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.
Either that, or maybe you are correct. If that's the case, then it would certainly fly against what same-sex marriage say publicly. They say (usually very sweetly) that they aren't anti-gay; they just want to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Maybe they're lying through their teeth.
I don't think gay marriage is disgusting; I don't agree with it, but it doesn't disgust me. Now, the idea of two men going at it, on the other hand, is utterly repulsive and makes me wanna puke in my mouth a little.
She's exactly correct! I really hope that gets legs. Actually it would be very cool if heterosexuals who support gay & lesbian rights were able to also make some kind of protest.
Tax protests can work great if you can actually get large numbers of people to do it at the same time---otherwise they just make examples of a few protesters and send them up the river. Nobody knows when the critical mass on a particular issue is going to be reached, but I think few people are going to say "you know, I think not being able to get married is as bad as possibly being in jail." Not that it isn't an important thing, but I think things like that tend to happen in more immediate life or death situations, like the draft for instance.
What you fail to see is that it's not "the government of those States" refusing anything. It's the governments trying to make it legal. In this case, as well as others, a vote of the people is what makes a difference. The governments have no choice but to accept the will of the people, or they get kicked out of office on the following elections.
No worries!
I'm quite sure that I as a heterosexual athiest would not be wanting funding from my government to come from religious organizations. AND seeing as it doesn't as they're all tax exempt I get to say in my secular society that church doesn't get to dictate to the rest of us. You want a say, you pay. You don't get a say, you don't pay.
So I guess the "people" need to decide. They either WANT the money contributed by gays and lesbians and therefore the associated rights of citizenship that go along with it OR they should have no problem now they've mandated in Maine that gays & lesbians are second class citizens to put their hands back in their own pockets.
On a side note, just so I'm clear, voting is not manditory in the US anyway, right? So where things like this abolition of same sex marriage has occured as in Maine that's not a true representation of the whole population of Maine anyway, is it?
I am not redefining anybodies marriage. Is your marriage going to be redefined? Nope.
That was the purpose of me asking you how you would be affected if I marry a female tomorrow. It does not. How did I redefine your marriage if me (Sharon) and Stephanie get married tomorrow?
People who think this must have weak marriages themselves.
Still attacking?
How can you change the rules about who may marry and not redefine marriage?
Wow, I'm quite surprised that some people see this as a victory of democracy, while others see this as a failure of democracy. It's neither. It is, however, a failure of our government to protect the rights of individuals. I never thought I'd be out here defending gay rights, simply because I myself am not comfortable with homosexuality (no offence folks, I just can't quite place it in my world view, maybe I'll be more open minded as I get older), but it's simply a matter of consensual adults minding their own business. Why is government even involved in this in the first place? I have no idea. This is simply a case of tyranny of the majority. It's no better than banning marriage between blacks and whites. So, go ahead, pat yourselves on the back, you've only proven that natural rights (you know, those funny things that you automatically inherit as a member of the human race) can be denied by government. I don't agree with gay marriage at all, but that doesn't mean I have a right to stop others from making their own decisions.
Signed,
A Christian Conservative
On a side note, just so I'm clear, voting is not manditory in the US anyway, right? So where things like this abolition of same sex marriage has occured as in Maine that's not a true representation of the whole population of Maine anyway, is it?
Correct. If you don't vote, your opinion essentially doesn't count when it comes to elections.
I don't agree with gay marriage at all, but that doesn't mean I have a right to stop others from making their own decisions.
Signed,
A Christian Conservative
A very admirable conservative viewpoint. Thank you. If only more Republicans shared your attitude, I think we'd be a better country. Certainly, we'd be a freer country.
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.
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.
Ah! I love Melissa Etheridge! 
