NationStates Jolt Archive

Hahah, I just wanted your attention, this thread is gonna die really fast. But I was just thinking...

Do you believe the U.S.A. government should put gay marriage to the vote. I believe it should allow the people to vote yay/nay on it. Whether I agree with homosexuality or not. I realize all we ever do is talk about these subjects but I must have missed this one.

I believe that it grants equal rights to everyone in the Constitution, and that you shouldn't be allowed to take away others rights by majority vote.

Nah, the U.N. should decide, clearly.

I believe that it grants equal rights to everyone in the Constitution, and that you shouldn't be allowed to take away others rights by majority vote.


So, then what if the states put it to the vote and took it out of the fed governments contol? I think that if majority vote (even if that is 50.999%) says yay or nay, then that is that. The people spoke. On the other hand I respect Neo and I don't think he would say something without good reason. SO maybe the states should leave it up to the vote. Then we could have places like Alaska without gay marriage and places like ... the rest of america for gay marriage..

So, then what if the states put it to the vote and took it out of the fed governments contol? I think that if majority vote (even if that is 50.999%) says yay or nay, then that is that. The people spoke. On the other hand I respect Neo and I don't think he would say something without good reason. SO maybe the states should leave it up to the vote. Then we could have places like Alaska without gay marriage and places like ... the rest of america for gay marriage..

No, because that would be tyranny by majority. Our present system is set up to prevent the rights of the minority from being squelched by the opinions of the majority.

Then we could have places like Alaska without gay marriage and places like ... the rest of america for gay marriage..

More like Hawaii, Massachusettes and California with gay marriage, and the rest without.. ok, maybe Vermont, too.

This is an issue that calls for an amendment, which will pass easily if put to a vote.

No, because that would be tyranny by majority. Our present system is set up to prevent the rights of the minority from being squelched by the opinions of the majority.

Yeah, like the minority that would like to keep black slaves, who, after all, aren't fully human.. or the minority who advocate prohibition. Minority behaviors have always been controlled by the majority if seen as harmful, and this one's no different.

This is an issue that calls for an amendment, which will pass easily if put to a vote.

That's a tough call. People may think they want it then the reality of the goverment mucking with the Constitution bothers people.

I doubt there will ever be an amendment about gays.

Whether I agree with homosexuality or not.
That phrase--"agree with homosexuality"--you realize it's completely incoherent?

That's a tough call. People may think they want it then the reality of the goverment mucking with the Constitution bothers people.

I doubt there will ever be an amendment about gays.

Once the issue becomes ripe again, there'll be a renewed call for one.. it's just in remission right now, and no one wants to kick a sleeping dog.

People should read The Partial Constitution by Cass Sunstein. It's more true now than it ever was.

Yeah, like the minority that would like to keep black slaves, who, after all, aren't fully human.. or the minority who advocate prohibition. Minority behaviors have always been controlled by the majority if seen as harmful, and this one's no different.
You do realize what you just said makes absolutely no sense, right?

That phrase--"agree with homosexuality"--you realize it's completely incoherent?


Correct me if you would??




Quote:
Originally Posted by Pepe Dominguez
Yeah, like the minority that would like to keep black slaves, who, after all, aren't fully human.. or the minority who advocate prohibition. Minority behaviors have always been controlled by the majority if seen as harmful, and this one's no different.

You do realize what you just said makes absolutely no sense, right?

I was thinking the same, thing but I just assumed I was an idiot

You do realize what you just said makes absolutely no sense, right?

Wow, Hamm.. I never saw it that way.. thanks for changing my perspective with your flawless logic.

More like Hawaii, Massachusettes and California with gay marriage, and the rest without.. ok, maybe Vermont, too.

This is an issue that calls for an amendment, which will pass easily if put to a vote.
Not true. In the last election this November, something like 11 states had the issue voted on. None of them allowed gay marriage.

Should we vote to violate the constitution? Only if we want to write up a whole new constition which removes any mention of equality or the pursuit of happiness.

Not true. In the last election this November, something like 11 states had the issue voted on. None of them allowed gay marriage.

I know. I was responding to someone who said that all states but Alaska would allow it if given the vote. I figure only those three I listed would, although I have doubts about California.

Should we vote to violate the constitution? Only if we want to write up a whole new constition which removes any mention of equality or the pursuit of happiness.

An amendment isn't a whole new constitution, and can be repealed if the public turns against it in the future.

I know. I was responding to someone who said that all states but Alaska would allow it if given the vote. I figure only those three I listed would, although I have doubts about California.
Oops. Sorry then. Guess I read that out of context.

I believe that it grants equal rights to everyone in the Constitution, and that you shouldn't be allowed to take away others rights by majority vote.

This would only apply if marriage were a Constitutional right, and it's not. The Constitution also points out that any power not specifically given to the federal government is reserved for the states (aka the people). Granted, the strictest interpretation of the Tenth Amendment went out long ago, but I haven't yet heard any particularly strong Constitutional arguments that make marriage a "right." As it stands now the most Constitutional course of action would be to leave gay marriage to the states.

Should we vote to violate the constitution? Only if we want to write up a whole new constition which removes any mention of equality or the pursuit of happiness.

Actually the current Constitution never mentions either equality or pursuit of happiness.

Correct me if you would??

Homosexuality isn't an idea or an argument. You can't agree with it or disagree with it. What you most likely mean to express is either "approve of homosexuality" or, "agree with the idea that homosexuality is not morally wrong."

Even if it does get voted on, it'll just not happen right? If Americans are in the middle of a huge campaign to influence Canadian MPs to vote against it, then surely they would vote against it in their own country?

Even if it does get voted on, it'll just not happen right? If Americans are in the middle of a huge campaign to influence Canadian MPs to vote against it, then surely they would vote against it in their own country?

If we get a chance to vote, a gay marriage ban would pass by wide margins just about everywhere, correct.

I think countries should take a look at their divorce figures before allowing gay marriages. I mean... enough straight marriages end in divorce. Add to that the number of gay marriages that would end in divorce and what you end up with is lawyers making even more money.

Do you want that? Do you want these leeches with anotherpot to dip their fingers in?

;)

what if people just aren't mature enough to make that kind of decisions?

where i live, nationalists are getting more votes every election (hoovering around 1/4 of the votes now, 1/3 or more in some cities)...
they'd like to see all immigrants kicked out of the country,...
does that mean that we should actually start kicking some immigrant ass, just because the people are becoming more intolerant and narrow-minded?
nationalists are lickely to become a majority in some cities... so...
the people doesn't always know what's the best thing. sometimes the government needs to guide society, after all, that's what they are elected for, aren't they?

I'd vote nay, unless they changed the name of same sex partnerships to something other than marriage.

Marraige, no matter what type, is 1. a states' rights issue and 2. not something through which government may try to legislate their version of morality. There should be no Constitution ban on gay marraige, and, more so, no ban at all.

Hahah, I just wanted your attention, this thread is gonna die really fast. But I was just thinking...

Do you believe the U.S.A. government should put gay marriage to the vote. I believe it should allow the people to vote yay/nay on it. Whether I agree with homosexuality or not. I realize all we ever do is talk about these subjects but I must have missed this one.
Why not vote on ALL rights issues? We can vote on whether black people should be allowed to marry white people. On whether orientals should be allowed to vote. On whether or not people should be allowed to choose their own professions. The majority always knows what's best when it comes to human rights, and should always be consulted and obeyed. [/sarcasm]

Actually the current Constitution never mentions either equality or pursuit of happiness.

Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'd vote nay, unless they changed the name of same sex partnerships to something other than marriage.
WHY?! Changing the name doesn't do anything. It's still marriage, whether you want to call it that or not.

I'd vote nay, unless they changed the name of same sex partnerships to something other than marriage.

Cancer of the mouth.

Who wants to join my homophobia boycott?

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Correct. So when the law proibits gay marriage, it will apply to all, equally. Meaning that no gay marriage may be performed, whether the homosexuals in question are black, white, male, female, short, tall, etc.

I'm okay with civil unions...lets leave it at that. There is no way in hell that it would get "legalized" if voted on by individual states. I think it is sick and disgusting, but it isn;t me doing it, so more power to them, i jsut don't want my children to be subjected to that all the time....

People constantly spout that they have rights....what aout straight people. According to the poepl on this forum, we can't:

1) Have a straight pride parade.
2) Have a right to our happines, which may involve not seeing men makin out outside my child's school.
3) Have a right to have our beliefs be heard without being "homophobic" (terrible term considering that i do not fear them, just don;t want to be subjected to them all the time), bigoted, or ignorant. We have our beleifs just like you do.

Answer me those three questions. I wil be back on this forum in one hours....i want those questions ansered sensibly and without any flaming.

Of course homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be as miserable as any other couple?

http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/1-14-05/thumb_HOLD_DAT.gif

Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Bush has already done so in Guatomono Bay in Cuba. There are a few Americans taken prisoner. So Its not like he is following every part of the constitution.

Bush has already done so in Guatomono Bay in Cuba. There are a few Americans taken prisoner. So Its not like he is following every part of the constitution.

How is he not? ANd still noone has answered me, seems like noone has an answer.

None of those are questions and 3) doesn't even make sense.

EDIT: Nor does 2), actually.

Do you believe the U.S.A. government should put gay marriage to the vote.

No. We didn't put heterosexual marriage up to the vote and we shouldn't have to put homosexual marriage up to the vote.

Some things should just be.

Hahah, I just wanted your attention, this thread is gonna die really fast. But I was just thinking...

Do you believe the U.S.A. government should put gay marriage to the vote. I believe it should allow the people to vote yay/nay on it. Whether I agree with homosexuality or not. I realize all we ever do is talk about these subjects but I must have missed this one.

Oh, let's beat this dead horse just one more time... :rolleyes:

No, because that would be tyranny by majority. Our present system is set up to prevent the rights of the minority from being squelched by the opinions of the majority.


A twisted and perverted minority cannot and must not be allowed to stand in the way of progress and the creation of a republic loyal to God, a republic of the Elect, by the Elect, and for the Elect.

Bush is a demagogue. He says what the stupid half of the population want to hear.

1) Have a straight pride parade.

Heterosexuality is celebrated every moment of every day. Just look at television, movies, pop culture, the media, etc etc. Anyway, though, if you want a straight pride parade, go ahead. Nobody is stopping you. However, it would be boring.

2) Have a right to our happines, which may involve not seeing men makin out outside my child's school.

Most people have the decency to leave their making out to the privacy of their homes and not do it standing around outside of schools. I don't want to see anyone, gay or straight, slobbin' all over each other outside my child's school.

3) Have a right to have our beliefs be heard without being "homophobic" (terrible term considering that i do not fear them, just don;t want to be subjected to them all the time), bigoted, or ignorant. We have our beleifs just like you do.

Actually, "phobic" doesn't mean "afraid". It goes beyond just fear. You do clearly have a strong aversion and, hence, are homophobic. Perhaps you'd like a more "Poltically Correct" term, but I gather you're the sort who thinks PC is a bad thing.

On a personal note, though, I don't understand why you think you'd be any more exposed to homosexuality than you already are if their marriage were made legal. In fact, the reason it's so prevalent in the media right now is because gay marriage is ILLEGAL. If it were not, there would be no story to cover.

Bush is a demagogue. He says what the stupid half of the population want to hear.

Michael Moore is a demagogue. He says what the stupid half of the population want to hear.

Please - this sort of statement does nothing to promote intelligent debate.

It's as stupid as Michael Moore was at his award ceremony where he got his trophy for best documentary. He immediately went back stage (after he DID get a few boos) and told the waiting press (while admonishing them physically with the trophy) "You in the media have an obligation to tell the truth - no one booed me!"

A twisted and perverted minority cannot and must not be allowed to stand in the way of progress and the creation of a republic loyal to God, a republic of the Elect, by the Elect, and for the Elect.

Well ... good thing we're a secular nation of the people, by the people, and for the people ...

Well ... good thing we're a secular nation of the people, by the people, and for the people ...


Then we are a doomed secular nation, for any nation as "secular" as America, is wicked and perverse in the eyes of vengeful God.

America has declared war on God, and we ought to have known from what happened to Lucifer, what happens to those who dare raise a hand against the Sovereign Almighty.

I'm okay with civil unions...lets leave it at that. There is no way in hell that it would get "legalized" if voted on by individual states. I think it is sick and disgusting, but it isn;t me doing it, so more power to them, i jsut don't want my children to be subjected to that all the time....

People constantly spout that they have rights....what aout straight people. According to the poepl on this forum, we can't:

1) Have a straight pride parade.
2) Have a right to our happines, which may involve not seeing men makin out outside my child's school.
3) Have a right to have our beliefs be heard without being "homophobic" (terrible term considering that i do not fear them, just don;t want to be subjected to them all the time), bigoted, or ignorant. We have our beleifs just like you do.

Answer me those three questions. I wil be back on this forum in one hours....i want those questions ansered sensibly and without any flaming.

1. No you can't have a straight pride paradise, even if the govt says because there will always be gay ppl.

2. You do have a right to happiness, just not at other people's expense. And when was the last time you saw a straight couple making out in front of a school. I'm 16 and I think I've seen it about once. So why would it be different 4 gays. Do they make out more? (the answer is NO)

3. Yes the third I agree with you on. Most people are not homophobic. There are a few, but not as many as people claim. There are however alot of homophobephobics, people who are scared of people who are scared of homo's.

No, I'm not gay, but I'd imagine if I was I would like to get married. It's not like they can actually reproduce, so Homosexuality must not be hereditary or Homo's would have died out long ago. Just put yourself into their shoes. For instance lets say you really love this girl. But because she's 10% asian, the govt says you can't marry her. How would you feel.

Then we are a doomed secular nation, for any nation as "secular" as America, is wicked and perverse in the eyes of vengeful God.

America has declared war on God, and we ought to have known from what happened to Lucifer, what happens to those who dare raise a hand against the Sovereign Almighty.

For Fuck's Sake let's keep religion out of It. I'm christian, But that has absolutely nothing to do with gay marrige. It isn't a religous issue, even if Jesus/Muhammad/The messiah came down himself and said it was wrong. Religous people can campain all they want but "Because our religion says it is wrong" is not a valid reason for being against gay marrige. Nor is the lame excuse "because it's unnatural". Well if that were true then killing people would be ok because "It's natural". Raping every woman that a man found on the street would be ok because "It's natural". Hell, we would be living in the fucking dirt because "That's natural". Humans do alot of things that aren't natural.

I've seen this thread too many times.

1. Religion is not the province of the Federal (or even State) government in the US - according to the Constitution.
2. Marriage is a religious ceremony/contract. Even if civil marriages exist, they have their roots in religion - and therefore the civil marriage in the US is an unconstitutional sham.
3. Marriages (and divorces) should be handled with the religions. Therefore, if you want to get a Catholic marriage you should have to go to the Catholic Church. You should have to accept whatever rules they have, because it's their religion. And, if you have a Catholic marriage, and you want a divorce, you'll have to go back to the Catholic Church to try and get one.
4. This now leaves it open to gays to get married, because the Unitarian Church (among others) will marry you.
5. Polygamists have a church, too. So they can do that.
6. Child support and property distribution in the event of divorce should still be a state interest.
7. There should be no tax benefit in being married. No insurance benefits, either.
8. No one - no church and no religion and no individual - should be required to recognize the marriage of someone from another religion. Therefore, gays should not be required to recognize marriages outside of a religion that they feel comfortable with. And no heterosexual should have to recognize a marriage from outside of a religion that they feel comfortable with.
9. A good example of this might be baptism. Depending on what church you belong to, it may or may not accept the baptism done in a different denomination. But there is no civil baptism.
10. For the atheists that might be wanting to get married, you should form your own Church of Secular Humanism (well, that's pretty close to Unitarian Churches I've been to).

I believe that it grants equal rights to everyone in the Constitution, and that you shouldn't be allowed to take away others rights by majority vote.
Seconded (or if voted for before me) thirded

I've seen this thread too many times.


2. Marriage is a religious ceremony/contract. Even if civil marriages exist, they have their roots in religion - and therefore the civil marriage in the US is
Which religions ceremony? it is present in a lot of religions but which has control over what marrige is?

What if I had a religion that married gay people sence it is a religous contract would that not make it right for them to get married?

Edit: by the way it looks like religon origionaly stold the concept from the secular world

1. No you can't have a straight pride paradise, even if the govt says because there will always be gay ppl.

No, I'm not gay, but I'd imagine if I was I would like to get married. It's not like they can actually reproduce, so Homosexuality must not be hereditary or Homo's would have died out long ago. Just put yourself into their shoes. For instance lets say you really love this girl. But because she's 10% asian, the govt says you can't marry her. How would you feel.


South Africa before 1994 used to use forced hormonal therapy to help homosexuals become normal. It had limited success, mostly due to the lack of advancements in technology in those areas, advancements we are now seeing.



As for the second part, if the gov't needs to mandate who you can or can't marry, because you don't take genetic health into account, then there is a problem already.

Which religions ceremony? it is present in a lot of religions but which has control over what marrige is?

What if I had a religion that married gay people sence it is a religous contract would that not make it right for them to get married?

Edit: by the way it looks like religon origionaly stold the concept from the secular world


Any religion. There would (and are) churches and temples that would accept gay marriage, polygamy, polygyny, and heterosexual monogamous marriage.

If you're gay, go to a Unitarian Church and get married. Don't expect the Catholic Church to honor it.

If you're not gay, you have more choices - but some of the polygamy friendly churches may not accept you unless you plan on marrying the "minimum" number of wives.

Get the government out of the business of marriage.

In Canada, the government had NO hand in marriage up until the mid-1950s.

Any religion. There would (and are) churches and temples that would accept gay marriage, polygamy, polygyny, and heterosexual monogamous marriage.

If you're gay, go to a Unitarian Church and get married. Don't expect the Catholic Church to honor it.

If you're not gay, you have more choices - but some of the polygamy friendly churches may not accept you unless you plan on marrying the "minimum" number of wives.

Get the government out of the business of marriage.

In Canada, the government had NO hand in marriage up until the mid-1950s.
:) you are thinking along the same lines as me (I am discovering I am libertarian)
And happen to agree

Just curious sorry if I sounded combative

South Africa before 1994 used to use forced hormonal therapy to help homosexuals become normal. It had limited success, mostly due to the lack of advancements in technology in those areas, advancements we are now seeing.



As for the second part, if the gov't needs to mandate who you can or can't marry, because you don't take genetic health into account, then there is a problem already.
So “there just not right … lets drug them till they become normal” pfft with enough drugs you can change people so much you would never recognize them (though that does bring up questions about the “soul” but wont get into that)

America has declared war on God

If you believe that to be true, then you cannot believe in an omniscient god. All things happen by the will of Allah. It is unavoidable. Perhaps you need to re-examine your faith.

As for the second part, if the gov't needs to mandate who you can or can't marry, because you don't take genetic health into account, then there is a problem already.

Mmmm ... eugenics. Methinks I smell a Nazi.

If you believe that to be true, then you cannot believe in an omniscient god. All things happen by the will of Allah. It is unavoidable. Perhaps you need to re-examine your faith.


I really don't want to dignify that with a response. But I'll say this, I'm a Calvinist, I know I'm elect and I will be mocking the reprobate as they writhe in the pits of hell.

1. Religion is not the province of the Federal (or even State) government in the US - according to the Constitution.
<snip>

There is more than just religious benefit to marriage. There are secular reasons as well. Few examples for ya:

1] Disposition of remains.
2] Distribution of property.
3] Medical treatment decisions.
4] Hospital visitation.
5] Child adoption.

And so on and so on. There is no secular reason to disallow gay marriage, hence, it should be 100% legal. I agree that churches should not be forced to marry people, but nobody is suggesting they should.

Marriage should not be a religious or a State issue, it should be a personal choice issue with State protections.

I really don't want to dignify that with a response. But I'll say this, I'm a Calvinist, I know I'm elect and I will be mocking the reprobate as they writhe in the pits of hell.
(also known as reformed protestant) alright that explains a lot.

I really don't want to dignify that with a response. But I'll say this

Now that's just damn funny. I mean ... really damn funny.

You responded to tell me you didn't want to respond just so you could make a statement in response.

Calvinist, eh? Thank God for Methodists.

There is more than just religious benefit to marriage. There are secular reasons as well. Few examples for ya:

1] Disposition of remains.
2] Distribution of property.
3] Medical treatment decisions.
4] Hospital visitation.
5] Child adoption.

And so on and so on. There is no secular reason to disallow gay marriage, hence, it should be 100% legal. I agree that churches should not be forced to marry people, but nobody is suggesting they should.

Marriage should not be a religious or a State issue, it should be a personal choice issue with State protections.
I think he was trying to say that … separation of legal and religious definitions (at least that’s the take I got from it)

Hahah, I just wanted your attention, this thread is gonna die really fast. But I was just thinking...

Do you believe the U.S.A. government should put gay marriage to the vote. I believe it should allow the people to vote yay/nay on it. Whether I agree with homosexuality or not. I realize all we ever do is talk about these subjects but I must have missed this one.
State issue.

State issue.
But marriage as is carries benefits and penalties at the federal level

they tried to have a streight pride parade in OK, but everyone said it was homophobic and demanded that it be stopped. idk why we can;t have a streight pride parade, please elaborate on that.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And does marriage count as a legal protection? The major intent of the 14th Amendment was to reaffirm due process, specifically on the account of race.

Anyhow my real point was to show that for someone who claims that we need a rewritten Constitution, he sure isn't very familiar with the existing one.

WHY?! Changing the name doesn't do anything. It's still marriage, whether you want to call it that or not.

Maybe in a sense, but marriage is actually something more than simply tax benefits. It is a traditional instutition based the fact that it is in society's interest to promote a family unit. Gays cannot reproduce without outside assistance, and therefore don't really constitute a family unit in the same sense. Gay "marriage" and traditional marriage are not the same and are not automatically entitled to the same term nor legal recognition.

Yes, this can turn the debate into a bit of a semantical argument, but is still a valid one. AFAIK no society has never used the word "marriage" to describe a gay couple, out of simple recognition that they are not the same. Bottom line, people see a difference, and know that there exists a difference. We can call it something different if we want to.

Bush has already done so in Guatomono Bay in Cuba. There are a few Americans taken prisoner. So Its not like he is following every part of the constitution.

Actually the Constitution has provisions for suspension of measures such as habeus corpus in exceptional cases. There is no contradiction in terms regarding "equal protection of the laws" here. Anyway, off topic. And sooner or later, I believe we will move closer to resolving the "illegal combatants" gray areas.

No. We didn't put heterosexual marriage up to the vote and we shouldn't have to put homosexual marriage up to the vote

No one put heterosexual marriage up to the vote simply because people don't want to, and if one were held it would be a blantant exercise of redundancy. The same is not true of gay marriage.

However, no one is stopping you from trying to referendum.

2. Marriage is a religious ceremony/contract. Even if civil marriages exist, they have their roots in religion - and therefore the civil marriage in the US is an unconstitutional sham.

Not true. Marriage is something in history that has transcended all religions, and even if there exist religious elements in some (most?) weddings, it is a traditional institution in principle more than a religious one. The creation of a family unit is clearly in societal interest.

You responded to tell me you didn't want to respond just so you could make a statement in response.

I'm sure you know the "won't dignify" statement is not meant to be taken literally.

they tried to have a streight pride parade in OK, but everyone said it was homophobic and demanded that it be stopped. idk why we can;t have a streight pride parade, please elaborate on that.

The "everyoen" you refer to believes in policing of thought. However this is not something that either side has a monopoly on. And I suspect that you don't really mean "everyone."

There is more than just religious benefit to marriage. There are secular reasons as well. Few examples for ya:

1] Disposition of remains.
2] Distribution of property.
3] Medical treatment decisions.
4] Hospital visitation.
5] Child adoption.


Using my "get your license at a religious ceremony" idea,

1 through 4 can be handled by:

"I'm married through <put in religion of choice> and here's the certificate <show paper> and that's my spouse's <dead body> <property> <unconscious personage in the hospital>.

The state should allow any religious institution to marry people. It should not do the ceremony itself (i.e., NO CIVIL CEREMONY, NO CIVIL MARRIAGE).

Adoption of children should not take your sexuality into account.

So, if you're gay, and you want to get married - fine. Go to a Unitarian Church and get married. Get that certificate from the Unitarian minister.

Now go adopt children. Visit your spouse in the hospital.

Don't try this through the Catholic Church, or your local synagogue, or your local Islamic mosque.

If you feel polygamous, find one of those offshoots of the LDS Church and get yourself some wives.

And what about the atheists? Or agnostics?

I also think I remember some on the 'Net claiming to be both Catholic and homosexual. They may not want to change religion.

So long as heterosexual married couples have government-rendered benefits and gays are not allowed equal access to the same, we have a problem.

Everyone gets a Civil Union.

The religious can go to their local church and get married in the religious sense.

And what about the atheists? Or agnostics?

I also think I remember some on the 'Net claiming to be both Catholic and homosexual. They may not want to change religion.

So long as heterosexual married couples have government-rendered benefits and gays are not allowed equal access to the same, we have a problem.

Everyone gets a Civil Union.

The religious can go to their local church and get married in the religious sense.
I happen to agree with the Civil union part

No, because that would be tyranny by majority. Our present system is set up to prevent the rights of the minority from being squelched by the opinions of the majority.

actually the due process law is in fact majority rule.. liberty and freedom can't be constrained unless through due process.. and any right not given to the federal government is in fact given to the states.. States have long controled who gets married in their terrority and who does not.. which is why some states were allowed to legalize it.. Weather you like it or not.. this is a nation of majority rule.. weather it be tyranny or not

No, I don't think so. What if the majority votes to ban gay marriage? That would be tyranny of the majority.
Nah, the U.N. should decide, clearly.
What the hell gives them the right to make a country's social laws???

they tried to have a streight pride parade in OK, but everyone said it was homophobic and demanded that it be stopped. idk why we can;t have a streight pride parade, please elaborate on that.

I happened to go to the college where that's happening(University of Central Oklahoma) and as far as I know no one tried to stop it. It's just that a lot of us think they're morons.

If the majority always got it's way, you might not want to live in this country. Our fore-fathers specifically mentioned the undesirability of the tyranny of the majority over the minority. If it was allowed mixed race marraiges might still not be allowed. No blacks in certain neiborhoods, slavery, locking up people with unpopular political views and women as property might still be prevalent.

Hahah, I just wanted your attention, this thread is gonna die really fast. But I was just thinking...

Do you believe the U.S.A. government should put gay marriage to the vote. I believe it should allow the people to vote yay/nay on it. Whether I agree with homosexuality or not. I realize all we ever do is talk about these subjects but I must have missed this one.
No government should rightly put marriage to the vote. What two people do together in their private lives is their own business.

No government should rightly put marriage to the vote. What two people do together in their private lives is their own business.


Okay, so two people want to post holocaust denial material on the web, from the privacy of their own in say, Munich... Suddenly they're under arrest...

We need to face facts, Europe in NOT a democracy, but is a slave to modern political correctness.

I am somewhat split on whether or not the holocaust happened, I don't deny there were camps, not at all, I accept that, but I'm still split as to what happened in the camps. I don't deny people died, but I wonder how? I have not seen enough evidence to convince me there was a sinister gas chamber plan to massacre, but I've not seen enough to convince me totally there was not.

Thus, I will probably only be satisfied by investigating the camps firsthand and pouring over pages of documents and records, myself.

Okay, so two people want to post holocaust denial material on the web, from the privacy of their own in say, Munich... Suddenly they're under arrest...

We need to face facts, Europe in NOT a democracy, but is a slave to modern political correctness.

I am somewhat split on whether or not the holocaust happened, I don't deny there were camps, not at all, I accept that, but I'm still split as to what happened in the camps. I don't deny people died, but I wonder how? I have not seen enough evidence to convince me there was a sinister gas chamber plan to massacre, but I've not seen enough to convince me totally there was not.

Thus, I will probably only be satisfied by investigating the camps firsthand and pouring over pages of documents and records, myself.


If that is what you requre for personal belief the information is there ... and more then you could ever wish for

I think countries should take a look at their divorce figures before allowing gay marriages. I mean... enough straight marriages end in divorce. Add to that the number of gay marriages that would end in divorce and what you end up with is lawyers making even more money.

Do you want that? Do you want these leeches with anotherpot to dip their fingers in?
Well, it helps the economy, so why does the government want to punish lawyers?

Yeah, like the minority that would like to keep black slaves, who, after all, aren't fully human.. or the minority who advocate prohibition. Minority behaviors have always been controlled by the majority if seen as harmful, and this one's no different.
Do you honestly think that gay marriage is like black slavery? They are opposites. Allowing black slavery deprives people of liberty, while allowing gay marriage does not.

Correct. So when the law proibits gay marriage, it will apply to all, equally. Meaning that no gay marriage may be performed, whether the homosexuals in question are black, white, male, female, short, tall, etc.
Except that it is not giving gay people the equal protection of the laws.

Forget social authoritarianism. You should go libertarian!

People constantly spout that they have rights....what aout straight people. According to the poepl on this forum, we can't:

1) Have a straight pride parade.
2) Have a right to our happiness, which may involve not seeing men makin out outside my child's school.
3) Have a right to have our beliefs be heard without being "homophobic" (terrible term considering that i do not fear them, just don;t want to be subjected to them all the time), bigoted, or ignorant. We have our beleifs just like you do.
1. Nobody is stopping you from having your straight pride parades. They have a right to criticise it, it's called free speech.

2. Well, sex in public is already illegal. I don't think that people have a right not to be offended. Freedom of speech, you know? You PC thugs are censors who want to ban free speech.

3. You have every right under the law to voice your opinions, and other people have the right to criticise your opinions.

So what's the problem. Your whining truly sounds like "phantoms of lost liberty" to borrow Ashcroft's phrase.

A twisted and perverted minority cannot and must not be allowed to stand in the way of progress and the creation of a republic loyal to God, a republic of the Elect, by the Elect, and for the Elect.
Homosexuals are not twisted and perverted. I believe that church and state should be separated, and so did your founding fathers, apparently (clicky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Article_11)).

America has declared war on God, and we ought to have known from what happened to Lucifer, what happens to those who dare raise a hand against the Sovereign Almighty.
You've got to love religious fundamentalists!

Just put yourself into their shoes. For instance lets say you really love this girl. But because she's 10% asian, the govt says you can't marry her. How would you feel.
This is how it actually used to be in South Africa and yes, even the good ol' USA!

As for the second part, if the gov't needs to mandate who you can or can't marry, because you don't take genetic health into account, then there is a problem already.
Looks, like your argument won't work, Rabbit. The guy is against interracial marriage too!

If that is what you requre for personal belief the information is there ... and more then you could ever wish for


David Cole's (a jewish historian) interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper really moved me towards believing the holocaust was a lie. I'm still leaning towards that way.

When you get a Jewish historian asking the tough questions and not being given the answers, and he is forced to conclude there are mountains of lies, it really counts for more than some Neo-Nazi would have a blatant agenda to tilt evidence in his way.

Do you understand what I mean?

David Cole's (a jewish historian) interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper really moved me towards believing the holocaust was a lie. I'm still leaning towards that way.

When you get a Jewish historian asking the tough questions and not being given the answers, and he is forced to conclude there are mountains of lies, it really counts for more than some Neo-Nazi would have a blatant agenda to tilt evidence in his way.

Do you understand what I mean?
Oh you mean like Christianity ... I have the same feeling asking tough questions and geting the run around
I have also been forced to confess that Christianity is a mountian of lies
it really counts for more that some Christian would have a blatent agenda to tilt evidence in his way

David Cole's (a jewish historian) interview with Dr. Franciszek Piper really moved me towards believing the holocaust was a lie. I'm still leaning towards that way.

When you get a Jewish historian asking the tough questions and not being given the answers, and he is forced to conclude there are mountains of lies, it really counts for more than some Neo-Nazi would have a blatant agenda to tilt evidence in his way.

Do you understand what I mean?

I've been to Auschwitz and Dachau. I've talked to former guards. I've talked to survivors from those camps.

I've seen the notes from the Wannsee Conference.

I've seen the camp diaries of several doctors, camp orderlies, and officers at Auschwitz. I've also seen the documented interviews of these people - who were asked to explain entries in their diaries.

Wanted to see it for myself. Wanted to hear it for myself. Wanted to read the original German and translate it for myself.

Yes, the Holocaust certainly did happen. If you don't believe it, then it is possible that you would overlook just about any other event in history.

But I'll say this, I'm a Calvinist, I know I'm elect and I will be mocking the reprobate as they writhe in the pits of hell.
Excuse my french, but: How about you shut the fuck up until then?

Excuse my french, but: How about you shut the fuck up until then?

Ah, VoteEarly has the bravery to spout this sort of stuff on an Internet forum - one wonders if he would be willing to say such things F2F.

idk why we can;t have a streight pride parade, please elaborate on that.
"Streight" means
a. Narrow.
b. Affording little space or room; confined.
c. Fitting tightly; constricted.
Be proud of that all you like.

"Streight" means
a. Narrow.
b. Affording little space or room; confined.
c. Fitting tightly; constricted.
Be proud of that all you like.


I thought that "straight" meant roughly the same thing as "geodesic".

All we should do is allow Nevada to legalize gay marriage, because they allow all their marriage records to transfer to other states, there fore every gay couple could get arried there and transfer their right.

P.S.- I'm all for gay marriage anywhere. Although I'm not gay myself, I believe you should marry whom you want and love whom you want.

Ah, VoteEarly has the bravery to spout this sort of stuff on an Internet forum - one wonders if he would be willing to say such things F2F.


I have, and nobody starts anything over it, I just let the breeze pull my coat back and they get the idea that suppressing my free speech is not worth getting killed over.

I believe that it grants equal rights to everyone in the Constitution, and that you shouldn't be allowed to take away others rights by majority vote.

I don't even agree with the premise of your statement. No where in the Constitution does it say that any gay man cannot marry a woman, and vice versa for lesbians. No one's rights are being taken away be introducing an amendment that protects traditional marriage.

I thought that "straight" meant roughly the same thing as "geodesic".
If you include an "a". ;)
Otherwise... (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=streight)

I don't even agree with the premise of your statement. No where in the Constitution does it say that any gay man cannot marry a woman, and vice versa for lesbians. No one's rights are being taken away be introducing an amendment that protects traditional marriage.
Har, har, har. Really funny.

Okay, so two people want to post holocaust denial material on the web, from the privacy of their own in say, Munich... Suddenly they're under arrest...

We need to face facts, Europe in NOT a democracy, but is a slave to modern political correctness.

(snip)

Oh, I agree. Europe is not even a single country. :rolleyes:

And with that I just reached the 1000 posts mark.
Never again shall I be considered a n00b. :D

who cares about gay marriage...marriage itself shouldn't be a part of the state. So no on straight or gay marriage via the state. I wonder how many productive people got destroyed because of the laws that don't favor them in a divorce...*hmm*

There's more rich women, that's for sure. In fact, that's listed as the biggest factor for women getting rich in America. Not productivity and competitive effort...no. Foolish men whom allow themselves into wedding 'bliss' and divorcing to into slavery 'bliss'. If the gay people want it, so be it...you're stupid though.

The state should never have anything to do with marriage. Leave it up to the religions to decide what they want to do.

I believe that it grants equal rights to everyone in the Constitution, and that you shouldn't be allowed to take away others rights by majority vote.
Ditto. Imagine if this were the process used to decide whether slavery was in/out, or suffrage was a legitimate issue. :rolleyes:

People, if this were on the ballot today, it would not pass.

Correct. So when the law proibits gay marriage, it will apply to all, equally. Meaning that no gay marriage may be performed, whether the homosexuals in question are black, white, male, female, short, tall, etc.
But that's not equal protection of the law, because you're seperating homosexuals from non-homosexuals for a different type of treatment.

I'm okay with civil unions...lets leave it at that. There is no way in hell that it would get "legalized" if voted on by individual states. I think it is sick and disgusting, but it isn;t me doing it, so more power to them, i jsut don't want my children to be subjected to that all the time....

Huh? How are your children being subjected to something "all the time"?

People constantly spout that they have rights....what aout straight people. According to the poepl on this forum, we can't:

1) Have a straight pride parade.

Who said you can't do that?


2) Have a right to our happines, which may involve not seeing men makin out outside my child's school.

I'm sure that'll ruin your child's mind much more then the violent movies and video games they play. Seeing two men kiss might just DESTROY the delicate fabric of your child's reality. :rolleyes:

3) Have a right to have our beliefs be heard without being "homophobic" (terrible term considering that i do not fear them, just don;t want to be subjected to them all the time), bigoted, or ignorant. We have our beleifs just like you do.

You have your right to your beliefs, and I have a right to ridicule them. Both are protected under the first ammendment of The Constitution. There is no such thing as "the right to not be riducled". I have a right to ridicule you and you have a right to ridicule me, just so long as we're not threatening each other.

A twisted and perverted minority cannot and must not be allowed to stand in the way of progress and the creation of a republic loyal to God, a republic of the Elect, by the Elect, and for the Elect.
PLEASE tell me you're being facious.

Then we are a doomed secular nation, for any nation as "secular" as America, is wicked and perverse in the eyes of vengeful God.

America has declared war on God, and we ought to have known from what happened to Lucifer, what happens to those who dare raise a hand against the Sovereign Almighty.
You're a member of the Landover Baptist church, right?

It's not like they can actually reproduce, so Homosexuality must not be hereditary or Homo's would have died out long ago.
People with down syndrome are sterile, therefore down syndrome must not be hereditary or all people with downs would have died out long ago.

2. Marriage is a religious ceremony/contract. Even if civil marriages exist, they have their roots in religion - and therefore the civil marriage in the US is an unconstitutional sham.

Marriage was around before religion. Marriage was an economic agreement which later became endorsed by the ruling gods that man invented.

PLEASE tell me you're being facious.



No, I am dead serious.

I really don't want to dignify that with a response. But I'll say this, I'm a Calvinist, I know I'm elect and I will be mocking the reprobate as they writhe in the pits of hell.
Nice dodge. Your earlier comment disallows an omniscient god, yet you're a Calvinist which REQUIRES an omniscient god. So which is it, is god omniscient or not?

You're a member of the Landover Baptist church, right?


No, I'm a Calvinist. We don't play the "Fines" game, as a Calvinist, you will never be asked to make a donation, you will never have a collection plate shoved into your face, etc.

Nice dodge. Your earlier comment disallows an omniscient god, yet you're a Calvinist which REQUIRES an omniscient god. So which is it, is god omniscient or not?


God is not simply all-knowing, He is so all-knowing, He has known since before time began, who is going to hell and who is going to heaven, how? Because He predestinated it! It's that simple.

Calvinist, eh? Thank God for Methodists.
THIS is one of the major reasons I'm not a christian. One book somehow gets us 85,000 different sects that all believe themselves to be right and the other 84,999 wrong. This is one of the reasons Abrahamic religions are a joke to those of us who don't buy into them.

Maybe in a sense, but marriage is actually something more than simply tax benefits. It is a traditional instutition based the fact that it is in society's interest to promote a family unit. Gays cannot reproduce without outside assistance, and therefore don't really constitute a family unit in the same sense. Gay "marriage" and traditional marriage are not the same and are not automatically entitled to the same term nor legal recognition.

Yes, this can turn the debate into a bit of a semantical argument, but is still a valid one. AFAIK no society has never used the word "marriage" to describe a gay couple, out of simple recognition that they are not the same. Bottom line, people see a difference, and know that there exists a difference. We can call it something different if we want to.
The idea of "Promoting the 'traditional atomic family'" is a VERY recent idea (within the last 75 tears), whereas the concept of marriage is a fairly old idea (about 50,000 years old). Many societies, including many American Indian nations reckognize(d) same sex marriages.

Further, if marriage is for the purpose of reproducing, then I suppose my marriage is null and void since we are not able to reproduce.

anyone ever hear of a thing called tyranny by majority?

Yes? good. Our government is structured the way it is to prevent tyranny by the majority from happening. If gay marraige went to a state referendum, it would fail in basically the entire country. What would that do? Deny gays the right to marry. Forever. And is this bad? yes. Why? It denies gays the freedom that we (Americans) pride ourselves. if we're going to 'liberate' another country to show how we are the nation of democracy and freedom, you'd think we might want to set the example in our own country before fostering it on others.

I happened to go to the college where that's happening(University of Central Oklahoma) and as far as I know no one tried to stop it. It's just that a lot of us think they're morons.
They're simply making a point, and I think it's a valid one. If gay people are allowed to parade their sexuality, then why can't anyone else? If anyone else is prohibitted from doing so, then there is a contradiction of equal protection enforcement. It also demonstrates how silly it is to wear one's sexuality on one's sleeve. I know more gay people that are embarassed by things like gay pride parades then I know gay people who are proud of such events. I'm guessing that such events are put on by a loud and obnoxious minority.

Do you honestly think that gay marriage is like black slavery? They are opposites. Allowing black slavery deprives people of liberty, while allowing gay marriage does not.
So, not allowing someone access to governmental defined and given benefits because of their sexual orientation is not a violation of equal protection of the law? If that's not, then I want to know how and what would constitute it.

I have, and nobody starts anything over it, I just let the breeze pull my coat back and they get the idea that suppressing my free speech is not worth getting killed over.
Great, we have a religious fundamentalist psychopathic killer on our hands. I'm thrilled at our fortune. :rolleyes:

I don't even agree with the premise of your statement. No where in the Constitution does it say that any gay man cannot marry a woman, and vice versa for lesbians. No one's rights are being taken away be introducing an amendment that protects traditional marriage.
YOUR idea of "traditional marriage". The American Indian "traditional marriage" involves any number of consenting adults, regardless of gender.

Great, we have a religious fundamentalist psychopathic killer on our hands. I'm thrilled at our fortune. :rolleyes:


Oh, because I won't hesitate to use my 2nd amendment to defend my 1st amendment I'm a lunatic?

God is not simply all-knowing, He is so all-knowing, He has known since before time began, who is going to hell and who is going to heaven, how? Because He predestinated it! It's that simple.
Then it doesn't matter how you behave in this life, because your fate is already decided, regardless of what you do.

Oh, because I won't hesitate to use my 2nd amendment to defend my 1st amendment I'm a lunatic?
Yes, because you're threatening deadly force over a disagreement. That shows that you're not only a violent psychopath, but someone who doesn't think enough of his ideas to hold them up to scrutiny.

Yes, because you're threatening deadly force over a disagreement. That shows that you're not only a violent psychopath, but someone who doesn't think enough of his ideas to hold them up to scrutiny.


When somebody pulls a knife on me just for my voicing my opinion, you're damn well right I'm not going to stand idly by and let them stab me...

Cancer of the mouth.

Who wants to join my homophobia boycott?

Hardly. You wouldn't go around calling all vegetables potatoes, would you?

No where in the Constitution does it say that any gay man cannot marry a woman, and vice versa for lesbians. No one's rights are being taken away be introducing an amendment that protects traditional marriage.
Why would a gay man ever want to marry a woman?

When somebody pulls a knife on me just for my voicing my opinion, you're damn well right I'm not going to stand idly by and let them stab me...
So you would kill him first

What happened to the whole “turn the other cheek” (and yes depub I know the left hand original reference but if I explained it to him/her he/she probably wouldent believe/get it)