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)
 
Old 11-12-2018, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,767,870 times
Reputation: 14125

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey2k View Post
My opinion is that the government has no business sanctioning one personal/romantic relationship over another and should be out of the marriage business entirely.

If two (or more) people of any gender want to enter into an agreement or contract specifying the terms of that relationship they are more than welcome to do so, and should get a lawyer to draw up papers if they want to make it legal.

If any other entities (insurance companies, medical providers) want to honor that agreement or offer special benefits for it, they should be more than welcome (but not required) to do so.
The issue is for many generations, these "other entities" only allowed those who were direct family to have benefits of the man of the house. Until the past twenty or so years, homosexual couples were not allowed to marry. This meant that the other entities would not have to honor homosexual couples who wanted the same that marriages could. I mean remember the day when you only could have your married SO visit you in the hospital past visiting hours?

As for government being involved relationships, they do for tax purposes too. So unless you want to remove joint-filing, government will be involved in relationships, if even for small use.

 
Old 11-12-2018, 12:16 PM
 
28,122 posts, read 12,467,400 times
Reputation: 15329
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
The issue is for many generations, these "other entities" only allowed those who were direct family to have benefits of the man of the house. Until the past twenty or so years, homosexual couples were not allowed to marry. This meant that the other entities would not have to honor homosexual couples who wanted the same that marriages could. I mean remember the day when you only could have your married SO visit you in the hospital past visiting hours?

As for government being involved relationships, they do for tax purposes too. So unless you want to remove joint-filing, government will be involved in relationships, if even for small use.
Of course govt is going to come up with 'practical and reasonable' reasons why they need to be involved in marriage!

That is nothing but a disguise.
 
Old 11-12-2018, 12:29 PM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,264 posts, read 1,471,154 times
Reputation: 12668
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
Because our state VOTED on the issue and supported candidates who promote family values., I think that qualifies me to to say “most” feel that way.

You have a right to a say on the laws in your own state.....not mine!
No state has the right to enact unconstitutional laws, genius.
 
Old 11-12-2018, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Just over the horizon
18,402 posts, read 7,018,058 times
Reputation: 11650
Quote:
Originally Posted by FL_Watch View Post
And if same-sex marriage and homosexuality are to be condemned, vilified or outlawed, then what about adultery and promiscuity?



My opinion, is irrelevant.

Because the government has no Constructional authority to tell anyone who they can or cannot marry.

If more people would look at it this way instead of worrying about " gay rights" , maybe they'd wake up to all the other stuff that they've ceded their rights away to the government.

Not holding my breath through....
 
Old 11-12-2018, 01:34 PM
 
28,164 posts, read 25,193,238 times
Reputation: 16664
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
There is no constitutional legal right to gay marriage, the SCOTUS legislated an illegal law from the bench, and they violated the 10th amendment as well. I fully support the right of a state to decide for themselves what their marriage laws are. The left likes to say we dictate how others should live based on our religious views. On the contrary it is the left that uses federal government and federal courts to force its unpopular worldview on red states, places were their vision of how things should be has no chance of being approved by voters. They willfully force their values on us. I don’t want to hear the equal protection clause argument, I’ve heard it before and I reject it. The 14th amendment was written to prevent racial discrimination and it is not a blank check for any liberal social clause. The same arguments you use for gay marriage could be made for the support of polygamy, those who abuse children, incestous relationships or any other socially unacceptable groups. Society needs limits, but unfortunately the left is always pushing those limits toward more and more decadence.

Marriage law and abortion law should be left to the states. If the local values dictate support for gay marriage then that is something a state has the right to do. However in places where it is not acceptable there is no right for liberals 1000 miles away to dictate we should live by their values. You are then violating our rights. Let also make this clear, I don’t support those who would persecute gays, however that does not mean I believe the state should officially sanction a behavior that I consider sinful, and one most citizens consider sinful. Yes this opinion is based on religious values but that does not change the fact that red state folks will vote for laws they believe in. In short....leave us alone and respect our rights.

YOU don't have to live by anyone else's values aside from your own. Are you being forced into gay marriage? NO. NO. NO.

You do you honey and let everyone else do the same, 'kay?
 
Old 11-12-2018, 01:35 PM
 
28,164 posts, read 25,193,238 times
Reputation: 16664
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
The values of this new generation are contrary to everything this country was just 30 years ago. In one generation they are upending everything, and it is not for the good. I am convinced this millennial generation will lead our nation to decay, civil war and then finally third world status. It’s far deeper than just these two issues. I fear for the future of this nation.
Righhhhttttt.


All because we :gasp: think all American adults should be allowed to decide who they marry or sleep with.
 
Old 11-12-2018, 01:38 PM
 
28,164 posts, read 25,193,238 times
Reputation: 16664
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
Because our state VOTED on the issue and supported candidates who promote family values., I think that qualifies me to to say “most” feel that way.

You have a right to a say on the laws in your own state.....not mine!
I don't think we should be voting on a group's rights.

What if a measure came about next election that said practicing the Christian religion should be illegal and it was voted on by the majority? Would you stop practicing? Because the majority of your state said it should be illegal?
 
Old 11-12-2018, 01:39 PM
 
Location: The analog world
17,077 posts, read 13,285,651 times
Reputation: 22904
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post
The values of this new generation are contrary to everything this country was just 30 years ago. In one generation they are upending everything, and it is not for the good. I am convinced this millennial generation will lead our nation to decay, civil war and then finally third world status. It’s far deeper than just these two issues. I fear for the future of this nation.
Heh, I'm part of the generation prior to the Millennials, and I think it's ridiculous to stand in the way of marriage between consenting adults, too. And, btw, my own life looks like something out of Father Knows Best, only without the full skirts, high heels, and pearls.
 
Old 11-12-2018, 01:40 PM
 
7,447 posts, read 2,812,138 times
Reputation: 4922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25 View Post
I don't think we should be voting on a group's rights.

What if a measure came about next election that said practicing the Christian religion should be illegal and it was voted on by the majority? Would you stop practicing? Because the majority of your state said it should be illegal?
Heh and religion, unlike sexual orientation, actually IS a choice.
 
Old 11-12-2018, 02:04 PM
 
Location: Full time in the RV
3,417 posts, read 7,759,972 times
Reputation: 3331
I am in favor of same sex marriage.


Plus I can't wait to watch gay divorce court.
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.


Closed Thread


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.

© 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