What's new
By:

DOMA and Prop 8 bite the dust

Stoked said:
Places like Utah, Idaho, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Texas...will not pass it. I see the blue states all getting on the band wagon eventually but not the red states. Just one more thing that will divide us...
Click to expand...

And in will come the Fed, to once again save us from stupid.
 
BabyPeterzz said:
Good riddance.

Human decency wins. Again. Like we all said it would. Again.

Congratulations to all my LGBT friends and family, and those on this site.

Love FTW. **** the haters.
Click to expand...

im all for men having sex with men.
and women having sex with women.
transsexuals doing whatever.
etc etc.

but i am not for a man marrying another man and such tom foolery.

so booooooooo
 
Stoked said:
I think they eventually will but in my eyes it is not the solution. Government (local, state, federal...) should not be in the marriage business in the first place. All governments should only be able to grant civil unions. It should be open to any two individuals of legal age that are not related. It should grant all the rights that a marriage does now. Only a religion/denomination...should be able to perform a marriage. The marriage should be recognized under government as exactly equal to a civil union.

To me it is just one more case where government is sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.
Click to expand...
so let me get this straight you are for a man marrying another man.
but not for a man marrying his FEMALE cousin.

booooooooo.
 
Stoked said:
As long as it is entered into by consenting adults and they can provide for themselves and any children they have I am fine with it. None of my business.
Click to expand...

Then why are you against people who are related to getting married.

is that where you draw the line?
 
pickledXgrandma said:
Heaven forbid we pay a little extra money for people to have equal rights.
Click to expand...

Clearly if I felt this were truly an "equal rights" situation, I wouldn't object to paying extra taxes to cover it. But I, and roughly 50% of the country don't see it that way at all... in our minds there is no such thing as a right to marry whomever you want regardless of gender.
 
colton said:
Clearly if I felt this were truly an "equal rights" situation, I wouldn't object to paying extra taxes to cover it. But I, and roughly 50% of the country don't see it that way at all... in our minds there is no such thing as a right to marry whomever you want regardless of gender.
Click to expand...

Tried to pos rep you to counteract any incoming negs from people unable to distinguish between disagreement and hate but I have repped you to recently.
 
Stoked said:
Tried to pos rep you to counteract any incoming negs from people unable to distinguish between disagreement and hate but I have repped you to recently.
Click to expand...

I'll cover him for you, even tho I believe his disagreement is rooted in hate.
 
Mike Lee

https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=019a0b49-8284-4483-ae15-255b1f4fb84c


“I am disappointed in the Supreme Court’s decision today regarding the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe that Act was a reasonable, constitutional exercise of the federal government’s power to determine the proper application of federal benefits. If the American people have changed their mind about that policy, then Congress, not the Court, should adjust it.

“Marriage is, and always will be, the basic unit of human community and civilization. And we have thousands of years worth of compelling reasons to protect it in law. Traditional marriage is not a threat to freedom and equality, but a bulwark of them.

“Today's decision leaves to the States to determine their own legal definition of marriage. This is as it should be under the Constitution. States needn’t agree on the definition of marriage in order to respect each other’s right to legislate on that question.

"I believe marriage is properly defined as between one man and one woman. I hope the Court will respect its own decision and the constitutional rights of Utahns and citizens of every state to legislate in their own States according to their beliefs and values."
Click to expand...
 
BabyPeterzz said:
I'll cover him for you, even tho I believe his disagreement is rooted in hate.
Click to expand...

So that right here gets me. Why does it have to be hate? Why can't it just be that he does not liek it or agree.

For example. Had a brother get into a rough life style. Booze, drugs, women...he was heading for a fast grave or a life in jail. I love my brother but I did not like the way he was living. Was my distaste rooted in hate? No and to say it was is foolish. I believe the majority of those against gay marriage fit into a similar category. Many religious folks refer to this as "love the sinner not the sin".

I will openly and freely concede that there are those against gay marriage because they are bigots and do hate gays. I believe that is the minority. Just as there are those attacking the gay marriage opponents out of bigotry and hate.

I do feel that the hate on both sides is increasing simply do to the drastic mischaraterization of each side by the other.
 
Why are so many people talking right now about getting the government out of the marriage business? Why do people think that the private sector should/can handle it? I'm just trying to understand here. If you aren't gay and aren't in the market for a gay partner, why should you care about this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top