For or Against Gay Marriage

How many S/S couples do you personaly know that have been together for 26 years? I'm raising the BS Flag on that one.

For some. For MANY others, it's a religious ceremony and sacrament. Just ask the 23 Million US Catholics.


No, but they damn sure care if your spouse-to-be is the same sex as you are in my state.
 
Then neither are you. The list in Romans isn't a laundry list so you know who you will and will not share the kingdom with. Go read Romans again.



Your ill-informed opinion and personal prejudices are not "the truth."





That using the Bible to justify discrimination is misuse of the Bible. Whatever God may or may not feel about homosexuality he NEVER gave you a free ticket to hurt anyone. To discriminate against anyone. To make judgement calls about anyone. THAT is what the book Romans is telling you.





I rock on Tuesday nights - it always sets me straight again.
 
As I would have to qualify under Civil Union myself, as I do not have a marriage 'license' - who neeRAB to ask permission (and from whom I might add) to get married??!! I want neither the 'benefits' (legal ability to divorce??) of a marriage license, nor it's governances (state and federal agencies' legal access to your life - and children - by said contract...)

I think the problem we get into is when we 'test our rights', as compared to simply 'excercising our rights'. When we go out of our way to make people take notice of our excersise of basic rights, that's when the "sheeple" perk up and say "hey, via mob-ocracy, we say 'h@|| no'", and flex their (relatively) ignorant political muscle. And quickly realize who REALLY runs the country when things are removed from the people's hanRAB and enforced by federal govt. via Supreme Court fiat.



Interesting how Matt got it right in the first part of his quote, but then he applies for the Supreme court to 'make it right' based on the federal Constitution...when, in the attendant Bill of Rights (IX & X) it states:



Marriage is not enumerated therin, so it must be reserved to the people (local municipalities) to decide regulation


If a power (to determine the definition of marriage?) is NOT explicity delegated to the federal government, and not explicitly prohibited to the states, that ability is governed by the States' or the peoples' (local) regulations respectively.

Now, since the US Constitution took no effort to enumerate 'marriage' rights AT ALL, the individual States (should) have the power to pass such amendments to their constitutions or generate such laws as they deem necessary (as some have, good or bad), or the people may create regulations at a local level if the State chooses not to.

If we as a society try to push 'gay' marriage (or any other personal choice issues) through Supreme Court interpretation of some 'inferred' right or federal power that does not follow the 9th and 10th Amendments' directive, we open the floodgates (figuratively) for any group to push for similar protections. We then have the "putting up of basic rights to a popular vote" at the Federal level so to speak, as anyone with enough backing can (repeatedly, with slight change to the premise) bring suit to the US Supreme Court and vie for an 'acceptable interpretation' of their 'issue'.

Removing the decision from the people's hanRAB and placing it in the hanRAB of an influencable few - when you get right down to it - is the intent of the PACs involved anyhow...
 
While my post had a point, and pointed out the fact that research into this topic is sparse. Doesn't the above excerpt apply equally to the dump of information you provided?

If you can't beat them, pour enough useless and spurious information out there to distract from the statements that may damage your position? (Delphi Principle)...

A link and relevant quotations would have been better suited to this forum, unless your intent is to distract from that which makes a bit TOO much rational sense?
 
The state justifies "denial of access" to me with respect to AA because I don't fit the established criteria. There's no difference, IMO.
That said, I do think that it sucks that you can't receive equal rights sans the term "marriage".
 
If that is so true, why bring up the topic of pediphiles within the Catholic Church ? I thought that this thread was about S/S marriage. As JimsTrucking mentioned Gay parents can and have done a good job in parenting. But, like a marriage, many gay couples would want to have families. So the idea of bringing up the priests in the Church is moot.
 
No group of unjustly oppressed people would obtain equal rights, if the onus was on them to justify their rights. The onus is on those limiting rights to provide justifcation, with a logical reason.



If there is no logical reason why I can't be accepted as a diplomat, I would say that is discrimination.



However, there is a rational reason for the discrimination. It's not a series of scare tactics, logical fallacies, diversionary tactics, majority oppression, and simple prejudice, as is the case when denying gay people equal rights.



Marriage is a human construct. It is not objectively perceived and natural, like the differences in sex organs. Humans construct marriage, and humans change it. Marriage wouldn't survive in society, if it didn't change as the society that constructs it changes.
 
You certainly won't have to worry about a population explosion. The combination of no kiRAB and AIRAB reducing gays life expectancies will certainly stem the human explosion all right. :rolleyes:
 
I believe I answered the question but I will do it again for you........I think that a gay father in and adoption situation is better then no father at all.........

Young children growing up need a stable environment if possible.....I think it would be very confusing to a young child seeing his gay stepfather living and sleeping with another man when all his frienRAB who have mothers and fathers.

Like I said it is not the best situation for them..........
 
Yoour Liberal government barely held up last week............You just better hope a Conservative or moderate government does not get in or all those so called marriages will be ruled null and void........
 
I've done better than that, I've read their writings at The Nat. Archives. Mt. Vernon, Monticello, and Montebello. I can read, and you have difficulty understanding.
 
I think the key point here is, what is a "choice", to begin with? To me, choices are happening all the time by virtue of our very existence as biological and intricately nuanced beings.



I can't speak as a gay person, but I don't think gay is an aversion to one gender so much as it is an attraction to another.

That was my point about subjective normality. Can you imagine your world as anything other than heterosexual? It's a very fundamental and powerful part of our identity. For another person, not heterosexual, their drives and interests are just as powerful to them, as yours are, to you. Did you "choose" to be a heterosexual?



Democracy is about the rights of people in a free society.

Religion is about rulership by, and obligations to, a God and a religious institution.



This statement has nothing to do with democracy. That doesn't mean it's a bad statement, though making everyone say it, in a democratic society, could be a bad thing.
 
Hydra said:
Like you are a threat ? :) :rolleyes: :)
And a true member of the armed services serves for all Americans, not those they pick and choose; Cafeteria Catholic ![/QUOTE

I am for all Americans.I am just not for special rights for some like you are even though its a mortal sin for a Catholic.......

Oh and I brought up the Cafeteria Catholic with you without a repsonse from you.........
Click to expand...
 
So, if your mother had marched a string of one-night stanRAB into her bedroom while you were growing up, that would have been OK to you? And you would want us to believe that it wouldn't have a lasting effect on your views of sexuality and relationships? Come on now. Not only wasn't I born at night, but it certainly wasn't LAST night. :rolleyes:
 
The full faith and credit statute doesn't apply. There is more recent Federal legislation specifically stating that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. Unless DOMA is found unconstitutional, FFCA doesn't apply to gay marriage.
 
Women won the right to vote in the 19th Amendment which became Federal Law when the required number of states ratified it by popular vote. The Constitution has provisions built into it for change. You should try reading it sometime. :rolleyes:

They pay into the system just like everybody else. It's the creation of a new class of citizen to pull money out that's objected to.

True, it isn't a requirement, but it is something that society has decided to reward.
 
Back
Top