DCSportbikes.net  
» Help Support .NET!
DCSportbikes Premier Membership for 25$ per year. Discounts! Click here for full information.

Now available in the .NET Shop:



Get your DCSBN Gear!
» Shoutbox
Sorry, only registered users have the ability to use our real-time shoutbox to chat with other members.

Register now, it's free!
» Online Users: 557
2 members and 555 guests
beatle, CrazyMotorcycleGuy
Most users ever online was 4,519, September 2, 2015 at 03:26 AM.
Go Back   DCSportbikes.net > Non-Sportbike Forums > Non-Sportbike Chat

Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools
Unread
  (#1)
God of the Gaps
 
Cripes's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,689
Join Date: October 8, 2002
Location: Charles Town
March 10, 2004, 10:15 AM

...but with all the attention given lately to same sex marriages, I for one support the idea. It's not eroding the fabric of my society. One can't help but become emotionally charged and get behind the issue after seeing happy couples like this tie the knot after fighting for their rights for so many years:

  MySpace.com Page Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#2)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,983
Join Date: October 1, 2002
March 29, 2004, 09:48 AM

Shouldn't this be posted in the "not so" humorous section.

BTW....good job being the typical American "activist" and looking at one issue...ie, gay and lesbian marriage. Why is is such a big deal that your favorite person in the world, George W, opposes gay marriage. I suppose you are the type person that feels that there should be zero institutions that should be reserved for one group of people and not the other. I suppose you think it is wrong for Augusta National to prohibit the admittance of women into their "private" club. I don't go around insisting that I be allowed in to women only colleges and health clubs. Why can't you understand the opinion of a person that thinks that marriage is an institution reserved for a man and a woman and ultimately a family. People in this country today are so obsessed with the concept that they have every right to every thing that anyone else does. That just isn't true. I wanted to be a race car driver but guess what....at 6'5 and over 250 lbs, I can't. Should I sue Nascar and Indy now and force them to change the cockpit on their race cars so that I can fit and add ballast to other cars to make up the weight difference....?

I suspect for your recent politically slanted posts that you will be voting for John Kerry (the true billionaire representative of middle Americans) in the upcomming election. My suggestion would be to buy up any future sportbikes that you would like because with the trends in America today and the potential for 8 years of liberal leadership in the Oval office, your right to buy a potentially dangerous sportbike may go by the wayside just like your right to purchase and own a handgun.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#3)
GP Champ
 
ThrustinJZX6's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,014
Join Date: October 15, 2003
Location: I should have my own website
March 29, 2004, 10:11 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
John Kerry (the true billionaire representative of middle Americans)
What politician running for president isn't rich?

For me it's about someone telling someone else what they can and can't do, just for sake of grass roots politics. It's funny how laws change over the years because we realize what people want changes over the years. What's even funniers is how we keep forgetting that's how the natural progression works.

Marriage is such a messed up institution anyways, I think politics should focus on how to keep married couples together and working instead of trying to choose who should and shouldn't marry.

Edit Funny how people think that humans haven't earned the right to get married but have earned the right to own handguns!


'00 Kawasaki Ninja ZX6-R
'03 Honda XR100R
Xbox: ThrustinJ
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to ThrustinJZX6  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#4)
MSF Student
 
dadslilgrl228's Avatar
 
Posts: 99
Join Date: February 18, 2004
March 29, 2004, 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
Why can't you understand the opinion of a person that thinks that marriage is an institution reserved for a man and a woman and ultimately a family.
It's one thing to have an opinion about something but it's another thing entirely to institute a law that restricts the rights of someone else because they practice something that differs from your opinion. Last time I checked, our country was founded on the principle that everyone was equal and had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . .
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#5)
GP Champ
 
ThrustinJZX6's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,014
Join Date: October 15, 2003
Location: I should have my own website
March 29, 2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
I don't go around insisting that I be allowed in to women only colleges and health clubs.
..you should reconsider this


'00 Kawasaki Ninja ZX6-R
'03 Honda XR100R
Xbox: ThrustinJ
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to ThrustinJZX6  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#6)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,983
Join Date: October 1, 2002
March 29, 2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrustinJZX6
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
John Kerry (the true billionaire representative of middle Americans)
What politician running for president isn't rich?

For me it's about someone telling someone else what they can and can't do, just for sake of grass roots politics. It's funny how laws change over the years because we realize what people want changes over the years. What's even funniers is how we keep forgetting that's how the natural progression works.

Marriage is such a messed up institution anyways, I think politics should focus on how to keep married couples together and working instead of trying to choose who should and shouldn't marry.

Edit Funny how people think that humans haven't earned the right to get married but have earned the right to own handguns!
Both candidates for President in this upcomming election are rich I just find it funny that suddenly President Bush only represents the wealthy while John Kerry who is a billionaire somehow represents the common man in America.

You mention that things change and that is how natural progression works but I am suspect if we are any better off as a nation now than we were 50 years ago. There are more laws on the books today than ever before and more deviants in the country than ever before as well. As country, we have more people in prision than any other nation in the world. Hardly makes sense for a country that is supposed to be the most free.

Where do you base your opinion that marriage is a messed up institution...? Last time I checked, there wasn't some inheritant flaw in marriage that is somehow different 50 years ago than it is today. People stayed together years ago because we were a less selfish and tougher nation of people 50 years ago. Generation X and Y complain about the most pissant things these days. Our grandparents dealt with sh*t like the depression, the World Wars, breadlines, and the such. I fear a time in this country when we should ever be so put out. People would be lining the streets with used up tissue boxes.

The last thing that politics or the government should worry about is marriage and keeping people together. If you are relying on the government to say your marriage or somehow encourage you to stay together than you are royally screwed already my friend. Matter of fact, persons that count on the government for anything but national defense are screwed for that matter.

Within in regards to your "edit", last time I checked the Bill or Rights specifically guarantees me the right to own and bare arms but makes no such provision about marriage in general.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#7)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,983
Join Date: October 1, 2002
March 29, 2004, 10:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadslilgrl228
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
Why can't you understand the opinion of a person that thinks that marriage is an institution reserved for a man and a woman and ultimately a family.
It's one thing to have an opinion about something but it's another thing entirely to institute a law that restricts the rights of someone else because they practice something that differs from your opinion. Last time I checked, our country was founded on the principle that everyone was equal and had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . .
This is a classic example of the retoric that has destroyed or is attempting to destroy any institution that is percieved as discriminatory. You are taking a bit of a loose constructionist arguement to get from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to somehow insisting that every person in the country has the same rights to everything in this country.

I suppose under that current arguement that I would be happiest attending an all girl Catholic school. I want to be admitted immediately and start session in the fall. I like the idea of having a pretty open dating pool and the idea of being one guy on a campus of all women is inviting. Under your "pursuit of happiness" arguement, shouldn't I be allowed to attend, even if the school has be chartered all girl for the last say 100 years...? How about if I wanted to work out in a Womens only gym....should make for good scenery...? How about it...?

I also like to ride really fast and that make me happy as well. I think the current speed laws in the country are discriminatory against people with fast cars and bikes and on open roads, there is no threat to anyones safety but my own....should I sue to have the speed laws changed because I feel I would be happier going fast...?
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#8)
MSF Student
 
dadslilgrl228's Avatar
 
Posts: 99
Join Date: February 18, 2004
March 29, 2004, 11:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
Within in regards to your "edit", last time I checked the Bill or Rights specifically guarantees me the right to own and bare arms....
Actually, the wording of the 2nd amendment provides the right for members of "A well regulated militia" to bare arms . . . people only read the 2nd part, which states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," yet they fail to realize that because of the first part of that statement, this is not meant to be interpreted as "every individual should have a right to carry the gun" as most current gun advocates claim.

As far as your argument for your "pursuit of happiness" being joining a women's gym or driving as fast as you want, the right to pursuit of happiness extends only as far as it starts to infringe on other's rights. Surely your enjoyment of reckless driving is dangerous to others and thus infringes on their rights, which is why we have laws against such things.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#9)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,983
Join Date: October 1, 2002
March 29, 2004, 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dadslilgrl228
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
Within in regards to your "edit", last time I checked the Bill or Rights specifically guarantees me the right to own and bare arms....
Actually, the wording of the 2nd amendment provides the right for members of "A well regulated militia" to bare arms . . . people only read the 2nd part, which states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," yet they fail to realize that because of the first part of that statement, this is not meant to be interpreted as "every individual should have a right to carry the gun" as most current gun advocates claim.

As far as your argument for your "pursuit of happiness" being joining a women's gym or driving as fast as you want, the right to pursuit of happiness extends only as far as it starts to infringe on other's rights. Surely your enjoyment of reckless driving is dangerous to others and thus infringes on their rights, which is why we have laws against such things.
Hence my clarification in my original post. there is no threat to anyones safety but my own....

That being said, you never really touched on the first part of my post regarding my right to join and all girls school or women only gym. What right would I be infringing upon then....?
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#10)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,983
Join Date: October 1, 2002
March 29, 2004, 11:47 AM

If you trully want to be accurate....

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Take into account that at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rigths that there was no standing/organized military. The "Militia" as it was called consisted of citizens. It was a volunteer army. So the arguement that the right to bear Arms was reserved for the military only is incorrect.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#11)
Meh
 
Posts: 7,983
Join Date: October 1, 2002
March 29, 2004, 12:24 PM

Here is a little story about the ineptitude of gun control laws in this country for those who think they work.

http://www.provide.net/~wcardone/dow...yths_small.wmv
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#12)
MSF Student
 
dadslilgrl228's Avatar
 
Posts: 99
Join Date: February 18, 2004
March 29, 2004, 12:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
If you trully want to be accurate....

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Take into account that at the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rigths that there was no standing/organized military. The "Militia" as it was called consisted of citizens. It was a volunteer army. So the arguement that the right to bear Arms was reserved for the military only is incorrect.
Still, the wording is saying that the people should be armed as an organized force that may be called upon to defend the security of our free State as necessary. I would hardly call all of America's gun owners today "A well regulated Militia" ...

In reference to your speed limit "rights," I find it hard to believe there are any roads where you are the only person who ever drives on them. It would be nice if the speed limit could be "55 when other cars are around," but laws are unfortunately not this flexible.

As for being the only man in an all girls school or gym, I'll agree, there is no LAW that says you couldn't join. Perhaps their right to privacy is the right they feel you'd be infringing on, since women may feel more comfortable learning or working out in same-sex groups. Still, I'm sure you could make a case for being allowed the right to join. So your point is that you shouldn't have that right and thus that this somehow extrapolates to marriage. I don't see the similarity in the two. Yes, I think all-female gyms should be allowed to exist, but a man working out in the middle of an all-female gym obviously will have some affect on the others there, whereas how have married couples at all been affected by gay couples getting married? It doesn't change a marriage between a man and a woman--if it wasn't in the news and no one knew it was happening, it wouldn't directly affect any married couple. My point is that I don't think a law should be enacted to exclude a section of the population from something that doesn't infringe on others' rights.
  Send a message via AIM to  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#13)
GP Champ
 
ThrustinJZX6's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,014
Join Date: October 15, 2003
Location: I should have my own website
March 29, 2004, 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThrustinJZX6
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
John Kerry (the true billionaire representative of middle Americans)
What politician running for president isn't rich?

For me it's about someone telling someone else what they can and can't do, just for sake of grass roots politics. It's funny how laws change over the years because we realize what people want changes over the years. What's even funniers is how we keep forgetting that's how the natural progression works.

Marriage is such a messed up institution anyways, I think politics should focus on how to keep married couples together and working instead of trying to choose who should and shouldn't marry.

Edit Funny how people think that humans haven't earned the right to get married but have earned the right to own handguns!
Both candidates for President in this upcomming election are rich I just find it funny that suddenly President Bush only represents the wealthy while John Kerry who is a billionaire somehow represents the common man in America.
Democrats have always been this way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch

You mention that things change and that is how natural progression works but I am suspect if we are any better off as a nation now than we were 50 years ago. There are more laws on the books today than ever before and more deviants in the country than ever before as well. As country, we have more people in prision than any other nation in the world. Hardly makes sense for a country that is supposed to be the most free.
That's almost exactly my point. Natural progression doesn't involve politics. More politics equals more laws and regulations. Look at those countries with less people in prison; they have more strict, but fewer laws. Now we need to consider why our model isn't working and theirs is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch

Where do you base your opinion that marriage is a messed up institution...? Last time I checked, there wasn't some inheritant flaw in marriage that is somehow different 50 years ago than it is today. People stayed together years ago because we were a less selfish and tougher nation of people 50 years ago. Generation X and Y complain about the most pissant things these days. Our grandparents dealt with sh*t like the depression, the World Wars, breadlines, and the such. I fear a time in this country when we should ever be so put out. People would be lining the streets with used up tissue boxes.
I base this more on personal experience. Most of my friends parents are divorced...some getting married for the wrong reasons. I agree with the pissant quibbles though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch

The last thing that politics or the government should worry about is marriage and keeping people together. If you are relying on the government to say your marriage or somehow encourage you to stay together than you are royally screwed already my friend. Matter of fact, persons that count on the government for anything but national defense are screwed for that matter.
I'm not saying that at all...more just that the government has about as much reason to tell people not to marry as they do to tell them how to stay together. I TOTALLY agree with your last statement!!! (sadly, we can't even do that these days.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
Within in regards to your "edit", last time I checked the Bill or Rights specifically guarantees me the right to own and bare arms but makes no such provision about marriage in general.
I look at all the crazy people as I ride my bike down the highway and in a grocery store and in a mall, and I am honestly worried whether or not they carry or own a gun. I trust very few people in this world and I trust even less of them to carry a handgun or automatic rifle. I think this is why most people WANT to carry guns...deep inside...it's the root. Hunting is one thing, but a person hand gun in the night table is only because the fucker down the street has 2 of them...and an AK-47...and they just had an argument about the tree branch that crosses the property line.........


'00 Kawasaki Ninja ZX6-R
'03 Honda XR100R
Xbox: ThrustinJ
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to ThrustinJZX6  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#14)
GP Champ
 
ThrustinJZX6's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,014
Join Date: October 15, 2003
Location: I should have my own website
March 29, 2004, 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackHatch
Here is a little story about the ineptitude of gun control laws in this country for those who think they work.

http://www.provide.net/~wcardone/dow...yths_small.wmv
I agree. But just because we don't think everyone should be allowed handguns doesn't mean we think their should be more strict laws. They should illegal to manufacture and sell, period.

Don't you think the world would be safer? How many times has someone had to fight off a terrorist from their 3rd floor apt. building?

Getting rid of all the bad people's guns is the hardest part and they'll be the last people to keep them. That's why good people with guns don't want to give them up so quickly. Again, hunting rifles excluded...for now.


'00 Kawasaki Ninja ZX6-R
'03 Honda XR100R
Xbox: ThrustinJ
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to ThrustinJZX6  
Reply With Quote
Unread
  (#15)
GP Champ
 
ThrustinJZX6's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,014
Join Date: October 15, 2003
Location: I should have my own website
March 29, 2004, 12:55 PM

Ha ha ha...I just noticed cripes hasn't even come back to say anything on here...stupid trouble makers

I'm done too. It was fun 'Hatch


'00 Kawasaki Ninja ZX6-R
'03 Honda XR100R
Xbox: ThrustinJ
  Send a message via AIM to Send a message via AIM to ThrustinJZX6  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest 2002-2010 by DCSportbikes.net. DCSportbikes.net is owned by End of Time Studios, LLC.