PDA

View Full Version : Christie Rejects Same-Sex Marriage Bill



andrewhoya
02-17-2012, 08:30 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/nj-gov-christie-vetoes-gay-marriage-bill-vowed-221536132.html


Gov. Chris Christie has followed through on his promise to reject a bill allowing same-sex marriage in New Jersey by quickly vetoing the measure Friday and renewing his call for a ballot question to decide the issue.

These people disgust me.

duane1969
02-18-2012, 10:40 AM
I think a double-standard exist here. On one hand people want things like this to be made law without the population having a say. Then when things like tax increases or rasing the debt ceiling come along people complain that it isn't put to a public vote.

Citizens are allowed to vote on small issues like license plate changes, tax increases to fund schools and speed limit changes, why not a major issue like same-sex marriage?

My position on gay marriage is irrelevant. Quite frankly I could care less. I just don't understand why letting the people vote on what they want their government to do is so wrong.

theonedru
02-19-2012, 01:37 PM
I think a double-standard exist here. On one hand people want things like this to be made law without the population having a say. Then when things like tax increases or rasing the debt ceiling come along people complain that it isn't put to a public vote.

Citizens are allowed to vote on small issues like license plate changes, tax increases to fund schools and speed limit changes, why not a major issue like same-sex marriage?

My position on gay marriage is irrelevant. Quite frankly I could care less. I just don't understand why letting the people vote on what they want their government to do is so wrong.

Why not have some votes then now for blacks, Jews, the disabled, or people of different faiths to be able to marry. Sounds silly right, but that what we are doing to a segment of the American population. We look at them, we spit on them and we say you are not deserving of the freedoms we all share. That is disgusting and everyone who doesn't think they deserve the same as everyone else should hang their heads in shame.....

Wickabee
02-19-2012, 03:13 PM
I'm with you that I think gay marriage should be legal, simply for the fact that no one has ever shown me a real argument against it.

That said, I also believe it should be brought to a vote. It's not the same as disabled, African-Americans, Jews or anything else. As the law is written right now all these people can get married, just not to someone of the same gender. I agree it should be brought to a vote. Whether I agree with the outcome or not, when it comes to changing laws, especially one as contentious as this one, it should be brough to a vote.

Like I said, I think gay marriage should be legal, but I also think that laws which are so devisive as this one, shouldn't be shoved down a population's throats.

duane1969
02-19-2012, 04:46 PM
Why not have some votes then now for blacks, Jews, the disabled, or people of different faiths to be able to marry. Sounds silly right, but that what we are doing to a segment of the American population. We look at them, we spit on them and we say you are not deserving of the freedoms we all share. That is disgusting and everyone who doesn't think they deserve the same as everyone else should hang their heads in shame.....

Unless you have somehow come under the impression that gays are a race then your comparison is severely flawed. For that matter, categorizing Jews and blacks in with the disabled is flawed as well.

As I said, I could care less either way. I just don't see where the flaw exist in allowing people to vote. If this country is truly a democracy then the people expecting to be given the right to vote is not wrong. If the government is just going to dictate things to the people irregardless of what the people want then there is no democracy.

theonedru
02-20-2012, 12:59 AM
as long as gays are denied the same rights as others then democracy does not exist in America

tutall
02-26-2012, 11:02 AM
There is way too much on the line to actually pass something like this is any state or federally... There is way too much money spent and politicins heads would fall if anything like this was allowed to pass... The same goes for illegal immigration... What would politicians fight over if stuff like this was able to be passed?

pspstatus
02-26-2012, 04:07 PM
as long as gays are denied the same rights as others then democracy does not exist in America

100% agree.

MadMan1978
02-26-2012, 04:24 PM
I think a double-standard exist here. On one hand people want things like this to be made law without the population having a say. Then when things like tax increases or rasing the debt ceiling come along people complain that it isn't put to a public vote.

Citizens are allowed to vote on small issues like license plate changes, tax increases to fund schools and speed limit changes, why not a major issue like same-sex marriage?

My position on gay marriage is irrelevant. Quite frankly I could care less. I just don't understand why letting the people vote on what they want their government to do is so wrong.
Actually IMO the People of the state SHOULD be the ones to decide this issue...

tutall
02-26-2012, 05:39 PM
Actually IMO the People of the state SHOULD be the ones to decide this issue...

I could be wrong but hasnt it gone to the people for a vote several times and almost every time (in other states o course) it has been defeated?

bud7562
02-26-2012, 07:02 PM
I could be wrong but hasnt it gone to the people for a vote several times and almost every time (in other states o course) it has been defeated? its the goverment vote for the laws not the poeple has no sayso over the laws. thats why the govenment stay in office to get votes like let????

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 08:55 AM
as long as gays are denied the same rights as others then democracy does not exist in america

+1,000,000

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 08:56 AM
Actually IMO the People of the state SHOULD be the ones to decide this issue...


Disagree. The people should never have to power to decide the rights of others who they don't like or have the best intrests at heart.

duane1969
02-27-2012, 09:37 AM
as long as gays are denied the same rights as others then democracy does not exist in America

What rights are they denied? Marriage is not a constitutional right. They have the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to not be searched illegally...their rights are not being violated.

Marriage is not a right and it is not something that should be regulated by the government.

However, if it is something that is going to be controlled by the government then it is something that the people should have a say in. It should not be mandated (for or against) by a politician. Let the people vote.

duane1969
02-27-2012, 09:45 AM
Disagree. The people should never have to power to decide the rights of others who they don't like or have the best intrests at heart.

The people vote whether or not I pay more in property tax. The people vote how old I have to be to buy a beer. The people vote whether or not to incorporate my little corner of the world into city limits (thus changing my tax status). The people even get to vote on license plate design. Why is voting on gay marriage not acceptable?

This is what I said in a previous post. There is a double-standard. People want a vote for what they want to vote on (like taxes) then expect other things that they know they would lose the vote on (like gay marriage) to be mandated by law without a vote. Either you want a democracy or you want a dictatorship. You can not have both.

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 09:56 AM
What rights are they denied? Marriage is not a constitutional right. They have the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to not be searched illegally...their rights are not being violated.

Marriage is not a right and it is not something that should be regulated by the government.

However, if it is something that is going to be controlled by the government then it is something that the people should have a say in. It should not be mandated (for or against) by a politician. Let the people vote.


Getting a driver's licsence is not guaranteed in the constitution. So if it is ok to stop a gay couple from getting married, why not stop a gay person from getting a driver's liscence? Or what about buying a house? That is not guaranteed by the constitution. Why not prohibit gay's from buying a house and just force them to live in predomantely gay neighboorhoods? :confused0024:

duwal
02-27-2012, 01:46 PM
What rights are they denied? Marriage is not a constitutional right. They have the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to not be searched illegally...their rights are not being violated.

Marriage is not a right and it is not something that should be regulated by the government.

However, if it is something that is going to be controlled by the government then it is something that the people should have a say in. It should not be mandated (for or against) by a politician. Let the people vote.


but why? Why should it be put to a vote? What business is it of heterosexuals to vote on and vote against it when it doesn't pertain to us? Go back 60 years and if it was put to a popular vote the country would turn down the idea that a black man could marry a white woman. When there are two people in love, no other outside opinions should carry any kind of weight, especially when the issue does not affect them personally. Sometimes a majority vote doesn't equal fairness and equality

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 01:57 PM
but why? Why should it be put to a vote? What business is it of heterosexuals to vote on and vote against it when it doesn't pertain to us? Go back 60 years and if it was put to a popular vote the country would turn down the idea that a black man could marry a white woman. When there are two people in love, no other outside opinions should carry any kind of weight, especially when the issue does not affect them personally. Sometimes a majority vote doesn't equal fairness and equality


CHURCH!! :love0030:

duane1969
02-27-2012, 02:09 PM
Getting a driver's licsence is not guaranteed in the constitution. So if it is ok to stop a gay couple from getting married, why not stop a gay person from getting a driver's liscence? Or what about buying a house? That is not guaranteed by the constitution. Why not prohibit gay's from buying a house and just force them to live in predomantely gay neighboorhoods? :confused0024:

I have no idea what you are talking about. My point was that if it is acceptable for people to vote on something as minor as license plates or taxes then it is certainly logical for the people to vote on a hot topic like gay marriage.


but why? Why should it be put to a vote? What business is it of heterosexuals to vote on and vote against it when it doesn't pertain to us? Go back 60 years and if it was put to a popular vote the country would turn down the idea that a black man could marry a white woman. When there are two people in love, no other outside opinions should carry any kind of weight, especially when the issue does not affect them personally. Sometimes a majority vote doesn't equal fairness and equality

I agree, a majority vote may not equal fairness but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. Expecting the majority of people in society to accept something that they are fundamentally against simple because a few desire it is also wrong.

Question. Do you agree with polygamy? Should men be able to have 10 or 15 wives or women be able to have 10 or 15 husbands? If they are in love then why should they be denied their right to be married? And no outside opinion should prevent that, right?

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 02:24 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. My point was that if it is acceptable for people to vote on something as minor as license plates or taxes then it is certainly logical for the people to vote on a hot topic like gay marriage.



I agree, a majority vote may not equal fairness but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. Expecting the majority of people in society to accept something that they are fundamentally against simple because a few desire it is also wrong.

Question. Do you agree with polygamy? Should men be able to have 10 or 15 wives or women be able to have 10 or 15 husbands? If they are in love then why should they be denied their right to be married? And no outside opinion should prevent that, right?

Apples and organes Duane. A vanity liscence plate is a meaningless, trivial manner. Are you comparing something stupid like that to one's right to be legally married to the one that someone falls in love with regarless or race or sexual preference. Also polygamy regarding polygamy if you believe in it you do, if don't you don't. However only one spouse per customer regardless of race, or sexual prefence, or gender.

duane1969
02-27-2012, 02:43 PM
Apples and organes Duane. A vanity liscence plate is a meaningless, trivial manner. Are you comparing something stupid like that to one's right to be legally married to the one that someone falls in love with regarless or race or sexual preference. Also polygamy regarding polygamy if you believe in it you do, if don't you don't. However only one spouse per customer regardless of race, or sexual prefence, or gender.

I am saying that if the people have the right to vote on something as trivial as a license plate then they have the right to expect to vote on a major issue like gay marriage.

And where is your "only one spouse" rule coming from? What is that opinion based on?

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 02:47 PM
I am saying that if the people have the right to vote on something as trivial as a license plate then they have the right to expect to vote on a major issue like gay marriage.

And where is your "only one spouse" rule coming from? What is that opinion based on?


The "only one spouse rule" is as far as benefits and taxes are concerned. If you want 100 wives and 50 husbands for religious purposes then knock yourself out. However the gov't will/should only recognize one spouse as far as benefits are concerned.

tsjct
02-27-2012, 02:50 PM
The "only one spouse rule" is as far as benefits and taxes are concerned. If you want 100 wives and 50 husbands for religious purposes then knock yourself out. However the gov't will/should only recognize one spouse as as benefits.

My beliefs are total against GAY MARRIAGE but if they want to do it i say go for it. I say they belong on the same side of the law as my wife and i do once they do get married. If they get a divorce they need the same legal obligations as a traditional marriage.

mrveggieman
02-27-2012, 02:52 PM
My beliefs are total against GAY MARRIAGE but if they want to do it i say go for it. I say they belong on the same side of the law as my wife and i do once they do get married. If they get a divorce they need the same legal obligations as a traditional marriage.


Agree!

theonedru
02-27-2012, 05:45 PM
Its just crazy to see so much hate towards people who want so little in this life. Its so trivial what we fight over its actually pathetic in the grand scheme of things. People need to learn to let go of their bigotries and discrimination's. If its among consenting legal adults and it brings no harm to anyone then why would someone have a beef with it.

duane1969
02-27-2012, 08:53 PM
Its just crazy to see so much hate towards people who want so little in this life. Its so trivial what we fight over its actually pathetic in the grand scheme of things. People need to learn to let go of their bigotries and discrimination's. If its among consenting legal adults and it brings no harm to anyone then why would someone have a beef with it.

They have a beef with it because they disagree with it. I know this is hard for a lot of liberals to comprehend but people do have a right to disagree with liberal positions on issues. It is called freedom of choice.

And for the record, I disagree with the "it hurts no one" idea. Just a few days ago my family and I were watching a TV show. Next thing you know two guys are kissing on the show. Two days later my 10 year old brings it up and from what he said I can tell, he was troubled by it. Just because something doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother anyone else.

andrewhoya
02-27-2012, 09:02 PM
They have a beef with it because they disagree with it. I know this is hard for a lot of liberals to comprehend but people do have a right to disagree with liberal positions on issues. It is called freedom of choice.

And for the record, I disagree with the "it hurts no one" idea. Just a few days ago my family and I were watching a TV show. Next thing you know two guys are kissing on the show. Two days later my 10 year old brings it up and from what he said I can tell, he was troubled by it. Just because something doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother anyone else.

Probably because he hasn't been exposed to it before. I'm sure it makes some gays uneasy seeing a guy and a girl kissing. So that argument doesn't really work.

duwal
02-27-2012, 09:35 PM
They have a beef with it because they disagree with it. I know this is hard for a lot of liberals to comprehend but people do have a right to disagree with liberal positions on issues. It is called freedom of choice.

And for the record, I disagree with the "it hurts no one" idea. Just a few days ago my family and I were watching a TV show. Next thing you know two guys are kissing on the show. Two days later my 10 year old brings it up and from what he said I can tell, he was troubled by it. Just because something doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother anyone else.


are you really trying to make this seem like more of a political party issue than an equal rights, all men are created equal issue? I'm not a liberal or have many liberal views but I can not respect anyone that has the views that homosexuals do not have the right to marry. That somehow in their minds it makes more sense for a heterosexual couple to be allowed to get married two weeks after knowing each other and then annulled two weeks later but another couple that has been together faithfully and lovingly for 15 years doesn't because they are of the same sex.

And I'll bring up my example from earlier. What would you do if your 10 year old saw a white female kissing a black man and he was troubled by it? If he was troubled with it because it wasn't the norm that he is used to seeing?

shrewsbury
02-27-2012, 11:15 PM
but I can not respect anyone that has the views that homosexuals do not have the right to marry.

well that's a shame


That somehow in their minds it makes more sense for a heterosexual couple to be allowed to get married two weeks after knowing each other and then annulled two weeks

who says that those not for gay marriage is for these types of actions?

pspstatus
02-28-2012, 12:16 AM
They have a beef with it because they disagree with it. I know this is hard for a lot of liberals to comprehend but people do have a right to disagree with liberal positions on issues. It is called freedom of choice.

And for the record, I disagree with the "it hurts no one" idea. Just a few days ago my family and I were watching a TV show. Next thing you know two guys are kissing on the show. Two days later my 10 year old brings it up and from what he said I can tell, he was troubled by it. Just because something doesn't bother you doesn't mean it doesn't bother anyone else.


The freedom of choice you speak of is the freedom for people who aren't gay to decide if gay people can or cannot get married. Where's the freedom of choice for the gay couple who wants to marry?

As far as what your son saw, if that's the worst thing he sees on TV you both should consider him lucky. But just because it bothers your kid, that doesn't mean that gays shouldn't be allowed to be who they are.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 09:03 AM
It is called freedom of choice.




You hit it right on the head duane. Consenting adults should have the freedom of choice to marry another consenting adult regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual preference or any other trivial matter.

duane1969
02-28-2012, 09:09 AM
You hit it right on the head duane. Consenting adults should have the freedom of choice to marry another consenting adult regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual preference or any other trivial matter.

And people also have the freedom to choose to not advocate, accept or support something that they disagree with.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 09:12 AM
And people also have the freedom to choose to not advocate or support something that they disagree with.


You are right. I'm not advocating for anyone to be homosexual. Homosexuals do not need you, I, GWB's, Pat Robertson's, Presiden Obama's or anyone elses approval. They just want and deserve the same basic human dignities that anyone eles is entitled to. Both of us may not agree morally with being homosexual but none of us have the right to stop another consenting adult to live his or her life as he or she sees fit.

duane1969
02-28-2012, 09:15 AM
are you really trying to make this seem like more of a political party issue than an equal rights, all men are created equal issue? I'm not a liberal or have many liberal views but I can not respect anyone that has the views that homosexuals do not have the right to marry. That somehow in their minds it makes more sense for a heterosexual couple to be allowed to get married two weeks after knowing each other and then annulled two weeks later but another couple that has been together faithfully and lovingly for 15 years doesn't because they are of the same sex.

And I'll bring up my example from earlier. What would you do if your 10 year old saw a white female kissing a black man and he was troubled by it? If he was troubled with it because it wasn't the norm that he is used to seeing?

Quite simply, it is political party issue. You will rarely see liberals against gay marriage and rarely see conservatives for it, although you are more likely to see conservatives for it.

My point about my son was this. The argument is that other's should not have the right to decide whether or not gays can marry, yet their need to force social change is impacting my life. In the midst of others getting their rights my rights are infringed upon. How is that OK? Why is it that some people have to have their rights or their ideals infringed upon and impacted to make other people happy? Why does my life have to change in order to make you happy?

duane1969
02-28-2012, 09:19 AM
You are right. I'm not advocating for anyone to be homosexual. Homosexuals do not need you, I, GWB's, Pat Robertson's, Presiden Obama's or anyone elses approval. They just want and deserve the same basic human dignities that anyone eles is entitled to. Both of us may not agree morally with being homosexual but none of us have the right to stop another consenting adult to live his or her life as he or she sees fit.

I revert back to my previous question. What if that consenting adult wants to live his/her life in a polygamous marriage? If the happiness of the individual is more important than societal conventions, then when does it stop? When does individuality stop being more important than the collective?

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 09:22 AM
Quite simply, it is political party issue. You will rarely see liberals against gay marriage and rarely see conservatives for it, although you are more likely to see conservatives for it.

My point about my son was this. The argument is that other's should not have the right to decide whether or not gays can marry, yet their need to force social change is impacting my life. In the midst of others getting their rights my rights are infringed upon. How is that OK? Why is it that some people have to have their rights or their ideals infringed upon and impacted to make other people happy? Why does my life have to change in order to make you happy?


You never answered the other question. If you son was offended by an interracial couple kissing would you have the same views on it?

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 09:24 AM
I revert back to my previous question. What if that consenting adult wants to live his/her life in a polygamous marriage? If the happiness of the individual is more important than societal conventions, then when does it stop? When does individuality stop being more important than the collective?


If one wants to have a ceremony to marry others after their 1st spouse then feel free. However if we start to allow people to have more than one legal spouse that will be a floodgate for fraud. How would a 1 on 1 gay marriage lead to a floodgate for fraud any more than a 1on1 staright marriage?

duane1969
02-28-2012, 09:25 AM
You never answered the other question. If you son was offended by an interracial couple kissing would you have the same views on it?

You are confusing my views. I am not against gay marriage, just against it being legislated without the people having a say.

If my son was bothered by seeing an interracial couple kiss then yes, I would have a problem with their life choices impacting my life. I repeat, my life should not have to be altered to accomodate other people's happiness.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 09:31 AM
You are confusing my views. I am not against gay marriage, just against it being legislated without the people having a say.

If my son was bothered by seeing an interracial couple kiss then yes, I would have a problem with their life choices impacting my life. I repeat, my life should not have to be altered to accomodate other people's happiness.


So let me ask you the million dollar question. Let's go back 50 years. Would you have the same views on civil rights for blacks being legislated by the courts and other gov't agencies without being voted on by the majority? Also you son will see a lot more in life worse than seeing two people kissing on tv. It's a part of life. I know that you as a parent are teaching him good morals and values but just like I would like to think that you are teaching him that there are people that look and act different from him and that it is ok. Just like your son is not going to turn black from seeing a black person tv he is not going to turn gay from watching a gay person on tv.

duane1969
02-28-2012, 09:33 AM
If one wants to have a ceremony to marry others after their 1st spouse then feel free. However if we start to allow people to have more than one legal spouse that will be a floodgate for fraud. How would a 1 on 1 gay marriage lead to a floodgate for fraud any more than a 1on1 staright marriage?

All other legal ramifications are irrelevant. Don't try to divert. If happiness is the key element then it should be allowed, period.

By the same measure, it is time to legalize all drugs. Social issues are irrelevant. The happiness of the individual is of supreme importance. Even though a small portion of the population wants to legalize drugs and the bulk of the population would vote against it if given the chance, the people who oppose it do not have the right to prevent the happiness of those who desire it. Just because they oppose using drugs does not mean that they should have the right to stop others from using them wherever and whenever they want. If you don't want your kids to see heroin addicts on every corner or have to breathe pot smoke when you go to McDonald's, that is irrelevant. The happiness of others is more important than what you want to be exposed to or experience in your life.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 09:37 AM
All other legal ramifications are irrelevant. Don't try to divert. If happiness is the key element then it should be allowed, period.

By the same measure, it is time to legalize all drugs. Social issues are irrelevant. The happiness of the individual is of supreme importance. Even though a small portion of the population wants to legalize drugs and the bulk of the population would vote against it if given the chance, the people who oppose it do not have the right to prevent the happiness of those who desire it. Just because they oppose using drugs does not mean that they should have the right to stop others from using them wherever and whenever they want. If you don't want your kids to see heroin addicts on every corner or have to breathe pot smoke when you go to McDonald's, that is irrelevant. The happiness of others is more important than what you want to be exposed to or experience in your life.

Drugs have been proven to lead to other social problems. Tell me again what social problems does a healthy marriage lead to again? :rolleyes:

duane1969
02-28-2012, 09:37 AM
So let me ask you the million dollar question. Let's go back 50 years. Would you have the same views on civil rights for blacks being legislated by the courts and other gov't agencies without being voted on by the majority? Also you son will see a lot more in life worse than seeing two people kissing on tv. It's a part of life. I know that you as a parent are teaching him good morals and values but just like I would like to think that you are teaching him that there are people that look and act different from him and that it is ok. Just like your son is not going to turn black from seeing a black person tv he is not going to turn gay from watching a gay person on tv.

Racial issues and gay marriage are vastly different. I have no desire to entertain any implication that black suffrage and gay marriage are even remotely in the same arena.

If you think that blacks being owned, forced to provide free labor, forced to eat in different restuarants, drink from different water fountains and ride in the back of the bus, prevented from voting and being lynched just for being black is in any way comparable to gays not having a legal document that says they are married, then that is your right to that opinion. I strongly disagree.

duane1969
02-28-2012, 09:39 AM
Drugs have been proven to lead to other social problems. Tell me again what social problems does a healthy marriage lead to again? :rolleyes:

The happiness of the individual is the key component. Others should not have the right to block the happiness of the individual.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 09:43 AM
Racial issues and gay marriage are vastly different. I have no desire to entertain any implication that black suffrage and gay marriage are even remotely in the same arena.

If you think that blacks being owned, forced to provide free labor, forced to eat in different restuarants, drink from different water fountains and ride in the back of the bus, prevented from voting and being lynched just for being black is in any way comparable to gays not having a legal document that says they are married, then that is your right to that opinion. I strongly disagree.

Obviously gays did not have to go through no where near what my forefathers had to go through. However to paraphrase the words of the great Dr. MLK Jr "Injustice for some is injustice for all." A consenting hetrosexual adult has the right to marry another consenting hetrosexual adult for any reason. How is it fair that an consenting homosexual adult cannot marry another consenting homosexual adult? Again I believe that homosexuality is against what my God wants but not everyone believes in my God. I am looking at the overall picture. If it is ok to deny rights to another adult purely based on sexual orientation where does it end? Why not deny rights to someone who is overweight? Why not deny blondes the right to attend college because everyone knows that blonds are dumb? Why not prohibit tall people from getting a driver's liscence because it costs more to make bigger cars?

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 09:49 AM
The happiness of the individual is the key component. Others should not have the right to block the happiness of the individual.


You have the right to prusue happiness as long as your happiness does not cause undue problems to others. Another consenting adult being gay has no bearing whatsoever with what me and my wife do in our bedroom, our fiancences or any other aspect of our lives. However someone who gets high on cocaine or meth and tries to break into our house would cause social problems because once he/she breaks in our house we would deal with them accordingly and then the police would have to come and remove the body which take away man power from the police and ems as well as costing the tax payers additional funding.

duane1969
02-28-2012, 10:13 AM
You have the right to prusue happiness as long as your happiness does not cause undue problems to others. Another consenting adult being gay has no bearing whatsoever with what me and my wife do in our bedroom, our fiancences or any other aspect of our lives. However someone who gets high on cocaine or meth and tries to break into our house would cause social problems because once he/she breaks in our house we would deal with them accordingly and then the police would have to come and remove the body which take away man power from the police and ems as well as costing the tax payers additional funding.

So everyone who uses drugs is automatically a criminal? Prhaps if it was legalized we could develop an entitlement program to buy free crack and heroin for those who want to use it.

I am being facetious. Ignore me right now. Trapped in a small room with 3 teenagers who have no goals in life.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 10:21 AM
So everyone who uses drugs is automatically a criminal? Prhaps if it was legalized we could develop an entitlement program to buy free crack and heroin for those who want to use it.

I am being facetious. Ignore me right now. Trapped in a small room with 3 teenagers who have no goals in life.


Ha Ha not everyone who uses drugs are not a criminial but most people who are arrested do test positive for some type of illegal drug.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/most-men-arrested-in-977449.html

AUTaxMan
02-28-2012, 11:32 AM
I see once again that Mr. V has gone off topic to make something a race issue.

mrveggieman
02-28-2012, 12:37 PM
I see once again that Mr. V has gone off topic to make something a race issue.


This is not a race issue per se but it is a civil rights issue.

pspstatus
02-28-2012, 09:48 PM
You are confusing my views. I am not against gay marriage, just against it being legislated without the people having a say.

If my son was bothered by seeing an interracial couple kiss then yes, I would have a problem with their life choices impacting my life. I repeat, my life should not have to be altered to accomodate other people's happiness.


Sorry man I really don't mean any disrespect but that is beyond lame. I mean are you seriously complaining about the impact of gays getting married or seeing gay people kiss on tv is having on your life? How horribly does that impact your life? Because you had to explain to your son that sometimes two men can love each other like a man and a woman do? And if something happens that you don't like are you going to pick up your ball and go home? There are a lot of people in this world. Some of them will impact your life, not all will be in a good way. And if gay people being able to be gay in public is going to bother you that much maybe you should lock yourself in a bubble or grow up.

It just seems so infantile to me. Teacher teacher those two gays guys over there are kissing and it makes me uncomfortable. Them living as freely as I can bothers me cuz I think it's weird:Cry:. Lordy Lord I'll never be the same again.

mrveggieman
02-29-2012, 08:14 AM
Sorry man I really don't mean any disrespect but that is beyond lame. I mean are you seriously complaining about the impact of gays getting married or seeing gay people kiss on tv is having on your life? How horribly does that impact your life? Because you had to explain to your son that sometimes two men can love each other like a man and a woman do? And if something happens that you don't like are you going to pick up your ball and go home? There are a lot of people in this world. Some of them will impact your life, not all will be in a good way. And if gay people being able to be gay in public is going to bother you that much maybe you should lock yourself in a bubble or grow up.

It just seems so infantile to me. Teacher teacher those two gays guys over there are kissing and it makes me uncomfortable. Them living as freely as I can bothers me cuz I think it's weird:Cry:. Lordy Lord I'll never be the same again.


CHURCH!! :love0030:

shrewsbury
02-29-2012, 09:49 AM
the crumbling of the family is one main reason society is crumbling.

nothing to do with church or god, with race or customs, just a sad fact.

a marriage creates a family which has the potential of having children, which has the potential of being our future.

there are always exceptions to everything, but the exception is not the norm, and the "norm" is the majority.

if gays can marry because it makes them happy, then you open a flood gate to others who will claim multiple spouses make them happy, underage marriages make them happy, and who knows what else.

you could argue that an underage person cannot be in a legal contract, well neither can the mentally ill.

duane1969
02-29-2012, 10:01 AM
Sorry man I really don't mean any disrespect but that is beyond lame. I mean are you seriously complaining about the impact of gays getting married or seeing gay people kiss on tv is having on your life? How horribly does that impact your life? Because you had to explain to your son that sometimes two men can love each other like a man and a woman do? And if something happens that you don't like are you going to pick up your ball and go home? There are a lot of people in this world. Some of them will impact your life, not all will be in a good way. And if gay people being able to be gay in public is going to bother you that much maybe you should lock yourself in a bubble or grow up.

It just seems so infantile to me. Teacher teacher those two gays guys over there are kissing and it makes me uncomfortable. Them living as freely as I can bothers me cuz I think it's weird:Cry:. Lordy Lord I'll never be the same again.

Because you see no problem with it or have no issue with it does not mean that I have to accept your perspective or adhere to your philosophy.

Quite frankly I find this whole perspective to be a total joke. I am supposed to accept homosexuality and gay marriage because they have a right to be themselves and live their lives however they want without others impacting their choice for lifestyle. In the same breathe you see no problem with my life choices or desires being impacted or altered by their choices. My choices and likes/dislikes should not alter their lives, but their choices and likes/dislikes are supposed to alter my life and I am supposed to just accept it as "the right thing" and if I do not then I am a cry-baby. No disrepect, but that is way beyond lame.

mrveggieman
02-29-2012, 10:05 AM
Because you see no problem with it or have no issue with it does not mean that I have to accept your perspective or adhere to your philosophy.

Quite frankly I find this whole perspective to be a total joke. I am supposed to accept homosexuality and gay marriage because they have a right to be themselves and live their lives however they want without others impacting their choice for lifestyle. In the same breathe you see no problem with my life choices or desires being impacted or altered by their choices. My choices and likes/dislikes should not alter their lives, but their choices and likes/dislikes are supposed to alter my life and I am supposed to just accept it as "the right thing" and if I do not then I am a cry-baby. No disrepect, but that is way beyond lame.

How is what another consenting adult does in the privacy and comfort of their own bedroom altering your life?

Rockman
02-29-2012, 10:06 AM
the crumbling of the family is one main reason society is crumbling.

nothing to do with church or god, with race or customs, just a sad fact.

a marriage creates a family which has the potential of having children, which has the potential of being our future.

there are always exceptions to everything, but the exception is not the norm, and the "norm" is the majority.

if gays can marry because it makes them happy, then you open a flood gate to others who will claim multiple spouses make them happy, underage marriages make them happy, and who knows what else.

you could argue that an underage person cannot be in a legal contract, well neither can the mentally ill.

This place genuinely angers me sometimes... (to the point I'm responding on my phone on the train so forgive me for spelling and such)

1) Sex creates the potential for children not marriage.
2) if you feel like the crumbling of families is the reason for society's downfall then let gays get married. They could adopt and give a child who might not otherwise have a family a loving home with two parents who love each other. They would be no less a family by being in a homosexual relationship and adopting than the Duggers and it's assnine to think otherwise.

shrewsbury
02-29-2012, 10:18 AM
They would be no less a family by being in a homosexual relationship and adopting than the Duggers and it's assnine to think otherwise.

no, that is assnine.

do you not understand that a male and female are different, they bring a different perspective and balance to eachother.

duane1969
02-29-2012, 10:36 AM
How is what another consenting adult does in the privacy and comfort of their own bedroom altering your life?

Gay marriage isn't about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

duane1969
02-29-2012, 10:43 AM
This place genuinely angers me sometimes... (to the point I'm responding on my phone on the train so forgive me for spelling and such)

1) Sex creates the potential for children not marriage.
2) if you feel like the crumbling of families is the reason for society's downfall then let gays get married. They could adopt and give a child who might not otherwise have a family a loving home with two parents who love each other. They would be no less a family by being in a homosexual relationship and adopting than the Duggers and it's assnine to think otherwise.

If I may be so presumptuous as to assume what shrewsbery meant, I think he was stating that when a man and woman get married one of their intended goals is to start a family (have children). The marriage of two men or two women can not have that same goal since conception between them is not possible. So in that regard, gay marriage is different from hetero marriage and thus saying that "marriage is marriage" and that gay marriage represents the same social construct as hetero marriage is erroneous.

Rockman
02-29-2012, 10:51 AM
no, that is assnine.

do you not understand that a male and female are different, they bring a different perspective and balance to eachother.

Now you are dismissing single parent families.

.

mrveggieman
02-29-2012, 11:26 AM
Gay marriage isn't about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.


So I ask you this how is a gay couple getting married going to devalue your marriage?

mrveggieman
02-29-2012, 11:27 AM
If I may be so presumptuous as to assume what shrewsbery meant, I think he was stating that when a man and woman get married one of their intended goals is to start a family (have children). The marriage of two men or two women can not have that same goal since conception between them is not possible. So in that regard, gay marriage is different from hetero marriage and thus saying that "marriage is marriage" and that gay marriage represents the same social construct as hetero marriage is erroneous.


So what about a couple that has already agreed not to have any childeren when they get married? Is their marriage not as important as a marriage that produces children?

duane1969
02-29-2012, 11:44 AM
So what about a couple that has already agreed not to have any childeren when they get married? Is their marriage not as important as a marriage that produces children?

I never said that anyone's marriage is unimportant. And how many couples get married with the pretext that they will not have children?

duane1969
02-29-2012, 11:46 AM
So I ask you this how is a gay couple getting married going to devalue your marriage?

I never said it would. Trying to get me to defend something that I never said is pretty pointless.

mrveggieman
02-29-2012, 01:55 PM
I never said that anyone's marriage is unimportant. And how many couples get married with the pretext that they will not have children?


None of us know the numbers but I know for a fact that not every marriage brings children. So again what is the difference between a straight and a gay couple getting married with neither one having any desire to have kids?

shrewsbury
02-29-2012, 02:03 PM
dismissing? no

but, why are they single? they planned on raising children with no partner? if so, great, but are they financially capable of doing so, or are they going to rely on goverment help and family and friends?

can the single parent provide both roles?

some are single parents do to circumstances beyond their control, but these are few and far between, quite often it is an "accident".


So what about a couple that has already agreed not to have any childeren when they get married? Is their marriage not as important as a marriage that produces children?

to them it is as important, to society no it is not. no children = no future = no society

and if sex is the important role in child bearing why would gays have sex if they can't have kids, why have condoms, why are there hookers?

sex is just like anything else, it can be a great tool or a bad habit.
aids, abortion, prostitution, and many other negative things would not be an issue, if sex was only for making kids.

sex shouldn't equal kids, marriage should.

if you and your partner decide to have kids but never get married, well that is fine, but why???

duane1969
02-29-2012, 02:05 PM
None of us know the numbers but I know for a fact that not every marriage brings children. So again what is the difference between a straight and a gay couple getting married with neither one having any desire to have kids?

You are arguing a point that isn't relevant. An overwhelming majority of male/female couples get married with intentions of having children, whether they do or not. No gay couple can get married with the intentions of having children unless they have a severe lack of understanding of how babies are made. Saying that gay marriage and hetero marriage are no different is fundamentally wrong.

Just because an occasional hetero couple gets married without intentions of children does not quantify that gay marriages and hetero marriages are the same.

shrewsbury
02-29-2012, 02:15 PM
:sign0087:

Rockman
02-29-2012, 02:56 PM
dismissing? no

but, why are they single? they planned on raising children with no partner? if so, great, but are they financially capable of doing so, or are they going to rely on goverment help and family and friends?

can the single parent provide both roles?

some are single parents do to circumstances beyond their control, but these are few and far between, quite often it is an "accident".

You can't say in one breath that a family needs a mother and father for different perspectives and in another say you aren't dismissing a single parent family. Why they are a single parent is irrelevant, if they are they are. Something like 25% of kids in this country are raised by single parents so it's probably not as few and far between as you think it is.

And if it's about different perspectives, two married homosexuals are going to provide more perspectives than a single parent. Just because they are the same sex and married doesn't mean they think exactly alike and can't provide different perspectives.


sex is just like anything else, it can be a great tool or a bad habit.
aids, abortion, prostitution, and many other negative things would not be an issue, if sex was only for making kids.

You can say this about anything.

Food is just like anything else, it can be great or a bad habit.
Heart Disease, diabetes, obesity and many other negative things would not be an issue if food was only used for sustenance.

Unfortunately we are a nation full of fat arses, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say food should only be eaten when hungry.

shrewsbury
02-29-2012, 04:59 PM
You can't say in one breath that a family needs a mother and father for different perspectives and in another say you aren't dismissing a single parent family.

so we should take the children away from a vets widow? she or he would be a single parent.


single parents come in many forms, just like gays, blacks, whites, and conservatives.

if you only see in black and white then you are missing out on whole color spectrum.

there are always, and i mean ALWAYS, exceptions.

you can't dismiss anything based on assumptions, each case should be looked at for what it is.


Food is just like anything else, it can be great or a bad habit.
Heart Disease, diabetes, obesity and many other negative things would not be an issue if food was only used for sustenance.

Unfortunately we are a nation full of fat arses, but that doesn't mean I'm going to say food should only be eaten when hungry.

food doesn't cause these things, it is what people are doing with the food, just like sex doesn't cause anything, it is the people utilizing it.

pspstatus
02-29-2012, 05:42 PM
Because you see no problem with it or have no issue with it does not mean that I have to accept your perspective or adhere to your philosophy.

Quite frankly I find this whole perspective to be a total joke. I am supposed to accept homosexuality and gay marriage because they have a right to be themselves and live their lives however they want without others impacting their choice for lifestyle. In the same breathe you see no problem with my life choices or desires being impacted or altered by their choices. My choices and likes/dislikes should not alter their lives, but their choices and likes/dislikes are supposed to alter my life and I am supposed to just accept it as "the right thing" and if I do not then I am a cry-baby. No disrepect, but that is way beyond lame.


Pretty much yes you are a cry baby if you're going to make a big deal out of something like gays being married. It impacts your life barely. I'd like to hear exactly how gay people doing their thing impacts you in such a negative way. Also how does it alter your life? Meanwhile you cite that impact on your life as a reason to not allow gay people to get married. Yet the impact that has on gay people's lives is way more tangible. You're willing to limit what they can and can't do because of how it effects you without considering how what you want effects them. Gays being gay doesn't limit you from doing anything.

PS you don't have to accept it as the right thing, but you have no right to stop them from doing it because you don't like it.

Rockman
02-29-2012, 05:52 PM
so we should take the children away from a vets widow? she or he would be a single parent.


single parents come in many forms, just like gays, blacks, whites, and conservatives.

if you only see in black and white then you are missing out on whole color spectrum.

there are always, and i mean ALWAYS, exceptions.

you can't dismiss anything based on assumptions, each case should be looked at for what it is.

Please point out where I said anything close to that.

Also, if there's ALWAYS exceptions, then why can't a homosexual couple raise a child as well as a heterosexual married couple can? You apparently don't think they can since you stated that a homosexual couple adopting a kid is less of a family than a heterosexual couple since they can "balance out the perspectives" and a homosexual couple can't.

AUTaxMan
02-29-2012, 06:42 PM
Pretty much yes you are a cry baby if you're going to make a big deal out of something like gays being married. It impacts your life barely. I'd like to hear exactly how gay people doing their thing impacts you in such a negative way. Also how does it alter your life? Meanwhile you cite that impact on your life as a reason to not allow gay people to get married. Yet the impact that has on gay people's lives is way more tangible. You're willing to limit what they can and can't do because of how it effects you without considering how what you want effects them. Gays being gay doesn't limit you from doing anything.

PS you don't have to accept it as the right thing, but you have no right to stop them from doing it because you don't like it.

Quite simply it affects people's lives because they are of the opinion that marriage has a sacred meaning, that being the holy union of a man and a woman, and they do not like the idea of changing the very definition of something they see as a religious institution in the name of political correctness.

Whether the states or the federal government should have anything to do with marriage, on the other hand, is an entirely different issue. The best and easiest solution, in my opinion, is for states to merely license two-person civil unions for all people and stay out of what does or does not constitute marriage. Leave the institution of marriage a concept wholly governed by the church and give all people who are members of state-sanctioned civil unions the same legal rights.

From a legal perspective, because the "right" to be married is not a fundamental right, the federal government has no place deciding who should or should not be able to be married. Therefore this determination should be left to the states, and if a state only wants to give licenses to different sex marriages, it should be up to them to do so. If they want to have a referendum on the issue every year, they can do that too.

duane1969
02-29-2012, 08:11 PM
Pretty much yes you are a cry baby if you're going to make a big deal out of something like gays being married. It impacts your life barely. I'd like to hear exactly how gay people doing their thing impacts you in such a negative way. Also how does it alter your life? Meanwhile you cite that impact on your life as a reason to not allow gay people to get married. Yet the impact that has on gay people's lives is way more tangible. You're willing to limit what they can and can't do because of how it effects you without considering how what you want effects them. Gays being gay doesn't limit you from doing anything.

PS you don't have to accept it as the right thing, but you have no right to stop them from doing it because you don't like it.

If you had bothered to read my earlier posts you would see that I said that I had no issue with it. I have an issue with it being mandated by a politician when the people that he represents clearly do not support it. Christie vetoed the bill because he wants the people to vote on it. A minority of people want it passed without a vote and take issue with him not just passing a bill regardless of what his constituents want.

My comments concerning my son were a response to the faulty position that other people's sexual choices do not affect other people.

duwal
02-29-2012, 08:29 PM
Quite simply it affects people's lives because they are of the opinion that marriage has a sacred meaning, that being the holy union of a man and a woman, and they do not like the idea of changing the very definition of something they see as a religious institution in the name of political correctness.


Marriage is supposed to be between two people that love each other until death do they part. So actually, maybe even moreso than gay marriage, people should be outraged at anyone that has divorced from their spouse and broken that 'sacred meaning' as well as lying before God that they would stay forever with that particular person. Those that decided to split or get divorced must have little respect for the meaning of marriage. And in this country its half of the population that gets married, yet when others that don't have the privilege and opportunity to get married they are then stomping on the sanctity of marriage

TheTGB
02-29-2012, 08:30 PM
And some of the comments in this thread are why I don't respond to threads like these. The level of selfishness and close mindedness of some people are at levels that any decent, compassionate, human being should not have. It's thoughts like some of those expressed that is keeping us from progressing as humans.

One day it will happen in this country, whether you like it or not. Whether it happens tomorrow or after your dead, it's one of those things that will happen and it's at the point where it won't be stopped.

AUTaxMan
02-29-2012, 08:35 PM
Marriage is supposed to be between two people that love each other until death do they part. So actually, maybe even moreso than gay marriage, people should be outraged at anyone that has divorced from their spouse and broken that 'sacred meaning' as well as lying before God that they would stay forever with that particular person. Those that decided to split or get divorced must have little respect for the meaning of marriage. And in this country its half of the population that gets married, yet when others that don't have the privilege and opportunity to get married they are then stomping on the sanctity of marriage

I totally agree, if you are going to be morally consistent. I would venture to guess that most people who are against gay marriage are also against divorce.

pspstatus
02-29-2012, 10:00 PM
If you had bothered to read my earlier posts you would see that I said that I had no issue with it. I have an issue with it being mandated by a politician when the people that he represents clearly do not support it. Christie vetoed the bill because he wants the people to vote on it. A minority of people want it passed without a vote and take issue with him not just passing a bill regardless of what his constituents want.

My comments concerning my son were a response to the faulty position that other people's sexual choices do not affect other people.

I read every post in this thread and my comments were in response to the two posts of yours that I quoted.

I don't like that it has to be mandated by a politician either. It saddens me greatly to know that my fellow Americans at this point in time are still willing to support this type of discrimination. I hate that the government has to give people their rights because so many people are still unwilling to believe we are all equal. The government's main duty in this country is to work for and protect it's citizens. Sometimes that means protecting some citizens of this country from their fellow citizens. How much longer do you think slavery would have lasted if it had been put to a vote by the people?

It's actually kind of funny because the government telling people what they can and can't do is something I fundamentally disagree with. I think we should vote on taxes, what type of healthcare we want, and on and on. But having a vote by the people to determine what a minority group can or can't do doesn't work for me. If you got to vote on it what would your vote be? Actually that's something I'd like to put to a forum vote. Can we do a poll?

royer33455
02-29-2012, 10:16 PM
Good for him. There is no such thing as Same Sex Marriage. It would either be Garriage for Gays or Larriage for Lesbians Dont defile the word Marriage. It is defined as between one man and one Woman.

pspstatus
02-29-2012, 10:17 PM
Marriage has never been an idea that's been tied to religion for me. I always just looked at it as two people loving each other becoming permanently united. I do of course understand that to many people it is a religious ceremony. And I understand that many people look at the definition of marriage to be exclusively related to a man and a woman. But what else could they have looked at it as? When marriage ceremonies originated they could only be for a man and a woman because gay people weren't even allowed to live out in the open let alone love who they wanted. It's a time specific definition in my opinion. If religious bigotry hadn't been present perhaps the definition of marriage would have been a bit broader.


Quite simply it affects people's lives because they are of the opinion that marriage has a sacred meaning, that being the holy union of a man and a woman, and they do not like the idea of changing the very definition of something they see as a religious institution in the name of political correctness.

Whether the states or the federal government should have anything to do with marriage, on the other hand, is an entirely different issue. The best and easiest solution, in my opinion, is for states to merely license two-person civil unions for all people and stay out of what does or does not constitute marriage. Leave the institution of marriage a concept wholly governed by the church and give all people who are members of state-sanctioned civil unions the same legal rights.

From a legal perspective, because the "right" to be married is not a fundamental right, the federal government has no place deciding who should or should not be able to be married. Therefore this determination should be left to the states, and if a state only wants to give licenses to different sex marriages, it should be up to them to do so. If they want to have a referendum on the issue every year, they can do that too.

AUTaxMan
02-29-2012, 10:25 PM
Marriage has never been an idea that's been tied to religion for me. I always just looked at it as two people loving each other becoming permanently united. I do of course understand that to many people it is a religious ceremony. And I understand that many people look at the definition of marriage to be exclusively related to a man and a woman. But what else could they have looked at it as? When marriage ceremonies originated they could only be for a man and a woman because gay people weren't even allowed to live out in the open let alone love who they wanted. It's a time specific definition in my opinion. If religious bigotry hadn't been present perhaps the definition of marriage would have been a bit broader.

The problem is that marriage is definitionally tied to religion. Gay marriage was not allowed because marriage was sanctioned only by the church, and the Christian church views homosexual acts as a sin (although some churches have changed their views on this point). It is not a time specific definition. It is a religious specific definition.

pspstatus
02-29-2012, 10:27 PM
Good for him. There is no such thing as Same Sex Marriage. It would either be Garriage for Gays or Larriage for Lesbians Dont defile the word Marriage. It is defined as between one man and one Woman.

It's only defined that way in a religious context. To those who don't share those beliefs it can mean something else.

By the way Lesbian is just another word for a gay woman so Larriage isn't necessary. Oh wait I get it now hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Funny:pound:man you're funny. Also probably not at all discriminatory or angry at them gays for being all homersexical.

duane1969
02-29-2012, 10:28 PM
I read every post in this thread and my comments were in response to the two posts of yours that I quoted.

I don't like that it has to be mandated by a politician either. It saddens me greatly to know that my fellow Americans at this point in time are still willing to support this type of discrimination. I hate that the government has to give people their rights because so many people are still unwilling to believe we are all equal. The government's main duty in this country is to work for and protect it's citizens. Sometimes that means protecting some citizens of this country from their fellow citizens. How much longer do you think slavery would have lasted if it had been put to a vote by the people?

It's actually kind of funny because the government telling people what they can and can't do is something I fundamentally disagree with. I think we should vote on taxes, what type of healthcare we want, and on and on. But having a vote by the people to determine what a minority group can or can't do doesn't work for me. If you got to vote on it what would your vote be? Actually that's something I'd like to put to a forum vote. Can we do a poll?

This is the revolving door effect...

Marriage is not a right. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is a person's right to wed protected. There is no law that guarantees a straight person's right to marry,there should be no law guaranteeing a gay person's right to marry.

This issue is not about marriage, it is about health care benefits, retirement benefits, death benefits, etc. A wedding and marriage license is not required for those things. They can be achieved by a civil union.

The left has tied the "right" to marry to the goal of benefits afforded those associated with hetero couples. That action has created a problem where none should exist. Most people who oppose gay marriage support legal unions for legal purposes. The intent to force people to redefine what they consider the word "marriage" to mean has created a major issue where none need exist.

AUTaxMan
02-29-2012, 10:30 PM
It's only defined that way in a religious context. To those who don't share those beliefs it can mean something else.

By the way Lesbian is just another word for a gay woman so Larriage isn't necessary. Oh wait I get it now hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Funny:pound:man you're funny. Also probably not at all discriminatory or angry at them gays for being all homersexical.

Marriage is a concept primarily engendered in the judeo-christian faiths. I can't change the definition of a muslim religious concept just because i think it should mean something else that suits my desires.

pspstatus
02-29-2012, 10:30 PM
The problem is that marriage is definitionally tied to religion. Gay marriage was not allowed because marriage was sanctioned only by the church, and the Christian church views homosexual acts as a sin (although some churches have changed their views on this point). It is not a time specific definition. It is a religious specific definition.


Marriage isn't just sactioned by the church anymore. Times have changed.

AUTaxMan
02-29-2012, 10:43 PM
Marriage isn't just sactioned by the church anymore. Times have changed.

Apparently they haven't changed that much if a majority of voters in California think it should be just a man and a woman.

pspstatus
02-29-2012, 10:45 PM
This is the revolving door effect...

Marriage is not a right. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is a person's right to wed protected. There is no law that guarantees a straight person's right to marry,there should be no law guaranteeing a gay person's right to marry.

This issue is not about marriage, it is about health care benefits, retirement benefits, death benefits, etc. A wedding and marriage license is not required for those things. They can be achieved by a civil union.

The left has tied the "right" to marry to the goal of benefits afforded those associated with hetero couples. That action has created a problem where none should exist. Most people who oppose gay marriage support legal unions for legal purposes. The intent to force people to redefine what they consider the word "marriage" to mean has created a major issue where none need exist.

You're right this issue isn't really about marriage. All of those can be achieved through civil unions. Unfortunately that's not an option open to everyone either. But really it's about equality. It's about religion dictating what can and can't be done. It's about people being at war over the definition of a word. A word that doesn't just mean something religiously anymore.

AUTaxMan
02-29-2012, 10:48 PM
You're right this issue isn't really about marriage. All of those can be achieved through civil unions. Unfortunately that's not an option open to everyone either. But really it's about equality. It's about religion dictating what can and can't be done. It's about people being at war over the definition of a word. A word that doesn't just mean something religiously anymore.

Actually, it does mean something religious to most people in this country.

pspstatus
02-29-2012, 10:51 PM
Apparently they haven't changed that much if a majority of voters in California think it should be just a man and a woman.


That majority had less than a 5% margin of victory. How big do you think that margin would have been 50 yrs ago? In another five years those numbers are reversed prop 8 loses. That's why opponents of same sex marriage are pushing so hard to add amendments to state constitutions banning same sex marriage. Because they know in the very near future more and more people are going to disagree with this inequality.

pspstatus
02-29-2012, 10:53 PM
Actually, it does mean something religious to most people in this country.

I didn't say otherwise. I just said it has more than one definition.

AUTaxMan
02-29-2012, 10:53 PM
That majority had less than a 5% margin of victory. How big do you think that margin would have been 50 yrs ago? In another five years those numbers are reversed prop 8 loses. That's why opponents of same sex marriage are pushing so hard to add amendments to state constitutions banning same sex marriage. Because they know in the very near future more and more people are going to disagree with this inequality.

That's in liberal CA. It's a much stronger majority in other parts of the country. I still don't understand why gays can't just take the same legal rights and leave the word marriage alone.

pspstatus
02-29-2012, 11:08 PM
That's in liberal CA. It's a much stronger majority in other parts of the country. I still don't understand why gays can't just take the same legal rights and leave the word marriage alone.

It's because they won't settle for seperate but equal.

shrewsbury
02-29-2012, 11:46 PM
i am not for gay marriage and it has nothing to do with religion, nothing at all.

i do not see a marriage as a religious right, but rather a place in our society.

by being married i have not only joined two families but created future families to carry on our society.

does this make me better, no, but it makes me somewhat responsible for my position, which as a husband and father it's a lot of responsibility.

to me, this is what marriage is about, but i understand that others may feel differently, i can respect that, but i can also keep my opinions and morals in place.

why would you need the stamp of marriage to approve your dedication to another human being?

and as far as benefits, such as health care, go, i think the economy is bad enough, now you want employers to shell out more money, when plenty are close to closing their doors already?
do you know how much a good benefit package can cost an employer?
no one can afford to bear any more costs, the economy is alarming and we just can't keep expecting others to magically foot the bill.

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 08:33 AM
i am not for gay marriage and it has nothing to do with religion, nothing at all.

i do not see a marriage as a religious right, but rather a place in our society.

by being married i have not only joined two families but created future families to carry on our society.

does this make me better, no, but it makes me somewhat responsible for my position, which as a husband and father it's a lot of responsibility.

to me, this is what marriage is about, but i understand that others may feel differently, i can respect that, but i can also keep my opinions and morals in place.

why would you need the stamp of marriage to approve your dedication to another human being?

and as far as benefits, such as health care, go, i think the economy is bad enough, now you want employers to shell out more money, when plenty are close to closing their doors already?
do you know how much a good benefit package can cost an employer?
no one can afford to bear any more costs, the economy is alarming and we just can't keep expecting others to magically foot the bill.


So just because the cost of benefits can hurt a companies bottom line you are ok with people being discriminated against based on sexual orientation? Wow. SMH.

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 08:36 AM
That's in liberal CA. It's a much stronger majority in other parts of the country. I still don't understand why gays can't just take the same legal rights and leave the word marriage alone.


Wow does it matter what someone else calls it? Be happy and content with your own marriage and stop worring about someone elses. If someome read the Koran, prayed 5 times daily to mecca and called Muhammed the last of all prophets but that same person wanted to be indentified as a christian would that make YOU any less of a christian? So why would a gay couple saying they are married make you any less of a married person to your wife?

shrewsbury
03-01-2012, 08:51 AM
by my definition of marriage, nobody is being discriminated against

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 08:53 AM
by my definition of marriage, nobody is being discriminated against


So how is a gay person not being able to get the same insurance coverage for his partner that a straight person can not be discrimination?

shrewsbury
03-01-2012, 09:21 AM
your partner is not entitled to anything, they can get a job, if you are married, your spouse and children can be covered.

most business' are not faceless corporations. there are many private owned, family owned, and co-operatives. in fact where i live 99% of business' are not corporations.

these small family, private owned, and co-ops cannot afford to pay more, because someone wants what they deem to be equal, but are not. these business' will close and everyone will lose out.

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 09:35 AM
your partner is not entitled to anything, they can get a job, if you are married, your spouse and children can be covered.

most business' are not faceless corporations. there are many private owned, family owned, and co-operatives. in fact where i live 99% of business' are not corporations.

these small family, private owned, and co-ops cannot afford to pay more, because someone wants what they deem to be equal, but are not. these business' will close and everyone will lose out.


So using that same logic a man's wife is not entitled to anything either. She should be able to get a job too and not rely on her husband's insurance. Also using the same logic if business cannot afford to provide beneifts to someone based on sexual orientation what's to stop them from providing benefits based on race or religion?

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 09:38 AM
Wow does it matter what someone else calls it? Be happy and content with your own marriage and stop worring about someone elses. If some read the Koran, prayed 5 times daily to mecca and called Muhammed the last of all prophets but that same person wanted to be indentified as a christian would that make YOU any less of a christian? So why would a gay couple saying they are married make you any less of a married person to your wife?

It does matter. It may not matter to you, but it clearly matters to many people on a religious level. I never said it affected my marriage. I laid out my resolution a few pages back and I think it is very reasonable.

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 09:46 AM
So how is a gay person not being able to get the same insurance coverage for his partner that a straight person can not be discrimination?

I didn't realize we had a "right" to insurance coverage.

What this really comes down to, though, is that we have a class of people who identify themselves by their sexual preference, something that is not exactly a scientifically proven innate trait. When it is proven that inherent homosexuality is a matter of fact, like gender, race, color, age, or national origin, or when it is accepted as a belief system such as religion, I will concede that gays are due the constitutional protections afforded those classes and that prop 8 and similar laws unconstitutionally discriminate against them.

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 09:55 AM
I didn't realize we had a "right" to insurance coverage.

What this really comes down to, though, is that we have a class of people who identify themselves by their sexual preference, something that is not exactly a scientifically proven innate trait. When it is proven that inherent homosexuality is a matter of fact, like gender, race, color, age, or national origin, or when it is accepted as a belief system such as religion, I will concede that gays are due the constitutional protections afforded those classes and that prop 8 and similar laws unconstitutionally discriminate against them.

No we do not currently have the right by law to have insurance but you being a lawyer should know that a company cannot discriminate on providing benefits based on sexual orientation. Since we both know that why shouldn't the laws be consistant to provide a gay couple in a committed one on one relationship the same legal protections and benefits that a straight person does?

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 09:57 AM
It does matter. It may not matter to you, but it clearly matters to many people on a religious level. I never said it affected my marriage. I laid out my resolution a few pages back and I think it is very reasonable.


Again take the religious aspect out of this. Not everyone in america is a christian and should not be forced to accept christian rules that serve no secular purpose or benefit.

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 09:59 AM
Again take the religious aspect out of this. Not everyone in america is a christian and should not be forced to accept christian rules that serve no secular purpose or benefit.

The whole point is that you cannot take the religious aspect out of it. Marriage is a religious institution. If you want to resolve the issue, take marriage away from the states and simply create civil unions for legal purposes for all.

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 10:04 AM
No we do not currently have the right by law to have insurance but you being a lawyer should know that a company cannot discriminate on providing benefits based on sexual orientation. Since we both know that why shouldn't the laws be consistant to provide a gay couple in a committed one on one relationship the same legal protections and benefits that a straight person does?

Maybe in some states, but there is no federal law against it.

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 10:08 AM
The whole point is that you cannot take the religious aspect out of it. Marriage is a religious institution. If you want to resolve the issue, take marriage away from the states and simply create civil unions for legal purposes for all.

That would be fine wth me. Everyone would still call it a marriage even though it the term would not be legally used. Religious institutions could still "marry" whoever they want but they would still have to file papers with the state to make their marriage a legal civil union. I'm cool with it but there would still be a lot of people who would be upset that gay people will be referring to their legal civil union as a marriage. I wouldn't care that those people would be upset because every consenting adult of a sound mind would have the ability to marry another consenting adult of their choosing regardless or race, nationality, gender or sexual orientation.

ensbergcollector
03-01-2012, 10:31 AM
Wow does it matter what someone else calls it? Be happy and content with your own marriage and stop worring about someone elses. If someome read the Koran, prayed 5 times daily to mecca and called Muhammed the last of all prophets but that same person wanted to be indentified as a christian would that make YOU any less of a christian? So why would a gay couple saying they are married make you any less of a married person to your wife?

poor example. because while it wouldn't make me any less of a christian, it would absolutely effect how the world views christianity. it would effect my ability to share jesus with other people.

Star_Cards
03-01-2012, 10:51 AM
I think a double-standard exist here. On one hand people want things like this to be made law without the population having a say. Then when things like tax increases or rasing the debt ceiling come along people complain that it isn't put to a public vote.

Citizens are allowed to vote on small issues like license plate changes, tax increases to fund schools and speed limit changes, why not a major issue like same-sex marriage?

My position on gay marriage is irrelevant. Quite frankly I could care less. I just don't understand why letting the people vote on what they want their government to do is so wrong.

I don't think letting people vote on what they want their government to do is wrong. I do think that some thing like person rights and other issues should not be a majority vote.

duane1969
03-01-2012, 10:53 AM
I don't think letting people vote on what they want their government to do is wrong. I do think that some thing like person rights and other issues should not be a majority vote.

As I have said several times in this discussion, marriage is not a right. There is no law that protects or provides a straight person's right to marry, there should be no law protecting or providing a gay person's right to marry.

Star_Cards
03-01-2012, 10:58 AM
The whole point is that you cannot take the religious aspect out of it. Marriage is a religious institution. If you want to resolve the issue, take marriage away from the states and simply create civil unions for legal purposes for all.

True, marriage has a base in religion, but it also has a base in our government as well. There are people who aren't religious that are still married. Marriage for a lot of people is done more so out of social norms of being committed to another person legally than it is out of the religious aspect of it. In my opinion the fight to legalize same sex marriage is about the rights in the eyes of the state and not about anything on the religious side. If a religion wants to be close minded and keep gay couples from being married in their church then they have that right. Just like they have the right to not recognize divorce or marriages unless the couples go through the proper steps (i.e. some catholic marriages). Marriage, these days, is the generic term used to define these unions. It's a term that has been co-opted to have meaning outside of religion.

shrewsbury
03-01-2012, 11:10 AM
So using that same logic a man's wife is not entitled to anything either. She should be able to get a job too and not rely on her husband's insurance. Also using the same logic if business cannot afford to provide beneifts to someone based on sexual orientation what's to stop them from providing benefits based on race or religion?

my wife does work and does have benefits.

your analogies amaze me. there are laws in place for race and religious discrimination, but none for gays and for a reason.

i would like foodstamps, and a free monthly check, but because i work i can't get them, we should change that. why am i discriminated against do to my financial position? if you discriminate against me for that, what is next, religion, race, or shoe size?

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 11:25 AM
my wife does work and does have benefits.

your analogies amaze me. there are laws in place for race and religious discrimination, but none for gays and for a reason.

i would like foodstamps, and a free monthly check, but because i work i can't get them, we should change that. why am i discriminated against do to my financial position? if you discriminate against me for that, what is next, religion, race, or shoe size?


Who wouldn't love free food and money. However you, I or anyone else who is blessed with a job that pays a livable wage does not need food stamps. Yes we could use them and they would help us out but we generally could afford enough food to feed our families based on our paychecks from our jobs. However being gay is something that you cannot change like you could switch jobs, clothes or I dare to say sports teams. If a straight person can get insurance benefits for their spouse then there is no reason why a gay person should not get those same beneifts.

shrewsbury
03-01-2012, 11:32 AM
However being gay is something that you cannot change l

and that is an opinion, not a fact. there is no gay gene or illness.

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 11:50 AM
True, marriage has a base in religion, but it also has a base in our government as well. There are people who aren't religious that are still married. Marriage for a lot of people is done more so out of social norms of being committed to another person legally than it is out of the religious aspect of it. In my opinion the fight to legalize same sex marriage is about the rights in the eyes of the state and not about anything on the religious side. If a religion wants to be close minded and keep gay couples from being married in their church then they have that right. Just like they have the right to not recognize divorce or marriages unless the couples go through the proper steps (i.e. some catholic marriages). Marriage, these days, is the generic term used to define these unions. It's a term that has been co-opted to have meaning outside of religion.

Well, as I stated earlier, on the matter of states rights, the states ought to be able to decide whether or not to issue "marriage" licenses to only hetero couples. There is not a constitutional right to be married.

*censored*
03-01-2012, 11:57 AM
and that is an opinion, not a fact. there is no gay gene or illness.

Just because it hasn't been discovered yet means it doesn't exist. Got it.

Seriously, explain to me why someone would choose that lifestyle.

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 12:02 PM
Just because it hasn't been discovered yet means it doesn't exist. Got it.

Seriously, explain to me why someone would choose that lifestyle.

You may not be able to prove a negative, but you can't offer it as fact either.

*censored*
03-01-2012, 12:09 PM
You may not be able to prove a negative, but you can't offer it as fact either.

You can provide evidence to try to prove it though. And again I ask, if it's a choice, why would anyone choose that lifestyle?

And, when exactly did the straight folks out there choose to be straight over being gay? I know I never made a conscious choice to like women, and never had an urge to choose otherwise. Did you?

ensbergcollector
03-01-2012, 12:28 PM
Just because it hasn't been discovered yet means it doesn't exist. Got it.

Seriously, explain to me why someone would choose that lifestyle.

sorry, we are constantly informed on this site that if you can't proof something then you have no argument and you are subject to ridicule. So, even though there is no proof of a homosexual gene, we are just supposed to accept that it exists? got it

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 12:41 PM
sorry, we are constantly informed on this site that if you can't proof something then you have no argument and you are subject to ridicule. So, even though there is no proof of a homosexual gene, we are just supposed to accept that it exists? got it

:sign0020: Sorry buddy that only applies to religion not scientific issues. Nice try though.

Star_Cards
03-01-2012, 12:44 PM
and that is an opinion, not a fact. there is no gay gene or illness.

I personally believe that what a person is sexually attracted to is not decided upon by anyone, straight or gay or bi. I never chose to be attracted to women and which specific women to get even more specific. Although, no matter your stance on that, the fact that it is a choice or not should not be a reason to keep same sex couples from marrying.

ensbergcollector
03-01-2012, 12:45 PM
:sign0020: Sorry buddy that only applies to religion not scientific issues. Nice try though.

wait, really? so i can make outlandish claims of a scientific nature and not have to provide proof, but if I make a religious claim I need proof? doesn't science claim to be fact based while religion acknowledges it is faith based?

so, let me understand this. The arena which claims fact doesn't need facts, while the arena with claims faith does?

*censored*
03-01-2012, 12:50 PM
Let it be noted for the record that the defenders of the "homosexuality is a choice" belief have dodged my question written above at least twice now.

Star_Cards
03-01-2012, 12:50 PM
sorry, we are constantly informed on this site that if you can't proof something then you have no argument and you are subject to ridicule. So, even though there is no proof of a homosexual gene, we are just supposed to accept that it exists? got it

I don't think that proof needs to be available to give people the right to marry someone of their same sex.

also, the talk of a homosexual gene seems odd to me. I don't know what causes people to be attracted to certain things. There are many factors, but sexuality and what certain people find attractive sexually varies from every single person even within the heterosexual side of things. I find it odd that people see sexual attractiveness so black and white. I bet that most people could list most things they find attractive and they couldn't really say they chose to be attracted to that particular physical trait or activity.

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 12:53 PM
Let it be noted for the record that the defenders of the "homosexuality is a choice" belief have dodged my question written above at least twice now.


I hear crickets......

ensbergcollector
03-01-2012, 12:55 PM
I don't think that proof needs to be available to give people the right to marry someone of their same sex.

also, the talk of a homosexual gene seems odd to me. I don't know what causes people to be attracted to certain things. There are many factors, but sexuality and what certain people find attractive sexually varies from every single person even within the heterosexual side of things. I find it odd that people see sexual attractiveness so black and white. I bet that most people could list most things they find attractive and they couldn't really say they chose to be attracted to that particular physical trait or activity.

i actually wasn't trying to tie my comment to the idea of marriage. my issue was the stance taken by censored which was even though i have no proof it still exists so deal with it.

Star_Cards
03-01-2012, 12:56 PM
i actually wasn't trying to tie my comment to the idea of marriage. my issue was the stance taken by censored which was even though i have no proof it still exists so deal with it.

yes. I agree. I may have confused things by adding the second paragraph while quoting you. :)

ensbergcollector
03-01-2012, 12:58 PM
Let it be noted for the record that the defenders of the "homosexuality is a choice" belief have dodged my question written above at least twice now.

is your question why someone would choose that lifestyle? i can't speak for everyone and chances are there are a ton of different reasons. A number of homosexual females i have spoken with can point to an instance of abuse at the hands of a male which led to their change of preference. Perhaps some prefer the physical act of sex with the same gender. you are asking for an explanation of why someone would choose something from people who aren't in their heads.

no one was avoiding your question, and veggieman, give me a break with the cricket.

*censored*
03-01-2012, 01:01 PM
i actually wasn't trying to tie my comment to the idea of marriage. my issue was the stance taken by censored which was even though i have no proof it still exists so deal with it.

So you have proof that it's a choice then?

Let's hear it.

*censored*
03-01-2012, 01:03 PM
And for the record, again, my questions were #1 why would someone choose it, and #2 when did you choose that you like women?

I know a number of homosexual females who were not abused by a male. I also know a number of straight women who were abused by aren't lesbian. So while there may be a degree of correlation, that's not proof of it as a cause.

ensbergcollector
03-01-2012, 01:03 PM
So you have proof that it's a choice then?

Let's hear it.

i'm not the one claiming to have proof that it is a choice. you are claiming fact that it isn't. your inability to back up your claim of FACT does not shift the responsibility of proof to me.

ensbergcollector
03-01-2012, 01:05 PM
And for the record, again, my questions were #1 why would someone choose it, and #2 when did you choose that you like women?

I know a number of homosexual females who were not abused by a male. I also know a number of straight women who were abused by aren't lesbian. So while there may be a degree of correlation, that's not proof of it as a cause.

you didn't ask for proof. you asked why would someone choose it. I provided some possible reasons.

i prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate. no try and ask the other members here to explain to you why in the world I would make that choice. they can provide some possibilities but to ask them to explain that would be ridiculous.

Star_Cards
03-01-2012, 01:08 PM
You can provide evidence to try to prove it though. And again I ask, if it's a choice, why would anyone choose that lifestyle?

This is a great question. I wonder how many of the people who have been bullied, disowned by parents, beaten, murdered, or committed suicide because they were outed or because they didn't feel "normal" because they were attracted to someone of the same sex would have just simply chose to be attracted to the opposite sex. I know that this doesn't prove 100% that being gay is natural or not a choice, but if you think people chose to be gay just think about that for a second. Why would someone that has terrible trouble dealing with their homosexuality keep choosing to be gay? It's rather illogical if you think about it.



And, when exactly did the straight folks out there choose to be straight over being gay? I know I never made a conscious choice to like women, and never had an urge to choose otherwise. Did you? I agree 100%. And to look at it further... Heterosexuals are attracted to women, but just because you are straight doesn't mean you are attracted to all women. How does one decide which women they are attracted to?

also, choosing who one has sex with is way different than what a person find attractive sexually. I think for a lot of people that issue is confused. If I'm attracted to men, I can choose to not have sex with men, but the attraction would still be there.

*censored*
03-01-2012, 01:25 PM
i'm not the one claiming to have proof that it is a choice. you are claiming fact that it isn't. your inability to back up your claim of FACT does not shift the responsibility of proof to me.

So the baseless claims that it's solely a choice should be null and void as well, should it not?

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 01:37 PM
I don't think that proof needs to be available to give people the right to marry someone of their same sex.

Again, there is no "right" to be married to anyone.

*censored*
03-01-2012, 01:42 PM
So we're arguing semantics now?

There are no states' rights either. But some people love whipping that phrase out too.

shrewsbury
03-01-2012, 02:35 PM
so "that" lifestyle is so bad why would anyone choose it? if it is so bad why would you condone it by allowing them to be married?

don't know about you but i was attracted to women the first time i seen a playboy.

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 02:37 PM
So we're arguing semantics now?

There are no states' rights either. But some people love whipping that phrase out too.

No, we are arguing the law. I would love to hear your argument that there are no states' rights.

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 02:38 PM
so "that" lifestyle is so bad why would anyone choose it? if it is so bad why would you condone it by allowing them to be married?

don't know about you but i was attracted to women the first time i seen a playboy.


Again no one is choosing to be gay or live a gay lifestyle. Can you prove that someone made a choice to be gay or live a gay lifestyle?

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 02:44 PM
Again no one is choosing to be gay or live a gay lifestyle. Can you prove that someone made a choice to be gay or live a gay lifestyle?

Because it can be neither proven nor disproven, the law cannot look at them the way that it does the suspect classes.

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 02:45 PM
Because it can be neither proven nor disproven, the law cannot look at them the way that it does the suspect classes.

Religion can neither be proven nor disproven but it is currently protected by law.

ensbergcollector
03-01-2012, 03:06 PM
Again no one is choosing to be gay or live a gay lifestyle. Can you prove that someone made a choice to be gay or live a gay lifestyle?

as I said, i know a number of homosexual females who chose based on events of their life. I am not saying this applies to everyone but to act like no one who is homosexual made that choice is ridiculous.

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 03:17 PM
Religion can neither be proven nor disproven but it is currently protected by law.

So are you saying that homosexuality is more of a personal belief system than an innate trait and that one of the founding principles of our nation was the prevention of a state establishment of sexuality?

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 03:19 PM
as I said, i know a number of homosexual females who chose based on events of their life. I am not saying this applies to everyone but to act like no one who is homosexual made that choice is ridiculous.


Speaking from personal expericence I knew that since I was 4 years old that I liked girls. It never entered in my mind to chose to like males. If someone preferes to be with the same sex due to sexual abuse that is a whole other topic. The average homosexual was no more like to be sexually abused than the average straight person.

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 03:22 PM
So are you saying that homosexuality is more of a personal belief system than an innate trait and that one of the founding principles of our nation was the prevention of a state establishment of sexuality?


What I am saying is that none of us are 100% certian on what makes someone homosexual. We can only offer our theories. Again religion aside since no one is hurting anyone by being homosexual any more than someone is being hurt by heing hetrosexual, homosexuals deserve all the legal rights and benefits that their hetrosexual counterparts are entitled to.

AUTaxMan
03-01-2012, 03:26 PM
What I am saying is that none of us are 100% certian on what makes someone homosexual. We can only offer our theories. Again religion aside since no one is hurting anyone by being homosexual any more than someone is being hurt by heing hetrosexual, homosexuals deserve all the legal rights and benefits that their hetrosexual counterparts are entitled to.

What about bigamists? Should they also be offered equal protection under the law?

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 03:34 PM
What about bigamists? Should they also be offered equal protection under the law?


No because bigamy opens up other social problems. Again if someone wants mutiple spouses for religious or other non legal purposes then feel free. However the gov't can only recognize 1 legal spouse per person weather male or female.

shrewsbury
03-01-2012, 03:46 PM
No because bigamy opens up other social problems.

like what?

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 03:51 PM
like what?

Like tax and insurance fraud for starters. :rolleyes:

ensbergcollector
03-01-2012, 03:53 PM
Like tax and insurance fraud for starters. :rolleyes:

no more than any heterosexual or homosexual couple could get married for the same reasons. what does it matter to you what adults are doing in their own home. how does someone marrying 10 wives affect your marriage?

mrveggieman
03-01-2012, 04:02 PM
no more than any heterosexual or homosexual couple could get married for the same reasons. what does it matter to you what adults are doing in their own home. how does someone marrying 10 wives affect your marriage?


Again have 50 wives and 75 husbands if it will make you sleep better at night. But when you try to cheat the tax system by marrying someone just to save on taxes and forcing me and my wife to pay more taxes which in turn takes income out of my house then I have a problem with it.

*censored*
03-01-2012, 05:04 PM
No, we are arguing the law. I would love to hear your argument that there are no states' rights.

There are powers reserved to the states. They are not rights. Big difference. Or at least as big of a difference as you care to make about the "right" of marriage.

*censored*
03-01-2012, 05:06 PM
so "that" lifestyle is so bad why would anyone choose it? if it is so bad why would you condone it by allowing them to be married?

don't know about you but i was attracted to women the first time i seen a playboy.

That lifestyle is made bad by intolerance from plenty of groups. Hatred toward gays is almost a sacrament to some religious groups out there. None have that same attitude toward straight couples. What I'm asking is why would anyone choose to be a part of a group that is hated by a significant chunk of the populace?

*censored*
03-01-2012, 05:09 PM
And sorry for making three posts in a row, but just to establish my position a little more, I'm also not opposed to polygamy as long as all partners are willing participants and above the age of 18. As has been said, why does it matter? Is your marriage somehow worth less if gays or multiple people can do it?

shrewsbury
03-01-2012, 07:10 PM
not my marriage,

but the $$ companies, private, co-ops and corporate will have to shell out will close more doors and people will lose jobs, just because someone feels entitled.

people want free condoms, free food, free money, free housing, and change the rules so they can have more stuff.

mrveggieman
03-02-2012, 09:42 AM
not my marriage,

but the $$ companies, private, co-ops and corporate will have to shell out will close more doors and people will lose jobs, just because someone feels entitled.

people want free condoms, free food, free money, free housing, and change the rules so they can have more stuff.

So that justifies discrimination against people based on sexual orientation?

shrewsbury
03-02-2012, 10:54 AM
So that justifies discrimination against people based on sexual orientation?

i am unsure i would classify this as discrimination.

and your sexual preferences should be left behind close doors, so this is just another sham.

no better than people wanting free condoms so they can have sex, buy your own, or don't have sex.

if you want to have sex with the same gender you are, fine, but no need to tell me about it and no need to have the same rights as me. you'll be fine with what you have.

but people are never satisfied and want what everyone else has, why??? be happy with what you have and make the best of it.

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 11:01 AM
What about bigamists? Should they also be offered equal protection under the law?

I think limiting to one person to marry is okay because both heterosexual and homosexual couples would be restricted by the same laws. I personally feel that bigamy should be legal, but can see where it would cause issues with legal benefits and insurance type issues. Some sort of line would have to be made in those instances. For me it's a matter of one group having a different right. If every person is limited by the law it makes it easier to see as just.

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 11:13 AM
i am unsure i would classify this as discrimination.

and your sexual preferences should be left behind close doors, so this is just another sham.

no better than people wanting free condoms so they can have sex, buy your own, or don't have sex.

if you want to have sex with the same gender you are, fine, but no need to tell me about it and no need to have the same rights as me. you'll be fine with what you have.

but people are never satisfied and want what everyone else has, why??? be happy with what you have and make the best of it.

I don't think a lot of people who are gay are worried about telling you about who they want to marry or have sex with. They are more worried about people in power telling them who they can't marry when they don't have the right to marry which human being they want. I don't get why you say they don;t need the same right as you. Why should you get that right and they shouldn't?

I find your post saying "be happy with what you have and make the best of it" rather short sighted and ignorant. If that was the way people solved rights issues throughout history we'd live in a much worse society in my opinion.

shrewsbury
03-02-2012, 01:19 PM
well i guess our opinion on idiotic differs.

if khan, the vikings, the romans, spanish, english, christians, muslims, and hitler would have been satisfied, it would have saved BILLIONS yes BILLIONS of lives.


I find your post saying "be happy with what you have and make the best of it" rather short sighted and ignorant. If that was the way people solved rights issues throughout history we'd live in a much worse society in my opinion.

you're missing the point, there would never had been slavery, religious persicution, and billions of people slaughtered, there would never had been social injustice.

but people want to control others and have what others want by whatever means needed.

start your own business and allow all gays to have benefits that otherwise would not be available to them, give out condoms, food, money, healthcare, and housing. but don't take from others to do so, if this is what you believe in back it up with your stuff don't expect others to give up theirs.

theonedru
03-02-2012, 01:23 PM
If gays cannot have the benefits that straight couples get then maybe married couples need to give up all the perks, that way there is equality for all.

steelers#1fan
03-02-2012, 01:38 PM
We're all entitled to our own opinions so I'm giving you mine; It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 01:47 PM
well i guess our opinion on idiotic differs.

if khan, the vikings, the romans, spanish, english, christians, muslims, and hitler would have been satisfied, it would have saved BILLIONS yes BILLIONS of lives.



you're missing the point, there would never had been slavery, religious persicution, and billions of people slaughtered, there would never had been social injustice.

but people want to control others and have what others want by whatever means needed.

start your own business and allow all gays to have benefits that otherwise would not be available to them, give out condoms, food, money, healthcare, and housing. but don't take from others to do so, if this is what you believe in back it up with your stuff don't expect others to give up theirs.

What does same sex marriage and those couples being allowed to have the same benefits that our government and companies offer to other heterosexual couples have to do with handing out condoms, food, money, healthcare, or housing. You seem to be lumping all of this into one debate. If you have issue with government handouts that is fine and good, but those are completely different than keeping same sex couples from being married and recognized as a couple and then in turn being afforded the same benefits (government or other) that heterosexual's get. It's about rights and some people not allowed to get certain benefits that others can due to sexual preference. It's not about government assistance programs. There's a big difference.


but people want to control others and have what others want by whatever means needed.

This quote is rather ironic to me since you are the one that seems to be for controlling same sex couples by not allowing them to receive the same rights that heterosexual couples have by being married.

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 01:50 PM
If gays cannot have the benefits that straight couples get then maybe married couples need to give up all the perks, that way there is equality for all.

I actually never really understood why married couples should receive more perks than single people anyways, no matter what their sexual orientation is.

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 01:53 PM
We're all entitled to our own opinions so I'm giving you mine; It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

we are all entitled to our own opinions. As to yours, what do you say to people that don't believe in adam and eve or a specific religion that says homosexuality is wrong? Why should one religion get to dictate legislation of a country that has freedom to believe whatever an individual wants? Why should one religion trump other people's beliefs?

steelers#1fan
03-02-2012, 02:17 PM
Whoooooo, my man, as I stated this is my opinion. I'm just exercising my First Amendment right. Sounds like you're looking for an argument. You aren't going to get one,sorry.




we are all entitled to our own opinions. As to yours, what do you say to people that don't believe in adam and eve or a specific religion that says homosexuality is wrong? Why should one religion get to dictate legislation of a country that has freedom to believe whatever an individual wants? Why should one religion trump other people's beliefs?

shrewsbury
03-02-2012, 03:38 PM
I actually never really understood why married couples should receive more perks than single people anyways, no matter what their sexual orientation is.

hello? we provide the children of the future, why would we not get tax breaks.

the basic fact is without us hetero's none of you would be here posting!!!!

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 03:46 PM
Whoooooo, my man, as I stated this is my opinion. I'm just exercising my First Amendment right. Sounds like you're looking for an argument. You aren't going to get one,sorry.

what? I'm not looking for an argument. I'm clear that that was your opinion and that you are entitled to it. I wasn't getting offensive towards you at all. I was asking you thoughts so we could have a discussion about it which is the purpose of this board. I wanted your opinions in further detail. Plus I'm just curious about your take on what people who don't believe in adam and eve should be forced to do just because the majority may.

mrveggieman
03-02-2012, 03:46 PM
hello? we provide the children of the future, why would we not get tax breaks.

the basic fact is without us hetero's none of you would be here posting!!!!


So using that same logic you should be ok with people on welfare getting breaks for having more children.

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 03:49 PM
hello? we provide the children of the future, why would we not get tax breaks.

the basic fact is without us hetero's none of you would be here posting!!!!

not all married people have children. I asked why married people get tax benefits not parents. There is a difference.

and who do you mean by "none of you"? Not all people who stand up for gay rights happen to be homoexual.

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 03:49 PM
So using that same logic you should be ok with people on welfare getting breaks for having more children.

great point. the irony is deep in this thread.

shrewsbury
03-02-2012, 03:49 PM
it would depend why they are on welfare, most should not be, so i am not ok with MOST welfare cases., and they already get more money for more kids, which is crazy!!!!

shrewsbury
03-02-2012, 03:51 PM
the irony is you seeing only black and white, life is not that way and never will be. there is always exceptions.

and "fair" is for kids, there is no such thing as fair.

habsheaven
03-02-2012, 03:51 PM
We're all entitled to our own opinions so I'm giving you mine; It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

Adam and Steve is just as believable as Adam and Eve. Both are FAIRY TALES.

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 04:02 PM
the irony is you seeing only black and white, life is not that way and never will be. there is always exceptions.

and "fair" is for kids, there is no such thing as fair.

I'm seeing lots of gray actually. sexual attraction is not just one or the other and it shouldn't be legislated as such as it is right now. Of course there are exceptions and a same sex option of marriage should be one of those exceptions that is taken into account rather than people just saying it's wrong because of mostly their religious upbringing.

so you don't think that the rights of the citizens of the united states should be fair because it pertains to adults most of the time? I don't follow that reasoning.

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 04:05 PM
Adam and Steve is just as believable as Adam and Eve. Both are FAIRY TALES.

agreed.

steelers#1fan
03-02-2012, 04:45 PM
I'll say an extra prayer for you tonight. lol...
Adam and Steve is just as believable as Adam and Eve. Both are FAIRY TALES.

shrewsbury
03-02-2012, 05:31 PM
Of course there are exceptions and a same sex option of marriage should be one of those exceptions that is taken into account rather than people just saying it's wrong because of mostly their religious upbringing.

if it was just religion that stopped this, i would on your side.

it would be wrong to not change the law only do to religious reasoning.

so we might half way agree on something :confused0054:

theonedru
03-02-2012, 09:43 PM
Just wow some people moral superiority complexes, And the justifications that they use to discriminate is very dis tactful.

Star_Cards
03-02-2012, 10:14 PM
if it was just religion that stopped this, i would on your side.

it would be wrong to not change the law only do to religious reasoning.

so we might half way agree on something :confused0054:

what other factor come into play when people say they shouldn't allow same sex marriage? That's a legitimate question as I'm not sure. I'm sure there are some, but in my experience most people I run across that are against same sex marriage tend to be against it because of religious views.

pspstatus
03-04-2012, 10:59 PM
what other factor come into play when people say they shouldn't allow same sex marriage? That's a legitimate question as I'm not sure. I'm sure there are some, but in my experience most people I run across that are against same sex marriage tend to be against it because of religious views.


Not to answer for him but I believe the other factor was having children.

Star_Cards
03-05-2012, 12:15 AM
Not to answer for him but I believe the other factor was having children.

Having children or not has zero bearing on the legality of a marriage. People who marry have no obligation to have children and make no promise to do so. I have quite a few married friends who will never have children. I don't see the fact of having children as a ligitimate argument to keep two people from marrying one another. Straight or gay.

andrewhoya
03-05-2012, 06:47 AM
Having children or not has zero bearing on the legality of a marriage. People who marry have no obligation to have children and make no promise to do so. I have quite a few married friends who will never have children. I don't see the fact of having children as a ligitimate argument to keep two people from marrying one another. Straight or gay.

+1. Also, what about those who are physically unable to have children?

duane1969
03-05-2012, 09:47 AM
hello? we provide the children of the future, why would we not get tax breaks.

the basic fact is without us hetero's none of you would be here posting!!!!

LOL I heard a joke the other day that said conservatives should let liberals do what they want. Let men marry men, let women marry women, let the hetero liberals have as many abortions as they want...and in 2 or 3 generations there will be no more liberals.


So using that same logic you should be ok with people on welfare getting breaks for having more children.

They already do. For every kid they pop out their welfare check gets bigger, their food stamp dusbursement gets bigger, their HUD allowance gets bigger, they get WIC...there is no downside to having more kids when you are on welfare.

The mother also gets a 2-year reprive from being expected to get a job. That is why you see so many welfare moms with kids that are 1-2 years apart. As long as they keep churning them out the government assistance keeps getting larger and larger.

mrveggieman
03-05-2012, 10:30 AM
LOL I heard a joke the other day that said conservatives should let liberals do what they want. Let men marry men, let women marry women, let the hetero liberals have as many abortions as they want...and in 2 or 3 generations there will be no more liberals.



They already do. For every kid they pop out their welfare check gets bigger, their food stamp dusbursement gets bigger, their HUD allowance gets bigger, they get WIC...there is no downside to having more kids when you are on welfare.

The mother also gets a 2-year reprive from being expected to get a job. That is why you see so many welfare moms with kids that are 1-2 years apart. As long as they keep churning them out the government assistance keeps getting larger and larger.


Then why are conservatives so much against welfare moms if they are producing children then? Someone that is married that cannot afford a child but has one just because that is what the conservatives want will have a similiar drain on the system. All of the conservative's arguments againts gay marriage are going up in smoke and we all know they only reason they are against it is because of religious doctrine. Again I respect their religious beliefs but the religion of some should not dictate the laws for all.

*censored*
03-05-2012, 12:53 PM
Claiming someone else's marriage shouldn't be allowed because it is against your religion it like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet.

Star_Cards
03-05-2012, 12:57 PM
Claiming someone else's marriage shouldn't be allowed because it is against your religion it like being angry at someone for eating a donut because you're on a diet.

awesome analogy.