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.
"common sense" allowed slavery; "common sense" allowed separation of the races; "common sense" disallowed interracial marriage and I could go on and on. Where do you fit in on common sense?
Slavery was due to a mindset of greed, "class status", cruelty and ignorance.
Segregation was a mindset of greed, slavery, "class status", cruelty and ignorance.
Interracial marriage "disallowance" is a mindset of pure ignorance.
Same sex relationships are unnatural although a personal choice.
Same sex "marriage" is against the laws of nature and procreation.
Common sense has absolutely nothing to do with any of the above.
Now, if you mean against "the law" of the Bible - just come out and say it. But no one practices the completely arbitrary man-made laws of the Bible anyway. Not to the letter. So those who espouse its harsher teachings are inherently hypocritical.
Keep you religion to yourself (cherry picking is a sin itself). Keep your flawed "procreation" logic to yourself (it's so silly it doesnt even stand a chance...think old people who get married, but dont have kids...think those who physically cannot have kids...do they get to marry? How about couples who choose not to have kids...revoke their marriage license too?)
Gays get civil marriage because in the eye of the law, people should be treated equally. If your church refuses, so be it and nobody cares. The government, which technically serves all of us, must be fair and just. Period.
So, why does Joe "six pack", in all his barely literate and high school drop out wisdom and glory, get to vote on "extending" some basic right to a whole group of people? Explain that to me.
"People" do not get to extend basic rights to anyone...rights are natural and given by birth. So, you, Mr and Mrs Joe six pack, do not have a say in this matter. Move on.
Slavery was due to a mindset of greed, "class status", cruelty and ignorance.
Segregation was a mindset of greed, slavery, "class status", cruelty and ignorance.
Interracial marriage "disallowance" is a mindset of pure ignorance.
Same sex relationships are unnatural although a personal choice.
Same sex "marriage" is against the laws of nature and procreation.
Common sense has absolutely nothing to do with any of the above.
Actually "slavery" like the feudal system was an economic engine as defined by their times. If you remember it took a Civil War to dispose of it in the U.S. To the Southern states it was "common sense". Even though other educated countries had already outlawed it peacefully by 1861.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 had to negate the laws of Virginia and 13 other States that did not allow interracial marriage. These States had continued the doctrine of racial purity between the races. This was their "common sense" led by ignorance.
In both cases I doubt these civil rights would have been allowed if it were up to the voters. I am sure they would have said "it is our state" and we have the right to not allow civil rights.
Yes, a same sex relationship is a personal choice. "Unnatural"? Please define that to me. How many need to express these feelings before they are no longer considered unnatural? The government has the right to define and then redefine marriage for purposes of equal rights. This is not done by individual vote, but by representative vote.
I personnally feel that the government cannot define marriage for religious groups or force them to allow marriages within their place of worship. There are all ready places of worship that allow same sex marriage where it is legal to do so and more will continue to allow it as time goes by.
Common sense does change and between cultures is not the same.
I'm really convinced that the world as we know it won't come to an end because some gay people are allowed to get married. We really do have other, more pressing, issues to worry about.
I'm really convinced that the world as we know it won't come to an end because some gay people are allowed to get married. We really do have other, more pressing, issues to worry about.
Except you probably believe that only the opponents should be worrying about "more pressing issues". If the proponents (of re-defining marriage) would be instead worrying about those "more pressing issues", the rest of us would not have to participate in this madness as well. It takes two...
Keep you religion to yourself (cherry picking is a sin itself). Keep your flawed "procreation" logic to yourself (it's so silly it doesnt even stand a chance...think old people who get married, but dont have kids...think those who physically cannot have kids...do they get to marry? How about couples who choose not to have kids...revoke their marriage license too?)
Gays get civil marriage because in the eye of the law, people should be treated equally. If your church refuses, so be it and nobody cares. The government, which technically serves all of us, must be fair and just. Period.
So, why does Joe "six pack", in all his barely literate and high school drop out wisdom and glory, get to vote on "extending" some basic right to a whole group of people? Explain that to me.
"People" do not get to extend basic rights to anyone...rights are natural and given by birth. So, you, Mr and Mrs Joe six pack, do not have a say in this matter. Move on.
Do you also believe that degenerate high school drop outs (the Democrats' most reliable voting bloc, and basically sent Obama back to the White House) should not pick our president and other leaders? If only "intelligent people" were allowed to vote, the political landscape would be very different right now. I'm not sure you would approve of how they'd handle some of these things.
This past election I kept thinking repeatedly of how there ought to be an I.Q./Basic Civics test to vote, as I was flabbergasted by all the "new voters" now deciding the future of the free world. As we saw in MA with Liz Warren and her push (with state tax dollers) to get all of the most ignorant voters out to the polls in order to secure her election, higher voter turnout is not neccessarily a postive. But then I tell myself, that wouldn't be very democratic or American now would it? Anyone trying to suppress voters is un-American.
To say that gay "marriage" is a basic right makes the false assumption that the word "marriage" is open to interpretation, and that all types of relationships are equal before God and society.
Last edited by massnative71; 01-13-2013 at 11:07 PM..
Except you probably believe that only the opponents should be worrying about "more pressing issues". If the proponents (of re-defining marriage) would be instead worrying about those "more pressing issues", the rest of us would not have to participate in this madness as well. It takes two...
Actually, I believe that we all have to worry about more pressing issues. See, I like to be inclusive of everybody.
"that all types of relationships are equal before God and society."...
This is precisely the point. You can have the above opinion, and so can I. We can "define" the word "marriage" either in a secular way or religiously in our personal lives, but as far as our government is concerned, it must treat all of us the same. You cannot blur religious persuasion-beliefs with stately matters. Two consenting adult, be they heterosexual or homosexual, should be given the recognition of "marriage" if they choose to do so, and receive the same attending benefits of that contract. Now, if you wish to change the word "marriage" to a more narrow band, then you must do so for both heterosexual and homosexual.
I have my own personal opinion of what "marriage" means, but I would never deny another person his or her right to the same legal and secular institutional recognition of that union. I am not talking about a church sanction marriage, but a state sanctioned one. I am also for changing the word "marriage" to be defined only in the religious sense, and make all state sanctioned contract a "union" instead. But it must be applied to everyone (gay and straight peoples), and with all benefits given to both groups. That to me is only just and fair. I have no patience debating homosexuality in the context of religion...that is a tiring and pointless exercise because it moves into the realm of faith, and who can argue with "God"? This is about civil and legal marriage, and it has to do wih social and legal fairness.
It is really a very simple line of reasoning. So let's keep religion out of civil debates. Is't RI the last state to not give gay people this "right"? It's time to join the rest of NE.
It is really a very simple line of reasoning. So let's keep religion out of civil debates. Is't RI the last state to not give gay people this "right"? It's time to join the rest of NE.
Well put. RI is last in NE in this matter because of the long time dominance of the Catholic religion in legislative issues. Here is a chance to throw off the yoke of oppression.
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.
