Very simple people, just vote.
This is not a discussion on what you call it, rights, and anything else, simply a vote!
This is not a discussion on what you call it, rights, and anything else, simply a vote!
For or against Gay marraige....poll
- Thread starter UGA12
- Start date
I have all the free time in the world but I don't have 1 second to worry if two fags want to get married and if you do you are one big ass sorry loser.
So can someone tell me on just what basis I'm supposed to rant and rave against the idea of the law recognizing a committed relationship between two people who truly love each other but who happen to be of the same sex? Just what have I lost here? What am I going to lose if every state in the union steps forward and legalizes, as they say, "gay marriage? Every single right that I have under the law today I will have under the law after gays and lesbians get their state issued marriage licenses.
Some of you are going to tell me that this is an affront to your religious beliefs. I respect that. But those are religious beliefs and have no role in the operation of government. Your religious beliefs are between you, your God, your family and your church. They are not to be guidelines for the operation of your government. Our government was founded on a principle of equal treatment under the law. Your religion may not be comfortable with that concept. Fine. Live your own life in strict accordance with your religious principles if you wish, but don't try to use the police power of government to compel others to live by them also.
You may also tell me that you don't think that children should be raised by homosexual couples. I'll agree with you on that. I firmly believe that children need mothers and fathers. A young girl or boy has many lessons to learn before they're kicked out of the nest, and some of those lessons are uniquely designed to be taught by mothers, some by fathers. Do you want a law recognizing the value of children being raised by mothers and fathers; a law banning adoption by same-sex couples? Fine. I'm with you there too.
Some of the people who will object loudly to this decision will go to the corner store today to purchase their copy of People magazine and then wander off to their homes in time to catch Entertainment Tonight on the tube. They will ooh and ahhhh over the latest news and gossip about their favorite celebrities. These are the same celebrities who engage in a series of four-month marriages. They're also the same celebrities who get pregnant and then wonder out loud in anxiously awaited interviews about whether or not they'll get married to the father at some time in the future. Maybe so, maybe not. The Hollywood crowd has made a mockery of the idea of marriage and of raising children in mother-father households. If you want to focus your righteous rage somewhere ... try Hollywood.
There is a solution here. State governments could set up two distinct legal relationships between adults. There could be marriages and there could be civil unions. The laws of the state would grant certain privileges and rights to people who have formed state-recognized civil unions. These would be the rights and privileges generally afforded to heterosexual couples today. As for marriages? Let the church's handle those. Create a system whereby governments recognize civil unions, and churches recognize marriages. If people want to be "married" let them go to a church and have their civil union recognized and blessed by the church. Otherwise, you simple remain "partners," but with all of the legal rights and privileges that the government grants to those who's unions are recognized by a church.
In the meantime ... unless you can tell me how the Massachusetts decision is going to effect your rights under the law, it's my position that you have nothing to gripe about.
Some of you are going to tell me that this is an affront to your religious beliefs. I respect that. But those are religious beliefs and have no role in the operation of government. Your religious beliefs are between you, your God, your family and your church. They are not to be guidelines for the operation of your government. Our government was founded on a principle of equal treatment under the law. Your religion may not be comfortable with that concept. Fine. Live your own life in strict accordance with your religious principles if you wish, but don't try to use the police power of government to compel others to live by them also.
You may also tell me that you don't think that children should be raised by homosexual couples. I'll agree with you on that. I firmly believe that children need mothers and fathers. A young girl or boy has many lessons to learn before they're kicked out of the nest, and some of those lessons are uniquely designed to be taught by mothers, some by fathers. Do you want a law recognizing the value of children being raised by mothers and fathers; a law banning adoption by same-sex couples? Fine. I'm with you there too.
Some of the people who will object loudly to this decision will go to the corner store today to purchase their copy of People magazine and then wander off to their homes in time to catch Entertainment Tonight on the tube. They will ooh and ahhhh over the latest news and gossip about their favorite celebrities. These are the same celebrities who engage in a series of four-month marriages. They're also the same celebrities who get pregnant and then wonder out loud in anxiously awaited interviews about whether or not they'll get married to the father at some time in the future. Maybe so, maybe not. The Hollywood crowd has made a mockery of the idea of marriage and of raising children in mother-father households. If you want to focus your righteous rage somewhere ... try Hollywood.
There is a solution here. State governments could set up two distinct legal relationships between adults. There could be marriages and there could be civil unions. The laws of the state would grant certain privileges and rights to people who have formed state-recognized civil unions. These would be the rights and privileges generally afforded to heterosexual couples today. As for marriages? Let the church's handle those. Create a system whereby governments recognize civil unions, and churches recognize marriages. If people want to be "married" let them go to a church and have their civil union recognized and blessed by the church. Otherwise, you simple remain "partners," but with all of the legal rights and privileges that the government grants to those who's unions are recognized by a church.
In the meantime ... unless you can tell me how the Massachusetts decision is going to effect your rights under the law, it's my position that you have nothing to gripe about.
Umm, right, except that this gives them access to medical benefits like husband and wife and jacks the price up on the rest of us since the homosexual comunity is at much greater risk for a whole catagory of diseases. Wake up man there is a whole world spinning around you, pay attention to things and you might realize that more afffects you than you think.seymour said:
Penguinfan
Penguin,
I wonder if there should be a law against fat people getting married and getting medical coverage for fat spouses because of the potential health cost.
God (or whoever) help us if basic human rights issues are decided on what it would cost in health insurance increases...
ozball
I wonder if there should be a law against fat people getting married and getting medical coverage for fat spouses because of the potential health cost.
God (or whoever) help us if basic human rights issues are decided on what it would cost in health insurance increases...
ozball
Turfgrass:
Good post however, since marriage is not truly a legal topic except for divorce, why does any legislature have to get involved? We have been removing religion from the political arena but now when it is convenient for a group, they throw it back in? I'm against gay "marriage" because a marriage as defined by the Bible is" a union of a man and a women to ensure the procreation of humanity". I'm fine with Civil unions. Could really care less. My brother-in-law is openly gay and he is a really nice guy. I have no problem with him or any homosexual. However, he can't seem to stay in a committed relationship. On average, a gay relationship lasts 18-months. If they are now considered "married" or "joined", I except the # of divorces to rise.
Good post however, since marriage is not truly a legal topic except for divorce, why does any legislature have to get involved? We have been removing religion from the political arena but now when it is convenient for a group, they throw it back in? I'm against gay "marriage" because a marriage as defined by the Bible is" a union of a man and a women to ensure the procreation of humanity". I'm fine with Civil unions. Could really care less. My brother-in-law is openly gay and he is a really nice guy. I have no problem with him or any homosexual. However, he can't seem to stay in a committed relationship. On average, a gay relationship lasts 18-months. If they are now considered "married" or "joined", I except the # of divorces to rise.
You nailed it right on the head, penguinfan. This will cost us all. You will also see companies that now offer family health insurance either be forced to eliminate it, cut it down to just the employee and not the family, or have the employee forced to pay for it on his own. Then watch the people who don't really care one way or the other start to scream when it hits their wallet. And there will be absolutely nothing we will be able to do about it once these so-called marriages are legally recognized. Sorry, but this is a sore subject with me. I see nothing but abuse of the system coming.
Turfgrass, you are a little off-base being so critical of those who are against this.
If you don't think any marriage other than a man and a woman is best for our (society) children, then you are not seeing the big picture.
I don't care if same-sex gets married, but I do care if they are doing this to get benefits. If they want to marry, fine,,they can go off and do their thing, but they should not apply and receive any benefits for this union. This should be reserved for man-woman.
I really don't think this big fight is over wanting to be accepted as a couple,,it is strictly for the benefits,,and for that I say a loud NO.
If you don't think any marriage other than a man and a woman is best for our (society) children, then you are not seeing the big picture.
I don't care if same-sex gets married, but I do care if they are doing this to get benefits. If they want to marry, fine,,they can go off and do their thing, but they should not apply and receive any benefits for this union. This should be reserved for man-woman.
I really don't think this big fight is over wanting to be accepted as a couple,,it is strictly for the benefits,,and for that I say a loud NO.
well said ozball..well said indeed......:clap:
obese people and people who smoke costs Canada (and the US) way more then two males getting married....I mean wake up people......wake up.......
and I just love when I hear "the bible says......." I don't care what the bible says......might as well say "Dr Seus says......" means just as much........
bible has nothing and I mean NOTHING to do with gay marriage, it only means something to those that believe in the bible.......guess what not all of North America believes in the bible.
I mean aren't there more important things in the world to worry about then Jane and Janet getting married......that's their business.....why do you people care :shrug:
obese people and people who smoke costs Canada (and the US) way more then two males getting married....I mean wake up people......wake up.......
and I just love when I hear "the bible says......." I don't care what the bible says......might as well say "Dr Seus says......" means just as much........
bible has nothing and I mean NOTHING to do with gay marriage, it only means something to those that believe in the bible.......guess what not all of North America believes in the bible.
I mean aren't there more important things in the world to worry about then Jane and Janet getting married......that's their business.....why do you people care :shrug:
Kickserv, you wake up, you have no clue what you are talking about, this will cost Americans money and is unnecessary.
Nice to see the Canuks in this thread telling Americans what is and isn't best for them.
Maybe you could ask the cool chich what she thinks before you respond.
Penguinfan
Nice to see the Canuks in this thread telling Americans what is and isn't best for them.
Maybe you could ask the cool chich what she thinks before you respond.
Penguinfan
I'm not "telling" America what to do........it's called an opinion....you have yours and I have mine.......my opinion is "who cares" you obviously do care.......
but if your talking "costs" I DO know what I'm talking about.....do you have any idea what kind of money is shelled out (in both countries) on treating obese people and treating people who smoke It's enormous
so yes when I hear the arguement about "the costs of gay marriage" I have to laugh..........
bottom line.........other things to worry about.......I respect your opinion please respect mine.........
best of luck with your plays tonight!
but if your talking "costs" I DO know what I'm talking about.....do you have any idea what kind of money is shelled out (in both countries) on treating obese people and treating people who smoke
It's enormous so yes when I hear the arguement about "the costs of gay marriage" I have to laugh..........
bottom line.........other things to worry about.......I respect your opinion please respect mine.........
best of luck with your plays tonight!
kickserv said:but if your talking "costs" I DO know what I'm talking about.....do you have any idea what kind of money is shelled out (in both countries) on treating obese people and treating people who smoke
so yes when I hear the arguement about "the costs of gay marriage" I have to laugh..........
Yes those costs are enormous, is it safe to say your opinion is then, it's OK to add problems to the list (gay marriage) instead of dealing with the existing ones?
Pengy:
I think your waddling down an aisle you may not want to go down. I don't think you can rationally argue that gay marriages will cost more than tradional marriages. Look at pregnancy, std's etc.
By the way, I don't like the way the opinion question is phrased. As stated earlier, I'm neither for nor against gay marriages. Should two people be allowed to enter into a legal contract with each other? Should gender, race, age or any other standard matter with the right of two people to contract with one another.
I dont think so. As long as they are capable of entering into this agreement, two people should have the same rights AND responsibilities regardless of any puritanical trappings.
Just my most reasonable and rationale viewpoint. Remember, marriage is a legal concept not a religous one, although throughout the years it has been viewed as a mixed bag or even as a religous ceremony. Its legal.
Ed
I think your waddling down an aisle you may not want to go down. I don't think you can rationally argue that gay marriages will cost more than tradional marriages. Look at pregnancy, std's etc.
By the way, I don't like the way the opinion question is phrased. As stated earlier, I'm neither for nor against gay marriages. Should two people be allowed to enter into a legal contract with each other? Should gender, race, age or any other standard matter with the right of two people to contract with one another.
I dont think so. As long as they are capable of entering into this agreement, two people should have the same rights AND responsibilities regardless of any puritanical trappings.
Just my most reasonable and rationale viewpoint. Remember, marriage is a legal concept not a religous one, although throughout the years it has been viewed as a mixed bag or even as a religous ceremony. Its legal.
Ed
Last edited:
Yea lets let the ***************** get married and adopt children so they can push thier way of life on them and everyone around them. The more we rationalize this kind of abnormal behavior the more normal it becomes.When in fact it is not normal and is a abomination. Give me a damn break.
Last edited:
Ricknjax, or should I say, Mr. Leviticus:
Judge not lest ye be judged.
:nono:
For your consideration.....
"A list of six "abominations" are also given in Proverbs 6: 16 - 19:
These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among brethren."
Source
Yes, I was in the minority to voted for gay marriage and bigots and phobes sicken me.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
:nono:
For your consideration.....
"A list of six "abominations" are also given in Proverbs 6: 16 - 19:
These six things doth the LORD hate:
yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among brethren."
Source
Yes, I was in the minority to voted for gay marriage and bigots and phobes sicken me.
