For or Against Gay Marriage

"What if people like the way they are, and don't want to convert to be like you are? Simply because someone can change, doesn't mean that person should change. "

I think Jake brings up a perfect point. America is a free nation, and our citizens are free. Freedom means choice. Listen, we are talking about a very small minority of people. There is no "crises" of marriage that is caused by homosexuality. Homosexuals have been around LONG before the term (coined in the 19th century) and humanity/society has survived without difficulty. Hell, we are more likely to kill our selves in a nuclear winter than any other way.

And I'm not going to engage in this rest of this argument. I'm going to stay far away from that.
 
State laws mean nothing to an activist SCOTUS. We've already seen that. I like the idea of a Federal Constitutional Amendment. That would be bullet-proof.
 
Thanks for the explanation.


I guess it depenRAB on which side of the issue you're on, but I'd say that I'm impressed that Clinton actually did something right.
 
God says marraige is between a man and a man (Psalm 5:91 "Thou shalt not be heterosexual"). Allowing opposite sex marraiges will undermine our holy fathers sacred institution, and it will propogate the evil democratic practice of heterosexuality! We must stop heterosexualness, before it pollutes our children into abandoning homosexuality!
 
We are greatly outnumbered by the Liberals in this forum.......Probably most Conservatives are working and don't have time for this........Before the jump me I am retired so I have 24 hours a day.......

They can't beat us and they know it.......... :xhoho:

all they can do is call us homophobes and bigots because we have a different opinion..........
 
You've pointed out a case where the surviving partner wanted the patient to die and the biological parents wanted the patient to live and the blood family won. I think that's a good outcome...much unlike the case of Terri Schiavo. Her parents should have won.

However, if gays are successful in attaining all the rights and privileges of married couples by virtue of the courts recognizing legal gay unions, it will still be up the courts (and their unrestrained judges) in each case to decide who gets their way...just as it was in the Schiavo case.
 
I hear. There are all kinRAB of daRAB and moms - because moms and daRAB are people, and there are all kinRAB of people....

There are those who find that fact threatening. Not me. :)
 
Well good for Canada. Here in the US, last time I checked at least, we got to make up our own rules. And we did, no gay marriage allowed. If the minority of those in the US who want gay marriage don't like it, they can : a. move to Canada or b. change the mjority's minRAB. It's THAT simple.
 
If marriage is a "church" institution, then it is unconstitutional. Unless you think you can repeal the 1st Amendment, this is a fallacious argument.




Full faith and credit prevents you from refusing to recognize contracts performed in other states. For example, 1st cousins can marry in New York. That marriage must be recognized in all states.
 
But nobody is forcing you to support anti-Catholic policies. Of course, you have the right to support them, but don't try to make it sound as if you aren't making a conscious choice to do so. That's hypocritical.
When my religious beliefs bump into the law, I've never had a gun held to my head by someone saying "support the law or else".
 
It seems anyone who doesn't agree with you is a liberal. I think your defintion of liberal is very inaccurate. People can be liberal without being extreme.....

People can also be fiscally conserbative and socially liberal or moderate.

The world is not as black and white that people are just liberal or conservative. There are moderates (shades of gray).
 
Back
Top