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.
All I want to know is why in the hell government is in the marriage business in the first place. That makes no sense. What happened to live and let live? Just because you don't agree with folks lifestyle choices doesn't give you a right to make them illegal. Hell, personally speaking, I'm not all that comfortable with it, but I can recognize the difference between my business and the business of other people.
1) I agree with those that think government shouldn't be in the "marriage business".
2) Let's agree that the reason the government IS in the marriage business is because:
-At it's inception, this nation was a Christian Nation and the term "marriage" was probably used because it wasn't anticipated that the traditional, Christian definition would ever be challenged.
-Because marriage was tied to property rights and inheritences to CHILDREN and such conceived in such a marriage. True, not all married couples can or do have kids, but it doesn't diminish the purpose.
3) Do gays deserve ALL of the rights granted in a marriage between a man and a woman?
- The answer is an unequivocal 'yes' in my opinion.
-For that matter, ANY couple should be allowed to do so.
And there-in lies the question, "WHERE do we draw the line? Or do we even draw one?" I mean if a brother and sister want to enter into a "Civil Union" why should it be protested? Or if we're going to challenge the definition all together, why can't a man OR a woman enter into such a union with multiple people?
And before people start to beat the "seperate but equal" drum with respect to gay marriage. This isn't a matter of gays being made to go to different bathrooms, go to their own movie theaters or drink out of their own water fountains. This isn't a matter of "marriage" being separate (and technically UN-equal) like what happened to blacks in the 50s and 60s, etc...
The compromise has pretty much been; Give gays the rights they deserve, but don't try to ram it down our throats that a gay civil union is the technical equivelent of a heterosexual marriage because there are natural differences... Let's mandate equality and tolerance, but not attempt to forceably mandate acceptance...
Of course the other possibility is to leave "marriage" up to the churches and simply leave it up to the state to control "Civil Unions", but then again, where do we draw the line on who is allowed and who is not? It would seem to me that it would have to be any two people who consent to enter a Civil Union should be allowed... Why would gays be so special as to warrant an exception here without lending credence to other non-traditional couples, or even two friends who simply want a legal arrangement under the eyes of the government??
(Sorry, rambling a bit... ).
Last edited by Rhett_Butler; 11-04-2009 at 07:41 AM..
I never said it was news, ....but I did make a point with it , can't you tell the difference between news and commentary? Oh ya...Limbaugh/o'Reilly.......
Illegal workers DO affect me...they affect the economy which does affect me.
NOW how do two LEGAL CITIZENS getting married affect YOU?
That breeze you felt was my point zooming over your head...
Take ANY measure on the ballot that "Doesn't affect YOU" and apply the same question...
Here's an example of one around here that might be on the next ballot:
There's discussion of raising the tolls on a particular stretch of road to raise money for a new Metro line to connect with the Metro Rail system. It doesn't affect ME one way or the other. I don't use the toll road, NOR would I use the proposed rail line. By YOUR logic, I should therefore vote in favor of it since it doesn't affect me ether way, and beyond that, I'd be "Stupid, backward and 'filth'? " if I didn't.
To reiterate, agreeing or disagreeing with something because it "Doesn't affect YOU" is ignorant. THAT is the point.
I never said it was news, ....but I did make a point with it , can't you tell the difference between news and commentary? Oh ya...Limbaugh/o'Reilly.......
All I want to know is why in the hell government is in the marriage business in the first place. That makes no sense. What happened to live and let live? Just because you don't agree with folks lifestyle choices doesn't give you a right to make them illegal. Hell, personally speaking, I'm not all that comfortable with it, but I can recognize the difference between my business and the business of other people.
Well, technically when the legislature and the Governor signed into law gay marriage, they got in the marriage business. But of course, that didn't bother you because they were doing something you approved of.
Technically, when the voters rejected gay marriage in Maine, and around the country wherever and whenever it is on the ballot, they are doing just that - telling government to stay out of it.
No one is making gay relationships illegal - show me where that is happening. No one is saying homosexuals can't engage in homosexual acts.
What they are saying is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Civil unions is the way to go for gays, but no, they want to usurp the word "marriage" in order to further their agenda.
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.
).
