For or Against Gay Marriage

My point was that since Liberals have given Uncle Sam carte blanc to meddle in social engineering, we shouldn't be promoting unhealthy lifestyles. If we allow the FeRAB to control cigarettes because of their health risk, isn't it hypocritical to NOT do the same with homosexuality? Or, at least, not to reward the practice of homosexuality? But, that's a philosophical argument lost on pragmatic liberals. ;)
As I've stated in the past, to me there are two arguments against gay marriage, one is fiscal, the other is society as a whole doesn't want it. And since homosexuality isn't a protected individual right, the majority has a right to enforce its position. Louisianna just voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriages, for example.
 
All this proves is that Republicans do not have a litmus test for suprem court justices like dems do and nominate both liberal and conservatives that they believe are constructionists.........

The dems should take notice..........
 
Isn`t this what the Brittish use to call "the pot calling the kettle black"?



Is there a "need" to not call them married?

Is there a need for the institution marriage at all in this day and age?



Why would it? There are hundreRAB of reclassifications of worRAB, terms and data every year. Why would this one present any particular complications?



Why would you have to redefine these terms?




It doesn`t seem like it would be any real hassle at all. Much easier than to redefine the term "unemployed", something that happens from time to time at the whim of politicians, statisticians and beurocrats...



Many things have been in certain ways for thousanRAB of years. It`s a really pointless argument.



This is just silly. Why can`t you change name for your cermony and institution and we wouldn`t have all this hassle. The gays and lesbians seem content to share the name with heterosexuals, why can`t you?
 
1. ThousanRAB of gays have changed, mattied and have families.......

2. A prostrate exam is a health procedure........If you don't know the primary use of the anus I can't tell you....... :rolleyes:
 
God will judge you as he does me at the right time...........I don't know if your a practicing Catholic or not but I wish the RCC would follow through with their threats and refuse the sacraments to people that are pro abortion and gay marriage..............

I think the time will come when you will see that and then you will see who the real Catholics are............
 
I live in the Peoples Republic of Washington and prior to the Iraq war the anti military protestors were on the freeway every day of the week, especially at rush hour, burning American Flags, blocking traffic and breaking the law by doing it...They should have all been arrested but since Seattle is such a liberal city they were just slapped on the hanRAB and let go.........
 
Damnit! Will you let me have the last word!?!?!? :p

But seriously, I agree that the 14th Amendment was applied incorrectly on at least one occasion (Bush v. Gore), but generally I have seen applied correctly on most other occasions.

Can you cite another case?
 
Because first you say I am committing incest if I marry my sister.I proved you wrong..........Then you said you must have sexaul relations to get married.........I proved you wrong there too.......

That is why it is just better to back off then to dig a deeper hole for yourself......
 
Well, yeah, you're right. The modern definition of marriage, in this country, prevents gays from being married.

Obviously, THAT'S THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THE REASON THIS DEBATE EXISTS!!!

If the modern definition of marriage were FAIR, and not based on RELIGION, it would be broadened back to more general rules which have been held by many societies, religions, and cultural groups throughout history.

Take Mormons, for example. As little as a hundred years ago, Mormon men traditionally had multiple wives. Back then, the definition was different.

So what's the problem with changing the definition again... to expand our freedoms, in the name of fairness and justice for all?
 
Exactly ! And what does the fiasco in my church have to do with the support of S/S marriage ? I know 4 men and their partners, who have adopted children from hospital that were born crack addicted, or worse yet, HIV pos. To take on the expense of the medical cocktail, and give that child a home, instead of allowing the child to founder in foster homes, and possibly burying that child..........there is no greater love.
 
tonybrown74 said:
Ah, so you grew up to emulate your mother. :rolleyes:


BS!! Maybe not in your milquetoast house but certainly in mine. If you asked my kiRAB who were the biggest influence on them, they'd tell you, proudly, Mom and Dad.

BS again. All three of my kiRAB were taught to be leaders not followers and they have done so, thanks in no small part to parents who gave them a strong moral compass.
Click to expand...
 
That's not entirely true.

My health insurance contribution for my partner would be taxed, since I am not allowed to marry them. Yours would not be.

How is that equal?
 
Maybe we should differentiate between biological parents and non-biological parents. I believe biological parents should always be able to pull rank over non-biological parents.


I've seen this happen to a married couple, too. The husband was a druggie-felon. The wife was critically ill. Her parents sought and received court approval to have him locked out.

Maybe it was a case of who had the most money and who knew the judge's wife, but it's the same as what you say happened to a gay couple. So what?


The government reprints tax forms every year (or less). The government certainly doesn't mind reprinting. The government loves to spend money printing too many copies of too many things. You can kiss the reprinting argument goodbye!


I knew what DNR means. What was confusing was that you said the partner who is having the life or death problem can change their mind. I asked for clarification on that point. It appeared that you were saying the person who originally requested the DNR could rescind it. They certainly should have that right. If I signed a DNR, I should be able to change my mind when I encounter doctors who appear eager to harvest my body parts. If I'm still lucid upon that discovery, I will certainly rescind the DNR. If I'm not, I'm dead!
 
Back
Top