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.
Personally i feel that we as Americans have so much more to worry about then if 2 happily gay People want to Marry, who the freakin cares, if that makes them happy so be it. What ever happened to everyone being treated fairly, and I am a very happily married women of 37 years.
We have too much to worry about and i do not think that gay people getting married is on my worry list. Where this President is taking us i do not know, and that is what i worry about, as well as a stable economy, a strong Military Presence, and a PRESIDENT who does not have the media in his little POCKET.
Being hetero or whatever has nothing to do with the fact. In this country our rights come from the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the amendments. Reference where marriage is mentioned as a right.
No, you're not understanding. I never said it was in the constitution. What I am referring to is whenever someone who is against gay marriage tries to say that marriage in itself is not a right. Can you tell me of an instance where you could not get married, & I'm not talking about marrying a blood relative or 10 people, I'm asking about just you & another, just like a gay marriage would be....can you give me an example where that is not a possibility? This question has been asked before & surprise surprise, no one has been able to answer it. So, when you can come on here & tell us that men & women are not getting married left & right, I will stick by the fact that yes indeed, heterosexuals do indeed have the right to get married.
Personally i feel that we as Americans have so much more to worry about then if 2 happily gay People want to Marry, who the freakin cares, if that makes them happy so be it. What ever happened to everyone being treated fairly, and I am a very happily married women of 37 years.
We have too much to worry about and i do not think that gay people getting married is on my worry list. Where this President is taking us i do not know, and that is what i worry about, as well as a stable economy, a strong Military Presence, and a PRESIDENT who does not have the media in his little POCKET.
And if a brother and sister , or a brother, his sister and a cousin all get "married" what does it hurt, if it makes them happy doing it? Its not as if its on your worry list.
And if a brother and sister , or a brother, his sister and a cousin all get "married" what does it hurt, if it makes them happy doing it? Its not as if its on your worry list.
We are talking about Gay Marriage, why is it so hard to discuss the issue of gays getting married without bring up brothers, and sisters, or horses or kids or whatever the hell asinine comparison you want to make??
No, you're not understanding. I never said it was in the constitution. What I am referring to is whenever someone who is against gay marriage tries to say that marriage in itself is not a right. Can you tell me of an instance where you could not get married, & I'm not talking about marrying a blood relative or 10 people, I'm asking about just you & another, just like a gay marriage would be....can you give me an example where that is not a possibility? This question has been asked before & surprise surprise, no one has been able to answer it. So, when you can come on here & tell us that men & women are not getting married left & right, I will stick by the fact that yes indeed, heterosexuals do indeed have the right to get married.
I think what you are getting at is that a "right" is something that a person is entitled to, as long as by exercising that right the person does not require another person to give up some of their property, or require them to perform some service.
If a man and women join a church and the pastor performs a marriage ceremony, the couple is minimally asking the pastor to perform a service, but beyond that, they ask nothing else of any other person. So some other person in town cannot object to the couple getting married, because getting married asks nothing from that person in town.
The problem comes when government endorses and supports marriage thru programs and services funded thru confiscatory taxes. Now the marriage impacts all the people in town, because they are subsidizing the couple's marriage.
We are talking about Gay Marriage, why is it so hard to discuss the issue of gays getting married without bring up brothers, and sisters, or horses or kids or whatever the hell asinine comparison you want to make??
Because even people who are in favor of gay marriage are looking to draw the line, in regards to who they determine qualifies under the definition of being "married". So where do you draw the line? Oh and feel free to insult me again.
Location: 3.5 sq mile island ant nest next to Canada
3,036 posts, read 5,888,747 times
Reputation: 2171
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedjat
No, you're not understanding. I never said it was in the constitution. What I am referring to is whenever someone who is against gay marriage tries to say that marriage in itself is not a right. Can you tell me of an instance where you could not get married, & I'm not talking about marrying a blood relative or 10 people, I'm asking about just you & another, just like a gay marriage would be....can you give me an example where that is not a possibility? This question has been asked before & surprise surprise, no one has been able to answer it. So, when you can come on here & tell us that men & women are not getting married left & right, I will stick by the fact that yes indeed, heterosexuals do indeed have the right to get married.
I guess I'm just arguing semantics then. Quite often marriage is referred to as a "right" and not as an "ability to" and you end up with the majority thinking it is an American right just like they think you have the right to vote in a Federal election.
It may simply be defined as semantics but to me it's an important distinction. I didn't spend 20+ years in the military defending someones ability to do something.
Oh brother. If we let the gays marry then brothers and sisters can get married. Let's just talk about two consenting adults that want the same rights as any straight couple. Of course this goes back to the implication that someone would actually choose to be gay or they're sick in the head. Only someone who is sick in the head would "choose" to be gay.
So what do y'all suggest just marry a woman despite the lack of attraction? Oh yeah that's real nice. I'm going to find a poor girl pretend to be attracted to her use her for my own image and of course deprive her of actually being in a loving relationship. Then after a year marry her and use her again for the sole purpose of incubating babies because that's all a woman is good for. Then of course create a lifetime of unhappiness because some misguided people think it's a "choice". Oh boy! Sign me up!
I don't know I guess I just enjoy actually enjoying life versus counting the days until I die because it pleases other people.
Because even people who are in favor of gay marriage are looking to draw the line, in regards to who they determine qualifies under the definition of being "married". So where do you draw the line? Oh and feel free to insult me again.
Its pretty straight forward, a consenting adult non-related couple. The Brother-Sister argument simply has no merit whatsoever. Allowing Gays to get married won't lead to that slippery slope or anything that that. Its simply grasping at straws by those who are opposed to it because they can't argue the issue on the merits they look for asinine comparisons.
And if a brother and sister , or a brother, his sister and a cousin all get "married" what does it hurt, if it makes them happy doing it? Its not as if its on your worry list.
The last time I checked gay men didn't produce children with recessive genetic diseases either. That is the primary reason incestuous marriage was outlawed by human being centuries ago. It's because they realized their children died at birth or suffered from unique genetic disorders. These genetic diseases are so rare that the only way you can really acquire them is through incestuous relationships. That is primary reason it is illegal or banned by society not because of moral codes.
Last edited by azriverfan.; 12-09-2009 at 01:28 PM..
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.
