4li2k73z Share your Vital activity on Facebook (More info)
close

Congratulations North Carolina

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2964

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 2:04 PM

gabrielmalinois wrote: Way too reasonable. We must come to a disagreement on this.

WhKnuckle wrote: Well, we'll work on it...

oldfart wrote: But you are assuming your religious beliefs apply to all, and that's simply not practical. If it's truly a religiously sanctified event, then laws have no place in the picture at all do they? It's between you and your maker, whomever you believe that to be.

I actually kind of like Ron Paul's stance on this and just eliminate the state sanctioning of marriage.

A common argument for homosexual marriage is that it doesn't affect anybody else which in a sense is true but it could force people who are morally opposed to have to be involved in ceremonies such as clergy, churches and businesses who rent their facilities, florists, photographers, caterers, etc.

burn1986

C100_nose_picker_1411148777

Posts: 6162

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/9/2012 2:14 PM
Edited Date/Time: 5/9/2012 2:15 PM

Pretty soon you're eliminating principals and laws that were the foundation of this country.

oldfart

C100_mandelalifeu_1372655121

Posts: 21441

Joined: 8/15/2006

Location: Las Vegas, NV USA

5/9/2012 2:19 PM

burn1986 wrote: Pretty soon you're eliminating principals and laws that were the foundation of this country.

I'm sorry, but where in the Constitution does it discuss the sanctity of marriage?

"It always seems impossible until it's done." -- Nelson Mandela

2strokebarrett

C100_searle_1398580264

Posts: 1574

Joined: 8/31/2010

Location: Cymru, GBR

5/9/2012 2:37 PM

WhKnuckle wrote: I've always had reservations about gay "marriage". Marriage is a union that is sanctified by a religious ceremony. I think a law that allows gay couples to form a legal union that entitles each of them to all the legal rights that married couples have, without the religious connotation of "marriage" is a better way to go. It's a civil rights question, let's don't make it more complicated by implicitly pressuring churches to participate.

Two people of legal age should have the right to form a family in a legally binding civil union. I'm not sure I agree completely with the religious implication of calling them a "married" couple.

We have had that over here since 2004, called civil partnership and gives the exact rights as civil marriage.

I regret my username, I chose it before I realized that the pro 2 stroke crowd on vital mx are completely and utterly insane


The facts contradict my opinion, but my opinion is the only thing that matters

WhKnuckle

C100_dsc05462_jpgsmall2

Posts: 10541

Joined: 7/17/2007

Location: TX, USA

5/9/2012 2:41 PM

WhKnuckle wrote: I've always had reservations about gay "marriage". Marriage is a union that is sanctified by a religious ceremony. I think a law that allows gay couples to form a legal union that entitles each of them to all the legal rights that married couples have, without the religious connotation of "marriage" is a better way to go. It's a civil rights question, let's don't make it more complicated by implicitly pressuring churches to participate.

Two people of legal age should have the right to form a family in a legally binding civil union. I'm not sure I agree completely with the religious implication of calling them a "married" couple.

2strokebarrett wrote: We have had that over here since 2004, called civil partnership and gives the exact rights as civil marriage.

We need to do the same thing right now, and wake up tomorrow and say, "OK, what new problem are we going to solve today?"

reded

C100_bailey_gainesville85_001

Posts: 1945

Joined: 3/26/2011

Location: KS, USA

5/9/2012 2:53 PM
Edited Date/Time: 5/9/2012 2:55 PM

2strokebarrett wrote: We have had that over here since 2004, called civil partnership and gives the exact rights as civil marriage.

Fine, call it a partnership but not marriage. Two married people of the same gender cannot start a family as they are unable to reproduce without outside assistance. Therefore they are merely a "couple", in a "partnership". IMO it is natural for species of the opposite sex to be attracted to one another and if they aren't there is something "different" about them. We're also supposed to be born with 2 arms and legs but if we're not then people look at us as "different". Anyone ever think about it from this perspective? If we were all gay, humans would become extinct, so how can you pass being gay off as normal?

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2964

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 2:58 PM
Edited Date/Time: 5/9/2012 2:59 PM

WhKnuckle wrote: I've always had reservations about gay "marriage". Marriage is a union that is sanctified by a religious ceremony. I think a law that allows gay couples to form a legal union that entitles each of them to all the legal rights that married couples have, without the religious connotation of "marriage" is a better way to go. It's a civil rights question, let's don't make it more complicated by implicitly pressuring churches to participate.

Two people of legal age should have the right to form a family in a legally binding civil union. I'm not sure I agree completely with the religious implication of calling them a "married" couple.

2strokebarrett wrote: We have had that over here since 2004, called civil partnership and gives the exact rights as civil marriage.

WhKnuckle wrote: We need to do the same thing right now, and wake up tomorrow and say, "OK, what new problem are we going to solve today?"

Washington State already has a civil unions law. The state legislator has since legalized gay marriage a couple months back but it is now on hold until the citizens vote. So this vote doesn't change or add any rights just the definition of marriage. The argument is that civil unions is akin to the "separate but equal" doctrine of segregation.

2strokebarrett

C100_searle_1398580264

Posts: 1574

Joined: 8/31/2010

Location: Cymru, GBR

5/9/2012 3:06 PM

reded wrote: Fine, call it a partnership but not marriage. Two married people of the same gender cannot start a family as they are unable to reproduce without outside assistance. Therefore they are merely a "couple", in a "partnership". IMO it is natural for species of the opposite sex to be attracted to one another and if they aren't there is something "different" about them. We're also supposed to be born with 2 arms and legs but if we're not then people look at us as "different". Anyone ever think about it from this perspective? If we were all gay, humans would become extinct, so how can you pass being gay off as normal?

I agree that it shouldn't be called marriage, the church shouldn't have to have shit forced upon it that it doesn't want.

Im all for giving everyone equal legal rights and that is all this does.

I regret my username, I chose it before I realized that the pro 2 stroke crowd on vital mx are completely and utterly insane


The facts contradict my opinion, but my opinion is the only thing that matters

Rooster

C100_614754568_1207059471

Posts: 4457

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: Edmonton, CAN

5/9/2012 3:22 PM

gabrielmalinois wrote: There hasn't been any legislation in this case that gives one person more freedom than another. It simply clarifies and solidifies what has always been the law in North Carolina.

Then why can't a person be married to another person of the same sex in North Carolina?

If two people that love each other wish to join in a state recognized union and enjoy the same benefits as a person who's married to a member of the opposite sex, they cannot do it in North Carolina. They are denied the tax benefits, the visitation rights when one is sick or dying, the health care coverage for a spouse, etc.

Explain why it's right to be able to deny them these things because of their sexual orientation please. Show me how denying them access to stuff the rest of our society takes for granted is not infringing on their personal freedoms or civil rights.



Empty a bag of skittles into the toilet and then flush. It's like watching a five second long nascar race.

gabrielmalinois

C100_belgianmelanois_1403906777

Posts: 2964

Joined: 2/2/2011

Location: WA, USA

5/9/2012 3:50 PM
Edited Date/Time: 5/9/2012 4:11 PM

Rooster wrote: Opinions and beliefs are one thing.

Legislation that gives one person more freedom than another is quite a different story.

gabrielmalinois wrote: There hasn't been any legislation in this case that gives one person more freedom than another. It simply clarifies and solidifies what has always been the law in North Carolina.

Rooster wrote: Then why can't a person be married to another person of the same sex in North Carolina?

If two people that love each other wish to join in a state recognized union and enjoy the same benefits as a person who's married to a member of the opposite sex, they cannot do it in North Carolina. They are denied the tax benefits, the visitation rights when one is sick or dying, the health care coverage for a spouse, etc.

Explain why it's right to be able to deny them these things because of their sexual orientation please. Show me how denying them access to stuff the rest of our society takes for granted is not infringing on their personal freedoms or civil rights.

It is not my personal position to deny those things to homosexual couples. However, I don't think the state is obligated to change it's laws concerning those things if the citizens don't want to. If for all of history marriage has been between a man and a woman there is no more or less reason to change it now then there was 200 years ago. Whether it is a civil right s issue, I don't know its not that cut and dry to me. As you can see most here and most I know are okay with civil unions whether they are conservative or not but that is not acceptable to most homosexual couples. Like I stated earlier if they are legally able to get married then people who may have moral objections to it may be obligated to participate in the ceremonies because of their occupation or business.

JW381

C100_f_15_20terrain_20follow_rory_20trappe_1400444703

Posts: 6629

Joined: 7/21/2009

Location: Eugene, OR USA

5/9/2012 4:04 PM

Does everyone forget that marriage is a religious practice? Yes, it has many legal ties today, but in the end it takes a man and a woman to reproduce and a man and a woman to get married because that's what the religious practice of marriage dictates.

There are plenty of good arguments as to why gays should be allowed to get married, I truly could not care less either way. My only opinion is that of the homosexual males I have met in my brief lifetime, they annoyed the fuck outta me. Doesn't mean they all fit that mold, and also doesn't mean I should be allowed to vote on whether or not they can get married or not. But, again, marriage is a religious practice, so if people are going to vote on whether it should be legal or not, their religious beliefs are perfectly valid in making their voting decision, in my opinion.

Like I said, I truly don't care what a small minority of people want with their lives that has zero effect on me, and I wish more people cared less. It's not like making gay marriage illegal will suddenly cause a ton of dudes to start having sex in the office and in the streets... right? Right?!

Osama Bin Mixin - Head of the 2-stroke Taliban

JW381

C100_f_15_20terrain_20follow_rory_20trappe_1400444703

Posts: 6629

Joined: 7/21/2009

Location: Eugene, OR USA

5/9/2012 4:07 PM

jtomasik wrote: Produce the study. Produce the data. You asked if it's reasonable, and I'm saying it isn't. So, if you hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you do it either through something quantifiable and verifiable, or you do it through religious belief.

And yes, I'm accusing you of doing it through religious belief. And that is most certainly not reasonable, especially since you're denying an American equality, and that shit pisses me off.

You're such a misguided, opinionated dweeb. I wouldn't usually resort to name calling, but you throw all that etiquette nonsense out the window each time you post.

Osama Bin Mixin - Head of the 2-stroke Taliban

DDub8

C100_101139120_1266510997

Posts: 301

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Austin, TX USA

5/9/2012 4:25 PM

Jtom is pretty entertaining on this one. I can almost see him red-faced and screaming at the screen as he bangs away on the keyboard. Maybe we just let him go to Canada where he can be more comfortable among the learned, enlightened people of the north.

My question is don't we already put limits on marriage? You can't marry first cousins in most states. You can't marry multiple partners. You can't marry a sibling. There's a legal age for marriage. All of these are relatively recent limitations when you consider history and even the history of the U.S. Do the other restrictions on marriage take away the civil rights and personal freedoms of those individuals? Should they be removed as well and where do you draw the line on marriage?

And following Jtom's logic, we're only allowed to oppose something if a study exists that shows it to be detrimental to society. I read a study just last week that shows co-habitating before marriage leads to a higher divorce rate which impacts the kids of that marriage. This is certainly harmful to society so should we outlaw adults living together?

I don't agree with allowing same sex marriages but my thinking is more along the lines of what Knuck offers. And if it's allowed, then life goes on.

JW381

C100_f_15_20terrain_20follow_rory_20trappe_1400444703

Posts: 6629

Joined: 7/21/2009

Location: Eugene, OR USA

5/9/2012 4:37 PM

DDub8 wrote: Jtom is pretty entertaining on this one. I can almost see him red-faced and screaming at the screen as he bangs away on the keyboard. Maybe we just let him go to Canada where he can be more comfortable among the learned, enlightened people of the north.

My question is don't we already put limits on marriage? You can't marry first cousins in most states. You can't marry multiple partners. You can't marry a sibling. There's a legal age for marriage. All of these are relatively recent limitations when you consider history and even the history of the U.S. Do the other restrictions on marriage take away the civil rights and personal freedoms of those individuals? Should they be removed as well and where do you draw the line on marriage?

And following Jtom's logic, we're only allowed to oppose something if a study exists that shows it to be detrimental to society. I read a study just last week that shows co-habitating before marriage leads to a higher divorce rate which impacts the kids of that marriage. This is certainly harmful to society so should we outlaw adults living together?

I don't agree with allowing same sex marriages but my thinking is more along the lines of what Knuck offers. And if it's allowed, then life goes on.

You can GTFO out of here with your sound logic, mister. We don't take too kindly to yer type 'round these parts.

Excellent post.

Osama Bin Mixin - Head of the 2-stroke Taliban

Rooster

C100_614754568_1207059471

Posts: 4457

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: Edmonton, CAN

5/9/2012 4:37 PM

gabrielmalinois wrote: There hasn't been any legislation in this case that gives one person more freedom than another. It simply clarifies and solidifies what has always been the law in North Carolina.

Rooster wrote: Then why can't a person be married to another person of the same sex in North Carolina?

If two people that love each other wish to join in a state recognized union and enjoy the same benefits as a person who's married to a member of the opposite sex, they cannot do it in North Carolina. They are denied the tax benefits, the visitation rights when one is sick or dying, the health care coverage for a spouse, etc.

Explain why it's right to be able to deny them these things because of their sexual orientation please. Show me how denying them access to stuff the rest of our society takes for granted is not infringing on their personal freedoms or civil rights.

gabrielmalinois wrote: It is not my personal position to deny those things to homosexual couples. However, I don't think the state is obligated to change it's laws concerning those things if the citizens don't want to. If for all of history marriage has been between a man and a woman there is no more or less reason to change it now then there was 200 years ago. Whether it is a civil right s issue, I don't know its not that cut and dry to me. As you can see most here and most I know are okay with civil unions whether they are conservative or not but that is not acceptable to most homosexual couples. Like I stated earlier if they are legally able to get married then people who may have moral objections to it may be obligated to participate in the ceremonies because of their occupation or business.

The divisive issue seems to be regarding the use of the term "marriage".

If the state were to abolish the term marriage from their books and treat all marriages (both homo and heterosexual) as a civil union under the eyes of the law then there would be no issue.

If they're going to defend and guarantee rights to certain segments of the population based upon the term marriage in their laws, then marriage needs to accessible to all. In that way it is most definitely a civil rights issue. The amendment does nothing to ensure equality under the eyes of the law. In it's current form it's precisely the opposite and serves no purpose other than to prevent a segment of the population from having access to the same rights as the rest of the population based solely on their sexual orientation.



Empty a bag of skittles into the toilet and then flush. It's like watching a five second long nascar race.

jndmx

C100_prof_1390836970

Posts: 9490

Joined: 1/20/2008

Location: CT, USA

5/10/2012 3:54 AM

Crashinskinoff

C100_image

Posts: 1642

Joined: 3/5/2012

Location: Montgomery, AL USA

5/10/2012 4:50 AM

DDub8 wrote: Jtom is pretty entertaining on this one. I can almost see him red-faced and screaming at the screen as he bangs away on the keyboard. Maybe we just let him go to Canada where he can be more comfortable among the learned, enlightened people of the north.

My question is don't we already put limits on marriage? You can't marry first cousins in most states. You can't marry multiple partners. You can't marry a sibling. There's a legal age for marriage. All of these are relatively recent limitations when you consider history and even the history of the U.S. Do the other restrictions on marriage take away the civil rights and personal freedoms of those individuals? Should they be removed as well and where do you draw the line on marriage?

And following Jtom's logic, we're only allowed to oppose something if a study exists that shows it to be detrimental to society. I read a study just last week that shows co-habitating before marriage leads to a higher divorce rate which impacts the kids of that marriage. This is certainly harmful to society so should we outlaw adults living together?

I don't agree with allowing same sex marriages but my thinking is more along the lines of what Knuck offers. And if it's allowed, then life goes on.

They are taking away my right to inbreed! Show me proof! Show me the studies! I won't hursh my mouth, next they will be coming after my good tooth!

"“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.”
Our Fake President 2006.

burn1986

C100_nose_picker_1411148777

Posts: 6162

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/10/2012 5:36 AM
Edited Date/Time: 5/10/2012 6:03 AM

burn1986 wrote: Pretty soon you're eliminating principals and laws that were the foundation of this country.

oldfart wrote: I'm sorry, but where in the Constitution does it discuss the sanctity of marriage?

So let's just spend all or our time and efforts to find each and every law, tradition, or idea that is moral, faith, or ethics based and eliminate it. Then we could eliminate right and wrong (because what is right and wrong anyway), and then we could eliminate every law, and then maybe we could be eliminate the United States Code, and then the Code of Federal Regulations and then we could try and go back in research every decision made about this country and reverse it (burn the Constitution, the flag, freedom, etc.), and then we could try and go back to England, and then we could try and go back to the beginning and then we could be satisfied. Just think how wonderful it would be - no morals, no right or wrong, no absolutes, no law. Everything would be wonderful.

.

vet323

C100_copy_of_41913

Posts: 2850

Joined: 7/31/2010

Location: Lead, SD USA

5/10/2012 7:13 AM

I think DDub, JW and WKnuck are right on this. Marriage as a concept and word is rooted in religion, don't use that word to describe unions between consenting adults ( of any sex ) and the problem goes away.

Kinda bugged that Obama lied about his stance on this for the last 10 years or so, but that's another subject.

jndmx

C100_prof_1390836970

Posts: 9490

Joined: 1/20/2008

Location: CT, USA

5/10/2012 8:31 AM

vet323 wrote: I think DDub, JW and WKnuck are right on this. Marriage as a concept and word is rooted in religion, don't use that word to describe unions between consenting adults ( of any sex ) and the problem goes away.

Kinda bugged that Obama lied about his stance on this for the last 10 years or so, but that's another subject.

You feel exactly the same about every issue now as you did 12 years ago?

jtomasik

C100_manning_melon_for_website_1406229807

Posts: 15256

Joined: 8/17/2006

Location: Golden, CO USA

5/10/2012 8:36 AM

gabrielmalinois wrote: Seriously you need to relax.

jtomasik wrote: Produce the study. Produce the data. You asked if it's reasonable, and I'm saying it isn't. So, if you hold the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman only, you do it either through something quantifiable and verifiable, or you do it through religious belief.

And yes, I'm accusing you of doing it through religious belief. And that is most certainly not reasonable, especially since you're denying an American equality, and that shit pisses me off.

burn1986 wrote: Are you gay, jtomasik? Seriously, if you are then I apologize if I offended you.

If you met me, you'd realize how funny what you said is. No, not gay. Not by looooong shot.

burn1986

C100_nose_picker_1411148777

Posts: 6162

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/10/2012 8:40 AM
Edited Date/Time: 5/10/2012 8:42 AM

I didn't think so, "not that there's anything wrong with that."

Of course, do we know what "right and wrong" is?

vet323

C100_copy_of_41913

Posts: 2850

Joined: 7/31/2010

Location: Lead, SD USA

5/10/2012 9:47 AM

vet323 wrote: I think DDub, JW and WKnuck are right on this. Marriage as a concept and word is rooted in religion, don't use that word to describe unions between consenting adults ( of any sex ) and the problem goes away.

Kinda bugged that Obama lied about his stance on this for the last 10 years or so, but that's another subject.

jndmx wrote: You feel exactly the same about every issue now as you did 12 years ago?

I feel the same way about most issues as I did 12 years ago. So does the President, that's my point.

His opinion on gay marriage hasn't changed in the least, he just fessed up yesterday, that's all. And to top it off, he still isn't being totally honest-he says today that he feels it's a state's rights issue, but I will bet dollars to donuts that he will push for a federal law mandating for gay marriage after the election (if he's reelected, that is).

jndmx

C100_prof_1390836970

Posts: 9490

Joined: 1/20/2008

Location: CT, USA

5/10/2012 9:57 AM
Edited Date/Time: 5/10/2012 9:58 AM

vet323 wrote: I feel the same way about most issues as I did 12 years ago. So does the President, that's my point.

His opinion on gay marriage hasn't changed in the least, he just fessed up yesterday, that's all. And to top it off, he still isn't being totally honest-he says today that he feels it's a state's rights issue, but I will bet dollars to donuts that he will push for a federal law mandating for gay marriage after the election (if he's reelected, that is).

That seems a little presumptous on your part to assume you know what someone else was thinking/feeling.
Some people can consider different factors over time and arrive at a different conclusion than they previously held.

I think there will continue to be a push for a federal gay marraige bill not on Obama's part or because of his doing but because it is becoming more a part of the mainstream.

vet323

C100_copy_of_41913

Posts: 2850

Joined: 7/31/2010

Location: Lead, SD USA

5/10/2012 10:21 AM

jndmx wrote: You feel exactly the same about every issue now as you did 12 years ago?

vet323 wrote: I feel the same way about most issues as I did 12 years ago. So does the President, that's my point.

His opinion on gay marriage hasn't changed in the least, he just fessed up yesterday, that's all. And to top it off, he still isn't being totally honest-he says today that he feels it's a state's rights issue, but I will bet dollars to donuts that he will push for a federal law mandating for gay marriage after the election (if he's reelected, that is).

jndmx wrote: That seems a little presumptous on your part to assume you know what someone else was thinking/feeling.
Some people can consider different factors over time and arrive at a different conclusion than they previously held.

I think there will continue to be a push for a federal gay marraige bill not on Obama's part or because of his doing but because it is becoming more a part of the mainstream.

I think it's naive on your part to think that he has changed his opinion on this. He has ( somewhat ) of a record, look back on his public statements concerning this. Make sure you look back at least until the late '90s and you will see that his opinion has "changed" a full 360degrees.

burn1986

C100_nose_picker_1411148777

Posts: 6162

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/10/2012 10:26 AM

He's just going with what's popular at the time. When he was against it, it looked good to the public to be against it. Now, if it looks good to be for it, then he will be for it.

WhKnuckle

C100_dsc05462_jpgsmall2

Posts: 10541

Joined: 7/17/2007

Location: TX, USA

5/10/2012 10:38 AM

jndmx wrote: You feel exactly the same about every issue now as you did 12 years ago?

vet323 wrote: I feel the same way about most issues as I did 12 years ago. So does the President, that's my point.

His opinion on gay marriage hasn't changed in the least, he just fessed up yesterday, that's all. And to top it off, he still isn't being totally honest-he says today that he feels it's a state's rights issue, but I will bet dollars to donuts that he will push for a federal law mandating for gay marriage after the election (if he's reelected, that is).

jndmx wrote: That seems a little presumptous on your part to assume you know what someone else was thinking/feeling.
Some people can consider different factors over time and arrive at a different conclusion than they previously held.

I think there will continue to be a push for a federal gay marraige bill not on Obama's part or because of his doing but because it is becoming more a part of the mainstream.

Federal legislation mandating gay marriage would overturn existing laws and even state Constitutions in some 30 states - he's not going to do that. Keep in mind that we have a Congress that can't even agree if we're going to continue to pay our debts, and we have a Supreme Court that is struggling with the clearly-Constitutional Affordable Health Care Act. In this political climate, a gay marriage mandate is laughably impossible.

The half-step of public support by the President is all that our government is capable of right now. Half-steps are the best we can get.

And if that's not worrisome enough, take a look at Europe. All over the world, we're seeing democratic governments paralyzed by fear of the loss of power, unable to take any steps that require the slightest courage. They say the Constitution was written out of equal fear of both Monarchs and Mobs. Today, it's all about fear of the Mobs. Maybe that's what democracy as a governmental selection process comes down to. It seems to me like democracy is dying from the effects of a polarized electorate and the terror of political leaders to fail to win reelection. So if democracy goes down the toilet along with communism, the question is; what's next?

oldfart

C100_mandelalifeu_1372655121

Posts: 21441

Joined: 8/15/2006

Location: Las Vegas, NV USA

5/10/2012 10:40 AM

vet323 wrote: I feel the same way about most issues as I did 12 years ago. So does the President, that's my point.

His opinion on gay marriage hasn't changed in the least, he just fessed up yesterday, that's all. And to top it off, he still isn't being totally honest-he says today that he feels it's a state's rights issue, but I will bet dollars to donuts that he will push for a federal law mandating for gay marriage after the election (if he's reelected, that is).

jndmx wrote: That seems a little presumptous on your part to assume you know what someone else was thinking/feeling.
Some people can consider different factors over time and arrive at a different conclusion than they previously held.

I think there will continue to be a push for a federal gay marraige bill not on Obama's part or because of his doing but because it is becoming more a part of the mainstream.

WhKnuckle wrote: Federal legislation mandating gay marriage would overturn existing laws and even state Constitutions in some 30 states - he's not going to do that. Keep in mind that we have a Congress that can't even agree if we're going to continue to pay our debts, and we have a Supreme Court that is struggling with the clearly-Constitutional Affordable Health Care Act. In this political climate, a gay marriage mandate is laughably impossible.

The half-step of public support by the President is all that our government is capable of right now. Half-steps are the best we can get.

And if that's not worrisome enough, take a look at Europe. All over the world, we're seeing democratic governments paralyzed by fear of the loss of power, unable to take any steps that require the slightest courage. They say the Constitution was written out of equal fear of both Monarchs and Mobs. Today, it's all about fear of the Mobs. Maybe that's what democracy as a governmental selection process comes down to. It seems to me like democracy is dying from the effects of a polarized electorate and the terror of political leaders to fail to win reelection. So if democracy goes down the toilet along with communism, the question is; what's next?

How exactly is the Supreme Court struggling professor? Please do tell us what the Supremes have been discussing and where they are struggling. This should be awesome!

"It always seems impossible until it's done." -- Nelson Mandela

burn1986

C100_nose_picker_1411148777

Posts: 6162

Joined: 4/16/2010

Location: Hell, LA USA

5/10/2012 10:52 AM
Edited Date/Time: 5/10/2012 10:53 AM

burn1986 wrote: Pretty soon you're eliminating principals and laws that were the foundation of this country.

oldfart wrote: I'm sorry, but where in the Constitution does it discuss the sanctity of marriage?

Okay, smart guy it's not in there, but Paul believes that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Asked his opinion on same-sex marriage in October 2011, Paul replied, “Biblically and historically, the government was very uninvolved in marriage. I like that. I don't know why we should register our marriage to the federal government. I think it's a sacrament.” In the same interview, when asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California's Proposition 8, he said, “Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”[138]

What is your opinion, and why?

motogeezer

C100_th_photo_2004_12_4_4_50_50_edited

Posts: 5499

Joined: 4/1/2008

Location: Yorba Linda, CA USA

5/10/2012 11:29 AM

JW381 wrote: Does everyone forget that marriage is a religious practice? Yes, it has many legal ties today, but in the end it takes a man and a woman to reproduce and a man and a woman to get married because that's what the religious practice of marriage dictates.

There are plenty of good arguments as to why gays should be allowed to get married, I truly could not care less either way. My only opinion is that of the homosexual males I have met in my brief lifetime, they annoyed the fuck outta me. Doesn't mean they all fit that mold, and also doesn't mean I should be allowed to vote on whether or not they can get married or not. But, again, marriage is a religious practice, so if people are going to vote on whether it should be legal or not, their religious beliefs are perfectly valid in making their voting decision, in my opinion.

Like I said, I truly don't care what a small minority of people want with their lives that has zero effect on me, and I wish more people cared less. It's not like making gay marriage illegal will suddenly cause a ton of dudes to start having sex in the office and in the streets... right? Right?!

Yep!

Marriage is a religious practice!

We must protect the sanctity of marriage!





Ship's captain performed marriage


Judge performed marriage


and Justice of the peace can perform a mariage
Post a Reply to: Congratulations North Carolina

To post, please join, log in or connect to Vital using your Facebook profile Fb_connect_sm