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.
Boggles my mind that we "strengthened marriage" in a state where it's easier to get a divorce than any other state I've ever lived in. Banning gay marriage isn't going to change divorce rates, adultery rates, single parent home rates, deadbeat parents that walk away from kid rates, etc.
It doesn't change my non-religious, state sanctioned marriage in any regard. My marriage is what I make of it. That was the case on Monday, that was the case after the vote. That will be the case when equality is given to ALL citizens of this country.
I'm an "ordained minister" in the Universal Life Church and have performed several legally valid marriages for my buddies despite having zero qualifications. All you have to do is sign a couple forms at the county register of deeds office and that's that. Anyone can perform a marriage, and so far only about a third of those couples I've married have divorced, so my track record still beats the market average. "Traditional" marriage is an utter joke.
PDD, that is a bigoted statement right there. Christianity teaches you to reflect on how you treat others. TV is the modern opiate of the masses. How many children brainlessly mimick what they see and hear on MTV. If you don't choose to believe in Christianity, that is your choice. But to insinuate that Christians are brainwashed shows that you know very little about Christianity.
Sorry but Christianity does not teach you how to be a moral person and how to treat others fairly, I learned that from my parents.
The fact that you voted for the amendment means you have no compassion for those who chose to live differently from you.That's not very Christian of you.
Talk about hippocracy.
Well, I must say the only smugness I have seen here is from those opposing the amendment. Far too much rhetoric, and only the occasional response willing to consider any of the valid points being raised by the pro amendment side. I responded to a number of the opposing viewpoints, but I simply can't answer them all in a reasonable amount of time.
I work in genetics. One of the first things they teach you in introductory genetics in college is that any genetic condition that leads to even a 5% lower chance of reproduction will be eliminated from populations in a few generations unless there is an advantage to being heterozygous for the condition. Since there is no detectable advantage to being heterozygous for a homosexual gene, and obviously there is a large decrease in reproductive likelihood, there is very little probability for there to actually be a homosexual gene. The few papers I saw even remotely suggested it were about as baked results as you get. They found the result they insisted on finding, not what proper scientific approach would find.
If you have had bad experiences with a few Christians, how do you know they wouldn't have been worse people if they weren't Christian? You can't know with such a small data set. Same with 3 marriages, which I assume are all within the last decade or so. But with a much larger data set, such as 1,000 people, you can make some conclusions.
I can see how heated this topic is, especially for the opponents painting it as a civil rights issue. Marriage as defined by the state is a legal protection for an institution the clearly benefits the state. On average, children who are raised by married couples place much less burden on society and tend to be more productive. Man + woman families are more likely to produce more children. This country needs a higher birthrate to sustain its population, provide soldiers for the military, provide workers for the elderly, and so on. Homosexual unions provide the state with no such benefit. The exceptional cases where children are raised by a homosexual couple are a very small percent, and is a whole other can of worms, more of a tangent really.
As far as I know, this amendment did not outlaw homosexuals from living together. It did not take anything away from them, despite the claims to the contrary. Nobody is being dragged out of their homes and beaten. Why make it out to sound like that?
The perfect example of government overreaching and wasting our time, resources, and money. To me it's a pretty clear conflict of the separation of church and state...
Why do these conservatives preach small government and rail against the politicians... yet they want that same government in people's houses dictating what is "moral" and "good" telling us how to live our lives? What a bunch of hypocrites.
Since that is no longer the case, our society now has social ills that were almost nonexistant before the 1960's.
Nonexistant?
[SIZE=3]I have read many accounts of heroin being used rampantly during the Civil War. Also the West was filled with Opiate Dens during the 1800s. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Cocaine? Do some research on the history of cocaine. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Sexual abuse and addictions were commonplace throughout history. Like Biblical history. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I look through old newspaper archives as a hobby and the gangs of today have nothing on the white gangs the would burst through the homes of blacks, hang the man of the house and rape the women. And they were the ones that were reported. The Mafia during its heyday VERY prevelent. Gangs non existent? Please go read up on the Molly Maguires. Also you can read :http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Co...reet-Gangs.pdf[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Do your research, my dear.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Many of the social ills of today have to do with Population Growth. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Having more gay family units would help that[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I could go on and on. [/SIZE]
The perfect example of government overreaching and wasting our time, resources, and money. To me it's a pretty clear conflict of the separation of church and state...
Why do these conservatives preach small government and rail against the politicians... yet they want that same government in people's houses dictating what is "moral" and "good" telling us how to live our lives? What a bunch of hypocrites.
More name calling. Please, isn't this supposed to be a grown up discussion, MikeyKid?
Obviously you are not even considering the point for one second if you mention government going into peoples' homes. The point is that government can provide legal protections for behavior that benefits society. The same concept goes for volunteer EMTs and firefighters receiving tax breaks and such, as they do in many places. Is that government going into peoples' homes too?
It is quite obvious that most people on the opposing side has their minds made up so far that they don't consider the opposing viewpoint. I have considered the opposing viewpoint at least, without placing my own interpretation and putting words into other peoples' mouths, then calling them hypocrites because of insinuations I made about them, rather than things they actually said.
[SIZE=3]I have read many accounts of heroin being used rampantly during the Civil War. Also the West was filled with Opiate Dens during the 1800s. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Cocaine? Do some research on the history of cocaine. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Sexual abuse and addictions were commonplace throughout history. Like Biblical history. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I look through old newspaper archives as a hobby and the gangs of today have nothing on the white gangs the would burst through the homes of blacks, hang the man of the house and rape the women. And they were the ones that were reported. The Mafia during its heyday VERY prevelent. Gangs non existent? Please go read up on the Molly Maguires. Also you can read :http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Co...reet-Gangs.pdf[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Do your research, my dear.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Many of the social ills of today have to do with Population Growth. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Having more gay family units would help that[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]I could go on and on. [/SIZE]
Hard to read the post, but the smugness shines through. I should have reworded my previous statement to say 'far less common". Gangs are in most schools nowadays, whereas they were confined predominantly to cities 30 years ago. Meth labs are everywhere now. Yes there used to be other drug epidemics, but never such a widespread problem over the whole US until the 1960's. Not all of these problems are due exclusively to the decline of marriage in our society, but when people deny the existence of a slippery slope, they are usually on one.
Does the fact that it requires a male human to impregnate a female human also seem arbitrary to you?
No.
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.
Please go read up on the Molly Maguires. Also you can read :
[/SIZE]
