vauge said:
Strangelove said:Let's be honest. This NEVER would have been an issue had the radical, militant, gay lobby IMPOSED THEIR WILL on the American populace by taking their case to the Massachusetts court, instead of the Massachusetts voting body in the form of a ballot.
Gays know full well they will be defeated if the public gets to vote on it.
As long as we allow ourselves to be labeled 'bigot and homophobe' (yawn) we will be muzzled and the gay lobby will continue its legal reign of tyranny.
Bush's quest for an amendment is nothing more than a predictable response to the madness of our arrogant and elitist courtroom occupants.
vauge said:What will affect me is the demand that I have to endorse it!
Your analogy doesn't make sense. Since it's a buffet, people can pick and choose what they want to eat. If they don't want to have gay marriage, they don't have to put it on their plate. But since it is there, why not let the people that want it, enjoy it? You don't want it, you don't take it, but why do you feel it's ok to tell people what they can or cannot put on their plates simply because you find it distasteful?akyron said:It is sort of like 3% of the population enjoying wasabi smothered raw sushi. It is not enough it is in the buffet like chicken,fish,steak, etc.
The other 97% of the population has to sit with them and choke it down smiling.
Absolutely! And the anti gay crowd scream at the top of their lungs how the gays want special rights!, gays want special rights!, gays want special rights! I’m not gay, I got to marry the person I love. How is it special rights to allow gays to marry the person they love? And it not going to effect my marriage if they do. My wife and I won’t be headed to divorce court if Stan and Jim or Sally and Kim get married. And I don’t see marriage as a privilege either. I see it as a right we should all have. You’re an adult you love another adult you should be allowed to married that adult, if you choose.shuamort said:Your analogy doesn't make sense. Since it's a buffet, people can pick and choose what they want to eat. If they don't want to have gay marriage, they don't have to put it on their plate. But since it is there, why not let the people that want it, enjoy it? You don't want it, you don't take it, but why do you feel it's ok to tell people what they can or cannot put on their plates simply because you find it distasteful?
Strangelove said:Let's be honest....
Bush's quest for an amendment is nothing more than a predictable response to the madness of our arrogant and elitist courtroom occupants.
:2bgrin:Pacridge said:Absolutely! And the anti gay crowd scream at the top of their lungs how the gays want special rights!, gays want special rights!, gays want special rights! I’m not gay, I got to marry the person I love. How is it special rights to allow gays to marry the person they love? And it not going to effect my marriage if they do. My wife and I won’t be headed to divorce court if Stan and Jim or Sally and Kim get married. And I don’t see marriage as a privilege either. I see it as a right we should all have. You’re an adult you love another adult you should be allowed to married that adult, if you choose.
RightatNYU said:Let's be honest...it's political pandering. Bush himself doesn't support a federal ban, he's just doing it because he has to play to his supporters. Politics is more than skin deep.
shuamort said:Your analogy doesn't make sense. Since it's a buffet, people can pick and choose what they want to eat. If they don't want to have gay marriage, they don't have to put it on their plate. But since it is there, why not let the people that want it, enjoy it? You don't want it, you don't take it, but why do you feel it's ok to tell people what they can or cannot put on their plates simply because you find it distasteful?
Yeah, that's what the country was founded on. If you don't like the British rule of the colonies and taxation without representation, don't revolt, just leave.akyron said:I disagree. I do not care for the smell of curry. If I am enjoying a steak at my table and someone comes over and sits at my table with curry, I will ask them to move or move myself. (This actually happened to me once in Shang-Hai). Personally I would have found another table to begin with if the shoe were on the other foot.
Rather than screaming discrimination and persecution have a seat at another table. It is a big damned restauraunt.
Yeah, just think if the politicians would just allow gay marriage, we could have them focus on more important issues. Instead they feel it necessary to pass bills like DOMA, attempt to pass constitutional amendments, and all that jazz.akyron said:Maybe that is the problem. Not enough personal space left with 6.5 billion peeps milling around. I sort of admire the old days when we were more concerned with where the next meal was coming from than rather than who was having sex with whom. We do not have enough on our minds when interior decorators get paid more than teachers or US soldiers who are fighting for their lives, your way of life, and your right to pick whatever you like out of the buffet.
There are 1049 federal benefits that one gets upon marriage. These are not available to state run civil unions.akyron said:What is the difference between Civil Unions and marriage? I am not sure of the specifics and I dont feel like researching it right now. Anyone know off the top of their head? If Civil Unions do not accrue comparable benefits to marriage then I may change my mind about the situation to the point where Civil unions acquire more benefits(Even though I do not want to pay for it via taxes).
shuamort said:Texas and Kansas-What? Texas? Kansas? Red states? Really? Hehe, yup. Well, kinda. They both have some interesting laws, one is that a person is the sex they are born with. Should a person have sexual reassignment surgery (aka, sex change), they can then marry someone of the same sex they currently are. Example to make it more clear. Victor is born as a boy. Victor decides to become Victoria with a sex change, takes the hormones, grows the breasts, has the penis removed and a new vagina is created in its place. What looks like a woman now with breasts and vagina is still considered a man under Texas law. As such, Victoria can marry a woman.
According to this article, two have already happened in Texas.RightatNYU said:I reeeeeeeealy want that to happen, to see what the reaction would be.
At least two same-sex marriages now exist in Texas, partly because one member of each is a post-op transsexual.
shuamort said:According to this article, two have already happened in Texas.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?