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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:33 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,659,127 times
Reputation: 7943

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02 View Post


Give them civil unions with the same rights as married couples have. If they want to call it marriage, it can be between them and their church.
How about giving everybody civil unions, and if a couple wants to call it marriage, it can be between them and their church?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:36 PM
 
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,012,380 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovelyinLa View Post
It's this attitude that is most unhelpful and offensive. Why do are the people who disagree with you ignorant? Are you an all knowing God? Or are you just another person with an opinion? Are you saying that anyone with different cultural values are all ignorant because they differ from yours? If so, that would be pretty ignorant of you? How can you demand respect for your opinion/position when you clearly disrespect anyone who doesn't agree with you.

BTW, you don't need much education to understand "only a marriage between a man and woman is valid". So instead of calling us uneduated, just say we disagree. Again, the name calling is not necessary and a sign of ignorance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:37 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,659,127 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73 View Post
So you believe that judges should be able to rule on matters without being accountable to the public? The US isn't a monarchy and this is what we are becoming when unaccountable judges enact laws. The judges are supposed to rule on an issue and give it to the legislators to enact laws. This is why we have the checks and balances. To protect ourselves from tyranny from the bench.
Monarchy?! Hardly. Judges are appointed by the governor (or President).

Should we be able to recall U.S. Supreme Court judges too?

Tyranny from the bench?! LOL...

If someone doesn't like the ruling of a judge, they have a right to appeal. It works quite well that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:39 PM
 
838 posts, read 922,066 times
Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by LovelyinLa View Post
It's this attitude that is most unhelpful and offensive. Why do are the people who disagree with you ignorant? Are you an all knowing God? Or are you just another person with an opinion? Are you saying that anyone with different cultural values are all ignorant because they differ from yours? If so, that would be pretty ignorant of you? How can you demand respect for your opinion/position when you clearly disrespect anyone who doesn't agree with you.

BTW, you don't need much education to understand "only a marriage between a man and woman is valid". So instead of calling us uneduated, just say we disagree. Again, the name calling is not necessary and a sign of ignorance.
Well said.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:40 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,659,127 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73 View Post
Yes, true. BUT marriage has ALWAYS been a union between a man and woman. The essential definition has never changed.
Except when it's been between several men and one woman. I guess that's part of your essential definition too.

And the truth is that marriage already is legal between two people of the same sex in several countries and two U.S. states. The number in which it's legal is not going to decrease; it's going to increase, undoubtedly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:42 PM
 
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,012,380 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Monarchy?! Hardly. Judges are appointed by the governor (or President).

Should we be able to recall U.S. Supreme Court judges too?

Tyranny from the bench?! LOL...

If someone doesn't like the ruling of a judge, they have a right to appeal. It works quite well that way.
Yes, we should be able to recall a US Supreme Court Justice as well. Average Joes and Marys cannot afford attorneys to appeal a Supreme Court decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:44 PM
 
4,050 posts, read 6,137,912 times
Reputation: 1574
Quote:
Originally Posted by clsicmovies View Post
Trying to steal our thousands of years old moral and social traditions of marriage is a most cruel discrimination to most Americans, that is the way it is.
Hahahahaha!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:44 PM
 
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,012,380 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Except when it's been between several men and one woman. I guess that's part of your essential definition too.

And the truth is that marriage already is legal between two people of the same sex in several countries and two U.S. states. The number in which it's legal is not going to decrease; it's going to increase, undoubtedly.
No, I do not support polygamy either. The fact that unaccountable state supreme court justices have ruled gay marriage legal in Mass and Conn does not mean that it is valid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:46 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,659,127 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by msconnie73 View Post
Yes, we should be able to recall a US Supreme Court Justice as well.
Well, thankfully, that's not possible, and hopefully, it never will be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 08:49 PM
 
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,012,380 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale View Post
Well, thankfully, that's not possible, and hopefully, it never will be.
Just wait until the make-up of the Supreme Court becomes conservative then you'd be crying for recall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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