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)
 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:08 AM
 
Location: The D-M-V area
13,691 posts, read 18,445,049 times
Reputation: 9596

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by karfar View Post
Actually, they're not forcing any agenda. Requesting marriage between the same sex is forcing an agenda? LOL, wow you people are overly sensitive. See, if this civil rights issue wasn't put to a vote, no one could have any cause to keep whining that gays are forcing an agenda. It's really quite simple, this issue should not be put up to a vote, it's a simple basic right. I know that's hard for you people who never had to think twice about getting married.....and divorced.....and then married again.
Obviously the nation doesn't agree that it has anything to do with civil rights.

Marriage isn't a civil right. You can't marry whoever you want or how many you want because YOU want to.

Gays have all the rights that everyone else has, there's no reason to convey any marriage privileges on them because of who they choose to have sex with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:09 AM
 
Location: um....guess
10,503 posts, read 15,559,023 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theliberalvoice View Post
She wouldn't be screaming that if it was HER marriage that was in question.

IF the government took away your RIGHT to marrying who you love, you all would be running around screaming "OH MY GOD! MY RIGHTS!"

Oh, you bet it would be a civil rights issue to them then.
I know, but they always conveniently forget that because "it's always been that way". If it's always been that way, then that certainly sounds like a right, doesn't it? But then they turn around & claim marriage is not a right. LOL, if they don't have any sort of problem getting married & there's no roadblock to getting married, then how is it they can sit there & claim it's not a right? Until I hear of some situations where people weren't allowed to get married simply because, then they've got nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:10 AM
 
Location: um....guess
10,503 posts, read 15,559,023 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem View Post
Obviously the nation doesn't agree that it has anything to do with civil rights.

Marriage isn't a civil right. You can't marry whoever you want or how many you want because YOU want to.

Gays have all the rights that everyone else has, there's no reason to convey any marriage privileges on them because of who they choose to have sex with.
LOL, you fed right into it, so predictable. And yes, heteros CAN marry whoever they want, can't they? Other than polygamy or marrying a relative, tell me any type of situation where a hetero couple can't get married. And if marriage isn't a civil right, then you should not be allowed to get married for any reason, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:13 AM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,290,241 times
Reputation: 3229
Quote:
Originally Posted by archineer View Post
Well i'm including civil partnerships/unions (they are the same thing really) as well so by that measure i'm right

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ah, gotcha... Again, no problem here with granting equal rights in the form of Civil Unions. I think even a national referendum on that would pass....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:13 AM
 
8,762 posts, read 11,568,901 times
Reputation: 3398
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Always has to be someone going off into lala land which hurts their adjenda, not helps it..

Another one of your postings where you contradict yourself.

This is america, Freedom should ring? Indeed freedom has rung, thats kinda how this country was intended to work.. 50 states with 50 DIFFERENT laws, with each state determining laws that their states agree with.

Shame on them for following their constitutionally afforded right to vote?

Shame on you for wanting to quiet them while then proclaiming this is america, the only sad thing is you did it all in the same paragraph..
There is no contradition.

How has freedom rung by denying people the right to marry? Explain that.

Where did I say I want to silent them? Show me. I think you need learn how to improve your thinking skills before you post. Yeah. That would be great! Conservatives who THINK!

And I stand by what I say "Shame on them for voting for this."

And care to explain how you thought the last five governors of Virginia were Democratic? I cannot take ANYONE who did not know this seriously at all.
//www.city-data.com/forum/11472701-post33.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,244,458 times
Reputation: 4937
To those who believe the State (Government) should not be involved with defining marriage, allow me to ask if the State should recognize marriages such as:

Polygamy (one husband - multiple wives)

Marriages between family members

If you truly believe the State should not be involved, they you would approve of the above
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:17 AM
 
9,803 posts, read 16,181,020 times
Reputation: 8266
-------"other than polygamy or marrying a relative "-

If we are to allow one perversion ( gay marriage) in our laws, might as well allow the other 2 ( polygamy or marrying a relative ) in as well.

What makes gay marriage less perverted than marrying a relative ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:18 AM
 
Location: um....guess
10,503 posts, read 15,559,023 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac View Post
-------"other than polygamy or marrying a relative "-

If we are to allow one perversion ( gay marriage) in our laws, might as well allow the other 2 ( polygamy or marrying a relative ) in as well.

What makes gay marriage less perverted than marrying a relative ?
Personally, I could give a crap who marries who, none of my business. But since I believe it's illegal to marry a close relative & I believe polygamy is illegal, those were the 2 exceptions I came up with. And thanks for not answering the question!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Maine
7,727 posts, read 12,377,875 times
Reputation: 8344
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyGem View Post
Obviously the nation doesn't agree that it has anything to do with civil rights.

Marriage isn't a civil right. You can't marry whoever you want or how many you want because YOU want to.
Gays have all the rights that everyone else has, there's no reason to convey any marriage privileges on them because of who they choose to have sex with.
Sounds very much like the argument against interracial marriage from years ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2009, 10:19 AM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,290,241 times
Reputation: 3229
Quote:
Originally Posted by karfar View Post
LOL, you fed right into it, so predictable. And yes, heteros CAN marry whoever they want, can't they? Other than polygamy or marrying a relative, tell me any type of situation where a hetero couple can't get married.
Ummmm, wait a second... So essentially you're saying that heteros can marry whomever they wish, except for certain hetero couples? And then after excluding those exceptions asking "Who can't get married"?

This is the point. The traditional marriage IS defined already. What gives gays the right to make a lone exception to the definition? What makes their circumstance special?

Sure, apply and fight for the right all you want, but don't tell anyone who opposes it that they are somehow not as enlightened as those who agree they should be allowed to....

I mean it's just simple common knowledge to you that people shouldn't be allowed to marry a relative or marry more than one person, right?

Well to others it's simple common knowledge that you shouldn't be allowed to marry someone of the same sex...

Again, it's a simple case of nitpicking where the line should be on what is called a "marriage".
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. The time now is 07:49 PM.

© 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