Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you like to see same-sex marriage become legal where you live?
It is already legal where I live 18 6.02%
Yes 184 61.54%
No 92 30.77%
Not sure 5 1.67%
Voters: 299. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-04-2010, 05:55 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,054 posts, read 18,282,893 times
Reputation: 3826

Advertisements

Yep, a GREAT day to be a libertarian/strict constitutionalist. You KNOW you're doing something right when you p*ss off both the progressivs and the RINOs on Missouri and CA in the same day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2010, 05:56 PM
 
11,289 posts, read 26,199,461 times
Reputation: 11355
I really can't wait until this paranoia about GAYS has finally worn off on those people who spend so much time worrying about something that is basically the equivalent of being left handed.


Do these people who WORRY about these things and stress really care about gays that much in their own personal lives? I mean if you don't like it than don't hang out with gay people. Don't go to their weddings and don't attend their parties.

As a gay person I find it kinda creepy that so many people are THAT concerned with who I'm attracted to. I really don't care that you fell in love with some blond chick you met at a house party your junior year of college. Why do you care that I fell in love with a brown haired guy I met at a house party my junior year of college?

Who cares if you marry her and I marry him? I'd be MUCH more concerned about my personal relationship with my spouse than some guy 1,000 miles away you've never heard of before marrying some other dude. They're not going to eat your children! They could care less about you! You should do the same!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 05:56 PM
 
47 posts, read 31,683 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
Oh that poster is just trolling. You can tell by the post count and history. It's fun to play but don't take it seriously.
I joined less than a week ago.I can't help they decided this today when I have only been here that long and I haven't posted much. I don't spend all day on here unlike others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 05:57 PM
 
Location: Inyokern, CA
1,609 posts, read 1,079,250 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen View Post
A: Definition of marriage can easily be changed. Language is not a static thing.

B: I have no problem with stripping all privileges from marriages and having government-recognized civil unions for all. Until such a thing, such privileges NEED to be distributed to all willing and consenting adults, or it's discrimination.

Which is illegal.
Then you are part of the problem. Marriage between man and woman has been recognized for milliniums. There are certain constants that should remain as the skeletal structure of society. They have lasted all these centuries "because they work."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
8,346 posts, read 7,044,020 times
Reputation: 2874
Quote:
Originally Posted by StartTheRevolution! View Post
Why should they be involved in civil unions/DP either? I don't see why personally.
Tax liabilities, right of kin, hospital visitation, etc.

There's a huge list of privileges you get that you can only get in marriage.

And I can understand people wanting the government to be out of marriage, since marriage nowadays is a religious concept (even though it wasn't originally), but I still do beleive that if two persons or multiple persons want to enter a social contract, then they should be able to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 05:59 PM
 
Location: Virginia Beach
8,346 posts, read 7,044,020 times
Reputation: 2874
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda View Post
Then you are part of the problem. Marriage between man and woman has been recognized for milliniums. There are certain constants that should remain as the skeletal structure of society. They have lasted all these centuries "because they work."
Considering that some societies recognized homosexual marriage, that argument doesn't exactly work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 06:01 PM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,402,468 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda View Post
Then you are part of the problem. Marriage between man and woman has been recognized for milliniums. There are certain constants that should remain as the skeletal structure of society. They have lasted all these centuries "because they work."
And so in most of the civilized world where gay marriage or at least unions are recognized, what has happened to "society?"

Usually the societies that have accepted gay marriage have better quality of life scores than the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,451 posts, read 7,055,138 times
Reputation: 3614
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
So, ONE judge gets to nullify the will of the people of California.

Outrageous.

This is liberal judicial activism at it's core.
The Constitution designs a REPRESENTATIVE Democracy, specifically so mob rule (which you like to refer to as the will of the people) does not trample on the rights of individuals and minorities.

Of course that is a foreign concept to many conservatives. . .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Long Beach
2,347 posts, read 2,784,819 times
Reputation: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by lorrysda View Post
Then you are part of the problem. Marriage between man and woman has been recognized for milliniums. There are certain constants that should remain as the skeletal structure of society. They have lasted all these centuries "because they work."
Except in those inter-civilizations....Ancient Greece and Rome...where homosexuality was a matter of fact.

But what did the Greeks and Romans do for us....? Oh yeah, give us our Western Civilization.

But yeah...marriage works...I guess you hadn't read that "1 in 2 American marriages ends in divorce"...yes that's a success rate we can all get behind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2010, 06:03 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen View Post
A "privilege" that comes with many exclusive benefits.

That should be extended to all parties.
Maybe those benefits should exist in the eye of the government to begin with..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen View Post
Tax liabilities
Which shouldnt exist for st8's or gays.. getting the government out of the marriage means a straight tax rate across the board...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen View Post
right of kin
A "right" which doesnt exist for staights either unmarried. In addition, lawyers can indeed write up documents giving right of kin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen View Post
hospital visitation, etc.
This one I keep hearing, but the ONLY individual that can deny a patient a visitor in the hospital is the PATIENT.. Straight or married, if the VISITOR decides you should visit, NO ONE can stop you..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Langlen View Post
There's a huge list of privileges you get that you can only get in marriage.

And I can understand people wanting the government to be out of marriage, since marriage nowadays is a religious concept (even though it wasn't originally), but I still do beleive that if two persons or multiple persons want to enter a social contract, then they should be able to.
As a non married st8, engaged for 15 years.. I can attest that your wrong.. The ONLY "privilege" that the unmarried give up are tax advantages and the ability to draw GOVERNMENT welfare off one anothers benefits.. Government shouldnt be offering EITHER...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top