© Copyright 1995 thru 2008 - The Mustang Works™. All Rights Reserved.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
MustangWorks.com is designed and hosted by Aero3 Media.
04-28-2004, 11:52 AM | #61 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Philadelphia, MS
Posts: 191
|
Hey Jim, De Ja Vu
-Will
__________________
I'm just a guy who has nothing better to do, and loves his stangs. -Will |
04-28-2004, 02:40 PM | #62 | ||
Conservative Individualist
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Wherever I need to be
Posts: 7,487
|
Invalid comparisons
Originally posted by XR1stang :
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
5.0 Mustang Owner 1990 - 2005 |
||
04-28-2004, 02:51 PM | #63 | ||||
Conservative Individualist
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Wherever I need to be
Posts: 7,487
|
James rides off into the sunset. Bye.
Originally posted by srv1 :
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
5.0 Mustang Owner 1990 - 2005 |
||||
04-28-2004, 11:12 PM | #64 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 360
|
__________________
2003 3.8 Mineral Gray, MAC CAI, K&N, Chin Spoiler |
05-01-2004, 09:43 PM | #65 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 8,981
|
James-
Thanks for the kind words (I never knew you felt that way, sniff-sniff), but it's cool. Jim- I really wasn't trying to twist or contort anything, and I'm sorry you see everything as a tactic. That's why I said you seem like a scared conspiracy theorist. As far as the legal similarities between gay marriages and black/white marriages, this article was in the paper the other day, and I thought it was interesting... Another marriage ban In dealing with gay unions, court has a precedent By Timm Herdt April 28, 2004 As California's Supreme Court justices move toward the day when they will be forced to confront the most unsettling civil rights issue of the day - gay marriage - they will find themselves on a path their predecessors have trod before. One thing they will find along that path is an eloquent expression of the prevailing justification for a ban on gay marriages, written by former California Supreme Court Justice John W. Shenk. In an opinion written in a landmark case, Shenk declared: "The right of the state to exercise extensive control over the marriage contract has always been recognized. The institution of matrimony is the foundation of society, and the community at large has an interest in the maintenance of its integrity and purity." Shenk wrote that on Oct. 1, 1948, in defense of a California marriage law that stated "no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person to a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race." Shenk was one of three dissenters in the court's historic decision in Perez v. Lippold, which legalized interracial marriages in California. At the time, it was quite a radical repudiation of a cultural ethic, which, the court declared, was in utter conflict with the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment and the Declaration of Independence. The decision came 19 years before the U.S. Supreme Court came to the same conclusion and a generation before interracial marriages attained broad social acceptance. Perez v. Lippold has been cited by courts in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts, and in each case those justices have come to the same conclusion about gay marriages that the California justices did about interracial marriages in 1948: There is no valid legal reason to tell an American citizen that he or she must exclude a class of people as potential marriage partners. The case of Perez v. Lippold was prominent last week in the debate before the Assembly Judiciary Committee before it approved a bill to legalize gay marriage in California. It is likely that is as far as the legislative effort will advance this year, but the debate made clear how difficult it will be for state Supreme Court justices to fashion a legal justification for a gay-marriage ban. As San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has noted, even the most strident opponents to gay marriage seem to recognize this. If they didn't fear that the Constitution would lead courts to strike down statutes barring gay marriage, he asks, why are they proposing to amend it? Newsom may have recklessly decided earlier this year to claim for himself the authority to interpret the Constitution, but the precedents do suggest that his legal instincts were correct. In 1948, 30 states banned interracial marriages. In his dissent, Shenk noted, "the ban on mixed marriages in this country is traceable from the early colonial period." The court majority firmly held that such restrictions on marriage do not hold up against post-colonial American views of personal liberty. Andrea Perez, a white woman, and Sylvester Davis, a black man, sued Los Angeles County Clerk Earl Lippold on the grounds that his refusal to grant them a marriage license violated their right to freedom of religion. Both were Roman Catholics, and the church had no restriction on interracial marriage. The state ban, thus, prevented them from participating in the sacrament of marriage. The court's decision was based on broader grounds. Intrinsic in the right of personal liberty, the court said, is "the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home, and bring up children." Since the individual right to marry is fundamental, the justices held, "Legislation infringing upon such rights must be based on more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws." The California Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer on the narrow question of the legality of marriage licenses issued to gay couples this winter in San Francisco. It will likely take years before a couple of cases challenging the constitutionality of the state's gay-marriage ban move up the judicial pipeline. By then, the justices must privately hope, the issue will have somehow resolved itself politically. It is not likely that any of the current justices wants to write an opinion that, 56 years into the future, will seem to be what Shenk's 1948 dissent seems to be today: an archaic defense of the socially indefensible.
__________________
Webmaster: Rice Haters Club Jim Porter Racing Peckerwoods Pit Stop Support Your Local
RED & WHITE! |
05-02-2004, 03:45 PM | #66 | |
Conservative Individualist
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Wherever I need to be
Posts: 7,487
|
The fallacy of gay marriage as a 'civil right'
Originally posted by PKRWUD :
Quote:
Homosexuals have all the legal benefits of society they claim to want and need, including the right to share medical and insurance benefits via new laws, power of attorney, wills and such. They now seek to reach the final step and force 'normalization' of a deviant sexual behavior on a hetrosexual society by having the law changed to recognize same-sex 'marriage' as co-equal to hetrosexual marriage. They call it a 'civil rights' issue to gain sympathy and gather hetrosexual supporters who believe supporting gay 'marriage' is so 'compassionate' and 'fair'. The advocates figure: how does this hurt me? It's a freebie. They can appear to be compassionate at no cost to them whatsoever. Tempting then, to become an advocate for same-sex marriage and burnish your sensitivity credentials in the process. The sad fact remains that once you knock down a pillar of society such as the definition of marriage it will rapidly become corrupted by having any number of 'consenting adults' demanding they too, be legally allowed to 'marry'. The authorities will have no choice but to grant the demands because the definition of marriage will have been permanently altered. It will then mean whatever we want it to mean and thus be rendered meaning-less. In other nations where this has been tried, the marriage rate drops considerably. Co-habitation and children with permanently absent fathers abound because men and women have little incentive to legally 'marry' when the term itself has become empty and can include polygamists, relatives and of course, homosexuals. None of this is good for a stable society based on families. Legalization of same-sex 'marriage' is a foolish and ultimately destructive concept that flies in the face of human biology and common sense. It bears no relation to the drive for 'civil rights' once fought by African-Americans who were denied a multitude of human rights because they were dark skinned - and for no other reason. African-Americans qualify - then and now - for marriage no matter what the race of the person they chose to marry because marriage only requires a man and a women, regardless of race. Segregrationists successful attempts to preclude blacks and whites from marriage were simply that: segregationist, with no basis in natural law or biology. Homosexuals do not qualify under this perfectly logical and time-tested definition (marriage requires a male and a female) that no culture has ever seriously questioned because it's simply a recognition of who we are and how we are made. Emotional appeals to 'fairness' and against so-called 'discrimination' along with attempts to disparage the motives of those, like me, opposed to this unjustified demand for recognization of same-sex marriage with ridicule, questioning of my intelligence or trying to place the opposition to same-sex marriage on religious concepts the same-sex marriage advocate has long rejected, personally, are typical but remain devoid of intellectual honesty. I believe that championing same-sex marriage, while well-intentioned by most, is defending the indefensible and calling it a 'civil rights issue' is a total mischaracterization of the issue which amounts to a demand for special 'rights' by those who believe that calling rejections of their demands 'discrimination' will make their demands acceptable. That doesn't work for me or a majority of Americans and calling us names and trying to ridicule our motives won't help any, either, no matter who does it. I think we've all enjoyed an interesting, informative discussion and I believe both sides of the issue have been debated fully here. I have little to add and no wish to engage in a drawn-out battle of internet stamina as to who can keep posting the longest (and saying the same things, different ways). So, I'll leave the thread at this point, confident that I've been fully heard on the issue and presented the 'other side' of gay 'marriage'to the best of my ability so I leave the thread to you, Chris, or anyone else who wishes to continue the discussion, for whatever it's worth. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss it. I'm sure we'll cross paths again. I wish you the best.
__________________
5.0 Mustang Owner 1990 - 2005 |
|
05-02-2004, 08:23 PM | #67 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ventura, California
Posts: 8,981
|
You used to ridicule people that wanted to leave a thread topic if you still had something to say.
Quote:
Quote:
Since the individual right to marry is fundamental, the justices held, "Legislation infringing upon such rights must be based on more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws." Individual means individual, it does not mean man and woman. I can't believe I'm having this argument. I wish you and yours nothing but the best as well, Jim. I truly hope 2004 is your best year yet. Take care, ~Chris
__________________
Webmaster: Rice Haters Club Jim Porter Racing Peckerwoods Pit Stop Support Your Local
RED & WHITE! |
||
05-03-2004, 04:36 PM | #68 | ||||||||||
Conservative Individualist
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Wherever I need to be
Posts: 7,487
|
Beating the dead horse of same-sex marriage
Originally posted by PKRWUD :
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Meanwhile, the legislators of Massachusetts are going to hold a referendum to change this distortion of the Massachusetts constitution so badly used by biased judges pushing an agenda. No wonder special-interest groups run to the liberal courts when they know they can't get their ridiculous ideas passed by legislators, answerable to the citizens. Judges, appointed for life, can hand down these absurd rulings with no personal consequence and make drastic changes in the laws of society and do great damage to that society while the people have no voice. That isn't democracy and the fact that most of our bad laws came to us this way is also telling. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
5.0 Mustang Owner 1990 - 2005 |
||||||||||
05-03-2004, 11:20 PM | #69 |
DURKA DURKA!!
Join Date: Sep 1997
Location: Lubbock, TX...(TX panhandle)
Posts: 1,418
|
Ahhhh.....this type of thread brings back some fond memories...
My 2 cents if anyone cares.... Sufice it to say that I oppose legalizing same-sex marriages. Why? Well, I'm morally opposed to homosexuality. I believe it is wrong. Yep, I said it. It's WRONG. That's what I believe and that's what I stand for. Even not counting for all of the religious reasons that I oppose homosexuality, nature itself selects against it. XR1stang points to examples in nature of homosexual acts. Guess what. If you take all of those "homo" creatures and put 'em together in furry animal marriages, guess how may kiddo's they'd have. Yep, you guessed it. Not a one. Of course, that is if some crazy wacko furbie court doesn't give them someone elses normal animal baby to raise in an abnormal way. In nature, if a male critter digs doing it with another male critter for whatever reason, that male critter will not be able to reproduce. That is the entire idea for the male-female scheme on this earth. We're not mushrooms. We gotta hook up with the other sex to contribute to the furthering of our species. Homosexuals contribute nothing to our race except crazy butt-lovin' (or whatever the ladies are calling it now days). On this issue of the definition of marriage.... The institution of marriage has its very beginnings in the church. The idea is to create a stable family unit for having and rearing children. It should not even be a decision of the state to determine what marriage is. If some queer folk want to live together as a couple, fine. Go ahead. It won't bother me. But IT'S NOT A MARRIAGE!!! That's pretty much all I've got to say. Good to see you guys again. --nathan
__________________
'91 GT, Coast 347, 9.5:1 compression, full intake, Wolverine 1087 cam, exhaust, Keith Craft ported Windsor Jr. Irons (235 cfm intake, 195 cfm exhaust), AOD, PI 3500 converter, Lentech valve body, 3.73's (4.10's in the works), and Yokohama ES100's out back. Daily Car: '04 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6MT |
05-04-2004, 01:17 PM | #70 | |
2 Stangs in the Stable
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 1,209
|
As defined by Websters Dictionary:
marriage - 1. The state of being married: wedlock. 2. The act of marrying or the ceremony of being married. 3. Close union. marry - 1. to take as a husband or wife. 2. to unite in matrimony. 3. to become closely united. matrimony - 1. marriage husband - a man who is married. wife - a married woman (all above definitions came from websters dictionary) I dont know about y'all, but I see no where in the definition of the word marriage that requires it to be a man and a woman. silver_pilate - Are you married? Have you ever had sex? Did you do so with the intentions of having a kid, every time you did so? If not, your argument (and everyone else who says it is not right because they cant reproduce) is invalid. Period. Quote:
I'm with those who say, it effects me in no way, shape, form, or fashion.
__________________
'90 GT Under construction Best E.T. = Fast @ High Speeds - OK So I Lie. So What!!! 04 F-150 STX 4.2L 5 spd Rice Haters Club Member #128 |
|
05-04-2004, 08:35 PM | #71 | |
Founder
Join Date: Jun 1995
Location: Michigan
Posts: 19,326
|
Interesting comments I get in email these days...
Quote:
__________________
StangFlyer 1991 Mustang GT - Supercharged 377 Stroker 2000 Ford Lightning - Project Lightning Hauler Media Center Gallery - View my member photos |
|
05-04-2004, 11:19 PM | #72 |
Import Slayer
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 2,241
|
Homosexuality is a disease in my opinion and should be dealt with the same way.....find a way to get rid of it!!
If this offends anyone I don't care. It 's my opinion and you may not always like it. I don't sugar coat anything and I don't intend to start now.
__________________
'82 GT 351W (.060)Comp Cams 274* Extreme Energy cam, ported & polished heads w/ 1.94/1.60 valves 10.3:1 flat top pistons,stealth intake, Mallory dizzy,Holley 750dp carb, BBK shorties,Flowmaster exhaust,C-4 with 3700 stall converter, B&M pro shifter,8.8 rear, 4:10's, subframes, electric fan, powermaster alternator, 4 core radiator. |
05-05-2004, 10:42 AM | #73 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: il
Posts: 10
|
Hey, it's a no-brainer. Civil unions, "life partners", shared benefits, I guess that's all there legally already, isn't it? But..... Marriage? Well....that's been the tradition of religious rituals worldwide for many millenium, bringing procreative partners into the fold....and at heart most of the religions, at the core moral base they not only see fixated buggery/bullldykery as unnatural (usually symptomatic of incipient-to-developed moral/ character sickness, actually) but surely not worthy of a 'sanctified union'. No Muslim would do this- no real Jew-nor any Christian who's read Scripture at all. Even Bhuddists and Amerinds would walk away ashamed, let alone Aboriginals or 'Pagans'. It's a legal battle for faggotry. I'm married to a woman...I resent anyone attempting to cheapen a thing I hold in great reverance. Why force something that's universally condemned as a religious issue? Take your civil unions and go away, sez me. Leave marraige alone, no-one's god would have a union like that. Show me one religion that approves, in its doctrine, that gays should be wed, or has it in it's history. I'll show you a road paved to hell w/stupid intentions.
|
05-05-2004, 12:42 PM | #74 | |
2 Stangs in the Stable
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Baytown, TX
Posts: 1,209
|
Quote:
__________________
'90 GT Under construction Best E.T. = Fast @ High Speeds - OK So I Lie. So What!!! 04 F-150 STX 4.2L 5 spd Rice Haters Club Member #128 |
|
05-05-2004, 01:57 PM | #75 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pickens,SC
Posts: 130
|
Gay Marriage/ Sep. of Church and State etc.
Interesting arguments abou this topic. I stand against the idea of gay marriage obviously because of my religious beleifs as do some others who have stated their opinion on this board. I beleive that the traditional family is still the best environment for the raising of children. I believe in the beginnging it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I do not hate people who are gay, but I do not have to accept nor approve of the lifestyle. That is my free choice. You do not have to accept my opinion.
And as far as "separation of church and state " is concerned, that concept was coined by Thomas Jefferson based on the way he viewed the 1st ammendment of the US Constitution which DOES state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." The constitution nowhere contains the phrase "separation of church and state" but it is implied by the "establishment clause" of the 1st ammendment. What the framers of the constitution wanted to prevent was excessive entanglement between politics and religion and to not have an official state church like many European countries had (France:Roman Catholic, England:Anglican,etc.) It never intended for religion to be ignored in any type of lawmaking. Do you think for a moment that laws against murder aren't based on Judeo-Christian ethics found in the 10 Commandments? Religion has shaped our legal system and every legal system in the world in some way or another and will continue to do so, like it or not.
__________________
....only in a Mustang, Mark Holliday Rice Haters Club Member #237 2007 Vista Blue Mustang GT Convertible w/black top and charcoal interior, 18-in. polished aluminum wheels. 1978 Ford F150 Ranger Longbed, 400M w/automatic and 2 fuel tanks...get the picture? 1993 Mustang GT Dark Blue/Grey 2-tone. Flowmaster Mufflers and blackouts on the headlights. RIP (10/31/99). 1968 Mustang 6 cyl/C4 automatic 1938 Ford Pickup, Flathead V8 (85HP) with granny 4-speed..a restoration work in progress. |
05-05-2004, 03:39 PM | #76 | |
Conservative Individualist
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Wherever I need to be
Posts: 7,487
|
Egalitarianism at MW
Originally posted by Dan McClain :
Quote:
That would be my reaction.
__________________
5.0 Mustang Owner 1990 - 2005 |
|
05-05-2004, 05:02 PM | #77 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Georgia!
Posts: 139
|
My opnion of the gay marriage debate is... If it doesnt concern you... why let it bother you. Some people choose to pursue a gay relationship (not meaning this in a offensive way). But if that kinda relationship isnt your personal choice why even let it bother you. That is just my very own personal opinion on the marriage debate.
__________________
JERRI 2000 V6 Stang so far only exaust and BBK CAI |
05-05-2004, 06:43 PM | #78 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 360
|
Taking the lead form 5.0's last post...
"The debate isn't over whether anyone here happens to be 'gay' or not, it concerns 'gay marriage', currently a very hot topic in the ongoing culture wars." Many here are too young to remember the Viet Nam War or the reasoning behind fighting it. A much discussed line of reasoning was the "Domino Theory". By that theory if we did not stop communisn in Viet Nam or Southeast Asia other dominos would fall and it would spread further from China. Gay marriage reminds me of this in a cultural sense. If permisive behavior gos unchecked, it will spread to many areas that today would seem to be unaffected by Gay Marriage. So the cultural war is fought on that battlefield to hold back the wholesale change out of cultural values that have been/are the norm. Other battles lost have been school prayer, etc. Many casualties have been piled up in places like Political Correctness and Excessive Tort litigation. So althought the current battle may not affect you directly, as was said of Viet Nam, the war if lost will have an impact. The current fight in Middle East is much more threatening than Viet Nam seemed to be but I am sure there are those that would say let the middle east folk do what they want to it doesn't affect me. The threat to cultural norms is in some ways very similar.
__________________
2003 3.8 Mineral Gray, MAC CAI, K&N, Chin Spoiler |
05-06-2004, 09:55 PM | #79 |
Registered Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Georgia!
Posts: 139
|
A question about the last post:
Are you comparing Gay Marriage to the DOMINO THEROY!! I am so dissapointed in some of the people on this website. How can one persons personal sexual preferance upset you so much. Just because someone is gay doesnt mean that if people see or associate with the person that they will become gay to *if that makes sense* If you are so scared that you or the rest of the population may be pursuaded by the gay population that just shows that you are infact uncomfortable with your sexuality. If you believe you are heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual whatever your choice may be (personally i would never be in a homosexual relationship) then being associated with a gay or bisexual person shouldnt affect you in any way. You shouldnt be a follower be a leader. Your decison should not be based on what john doe did. And if it is then that just shows what a weak person you are. Once again... if it doesnt affect you WHY WOULD YOU EVEN CARE! im not saying gay marriage is right... but if 2 people are happy, why bother them. They have rights too.
__________________
JERRI 2000 V6 Stang so far only exaust and BBK CAI |
05-06-2004, 11:21 PM | #80 |
Moderator
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Posts: 1,001
|
Show me two homos that can together create a child and they can get married all they want.
Until then, they can shut the ****** up. Case closed.
__________________
Capri306, Moderator The Mustang Works Online 1979 Mercury Capri 1987 5.0L Mustang LX Notchback 1993 5.8L Eddie Bauer Bronco |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Relationships.....GOD!!!! | bigwhitecobra | Blue Oval Lounge | 25 | 04-30-2004 11:34 PM |
more on love | jocatmust | Blue Oval Lounge | 34 | 03-14-2004 02:42 PM |
Is "Prom" really prostitution? | fiveohpatrol | Blue Oval Lounge | 29 | 10-30-2002 10:49 AM |
Marriage Secrets Revealed!!! | PKRWUD | Blue Oval Lounge | 31 | 08-14-2002 08:50 PM |
What the hell did I just do? | fiveohpatrol | Blue Oval Lounge | 6 | 05-15-2002 06:51 PM |