Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

[BabyPeterzz]

I negged you because of your poor attitude - laughing at anyone who has a different viewpoint than your own. Rather than explain your point of view you just laugh and call me stupid. Furthermore, where did anyone prove my idea illogical? Gameface, who actually had a constructive conversation with me - like reasonable people do - didn't realize that a private security firm would not actually be enforcing the law in the scenario I introduced.

I just don't care for your laughing at people who see and think differently than you. That ****'s ****ing ridiculous. Hopefully, that attitude won't continue to keep people from saying what they think for fear of being laughed at by people such as yourself.

I thought your idea was stupid. So I laughed. Get over it. Or cry harder.

 

[8]

I thought your idea was stupid. So I laughed. Get over it. Or cry harder.

Dude... you came here to cry... but I agree, you should get over it.

L8r

 

[DutchJazzer]

So you agree that it is a separate issue. Good because that was my main point. The part of my statement that you originally focused on is how you would weigh one against the other. That is to say if the 2 issues are indeed not separable then you have to pick the one that does the least harm.

Also you need to decide if you want a response on what I think should be legal or what I think is moral.

I always said in my opinion mariage is between a man and a woman for procreationm, i think gays should not get married. if they acalle it gayraiagge or something else i would not object. but in essence the defginition of marriage is being changed i PERSONALLY do not like that.
BUT if john doe and John Smith like to get married they should be free to. thats their bussiness.
but just as it is my bussines to consider it a faux marriage.

but the problem with this whole gay marriage thing is its none of the government bussiness. and by meddling with it lifting bans etc. the government is chanigng the definition of marriage and FORCING it down everyone THROAT.

I would not ever say john is married to Joe, or joan to jane. i would say they are life partners. cus to me the definition of marriage is between a man and women period.
i would never attend a gay marriage, because it makes a mockery of the institution in my book.

but they should be free to marry as long as nobody is forced of hurt to watch.

i do have an opinion in how this affects morals of society in relation to family and kids is.(but it might be a positive effect, but i am leaning towards a negative effect).

so to me the problem is the government meddling in our business

 

[stitches]

I think we should all be allowed to marry who or whatever we want whenever we want and however many we want.

So aren't we also discriminating against polygamists since it is still illegal? Who are we to say how many wives or husbands someone can have? I think we should lift all restrictions on marriage in any way shape or form. I should be allowed to marry a tree, or a pancake, or a chicken if I want to as well. Or all 3. Maybe not with all the benefits of a married life (like tax breaks etc.), but why restrict it. It should be recognized if we so choose.

Marriage just like any other contract is signed between consenting adults, so unless a chicken, a tree or a pancake can give informed consent and sign a contract, one can't marry them. On the other hand I personally have no opposition to polygamy. If all involved parties agree to the terms of the marriage and enter into it voluntarily, I don't have any reasonable objections to it.

 

[babe]

I think we should all be allowed to marry who or whatever we want whenever we want and however many we want.

So aren't we also discriminating against polygamists since it is still illegal? Who are we to say how many wives or husbands someone can have? I think we should lift all restrictions on marriage in any way shape or form. I should be allowed to marry a tree, or a pancake, or a chicken if I want to as well. Or all 3. Maybe not with all the benefits of a married life (like tax breaks etc.), but why restrict it. It should be recognized if we so choose.

I've got a better idea. A constitutional amendment prohibiting the Federal government from regulating "marriage", which I would argue is a tenet of "religion".


. . . . . . oh. . . . I see . . . . . it's already there, twice. Congress shall make no law regarding establishment of religion, and the tenth amendment which proscibes the Federal government from assuming powers not specifically delegated to it by specific provisions of the Constitution. . . . . .

individuals already have the power of contract to define interpersonal relations/responsibilities, and we shouldn't let States infringe on that.



people already have the right to enter "contract" arrangements, and even states can't infringe on the right or power to contract between individuals.

 

[One Brow]

Personally I think that a private business (using private in the sense that they are not taking government subsides and are not city/state/federal offices...) has the right to be a hate filled place if they want to be. Society will respond accordingly.

You mean, a privately-owned, publicly accessible business that doesn't have a public sidewalk outside it's door next to a public street? One that doesn't use public water? Etc.? Taking advantage of being a public business means having the responsibility to act like a public business.

No, society, as a whole, will not respond accordingly. We have seen this over and over again, throughout history. You are making a claim counter to precedent.

 

[One Brow]

oh ok, and i think they are legit concerns. It is simply an area that where everyone wont be happy. But I can see a distinction between having gay marriage legal and forcing people to participate in it.

Baking a cake or shooting a photograph is not participating in a marriage.

 

[Stoked]

Baking a cake or shooting a photograph is not participating in a marriage.

If you are for that marriage then yes it is.

 

[Gameface]

Baking a cake or shooting a photograph is not participating in a marriage.

Agreed. Does the envelop manufacturer feel dirty if their envelops are used to announce a gay wedding? Does the street sweeper throw down his broom if he knows people going to a gay wedding will be driving down his street?

 

[Stoked]

Agreed. Does the envelop manufacturer feel dirty if their envelops are used to announce a gay wedding? Does the street sweeper throw down his broom if he knows people going to a gay wedding will be driving down his street?

I can see your point on the baker as he bakes a cake and that's it. But the wedding photographer has to be present and circulating thru out the wedding.

I know I am in the minority on this specific point and I am ok with that.

 

[Gameface]

I can see your point on the baker as he bakes a cake and that's it. But the wedding photographer has to be present and circulating thru out the wedding.

I know I am in the minority on this specific point and I am ok with that.

Well, as far as the photographer, I agree. They play an intimate role in the wedding. They are also often a one-person small business. I'd say that it wouldn't be hard for them to decide to shoot one wedding over another, or to be busy on the occasion of a wedding they didn't want to participate in.

 

[LogGrad98]

You mean, a privately-owned, publicly accessible business that doesn't have a public sidewalk outside it's door next to a public street? One that doesn't use public water? Etc.? Taking advantage of being a public business means having the responsibility to act like a public business.

No, society, as a whole, will not respond accordingly. We have seen this over and over again, throughout history. You are making a claim counter to precedent.

Public? We pay for that stuff. A private club pays for the same public water that McDonald's does. If it is provided free of charge to "public" businesses then I think that is a stronger case. But it isn't.

The sidewalk isn't free either. My dad's sidewalk was replaced and he found an increase on his property tax the next year. When he inquired it was to offset the cost of the "improvement" to the property the city undertook when they fixed the sidewalk.