priority, does not trivialize the views of others. We all have our values and priorities and can respect or disrespect them. You've been debating gay marriage. I've been debating about the civility and respect associated with that debate in this forum. Only you have continued the disrespect.

I have debated one point as to the overall issue but for the same reason. I've simply stated we all have the same rights to marriage. You've countered with the other side doesn't have the right they desire. That's a given. They are asking for a right nobody else has. The fact that only one group wants that right for themselves and some want them to have it doesn't change the fact it's a right nobody else has.

I understand the debate of the issue, but cannot with any degree of intellectual honesty, surrender to the other side, due to my long and stongly held religious beliefs. I respect that others do not share those beliefs and simply ask that you and others show similar respect by refraining from referring to good honest religious people as "haters" or "homophobes" etc. and filing your assertions with the kind of value judgments you wish to impose on others, while belittling them for imposing their values on you.

We are all subject to the same laws. If you want to advocate changing them, go right ahead. Others will advocate the other side and we'll see the end result at some point in the future.

The ONLY reason I posted in this thread was to object to somebody (who should well have known better) referring to me and those who think like me as "haters".

All I see is you excusing such bigotry in the first place, hiding behind nonsense like pedophilia and animal relations as justification. If it were merely of your subjective belief, it would be kept to yourself, but since you wish to push this belief on others and hinder their freedoms, you pulled yourself right into the debate.

You may be subject to your deity's laws, but in this country there is separation of church and state. I am not subject to your deity, and neither is everyone else. Sorry. If you don't like gay marriages and don't agree with one, there's one simple principle you can live by -- don't have one.

(The bold is to note your denial in that, yes, you are debating gay marriage, contrary to your claim)

Edited August 16, 2008 by SRVT