- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Marriage is a right, homosexual marriage, polygamy, incest marriages, or other unions are not nor is it a right for people to demand or feel entitled to such things. Marriage as a right exists within the boundaries of how the states define the unions for themselves.
No, I support SSM at the state level but I respect that others disagree and I think it would be an atrocity to freedom to mandate SSM on a national level and deny people their right to vote on the issue.
AGENT J said:yep this type of sever uneducated logic on this topic was funny and made no sense back then and that still holds true today.
the fact that religion has nothgin to do with legal marriage, that fact, try to keep up
Gov't has decided religions who don't also allow same-sex 'union' ceremonies at the religion's building, even though same-sex 'unions' go against the religion's canon, should not get tax breaks.
Gov't also is giving tax breaks to religions, to any ideology, I guess, under exact same circumstances if they perform same-sex 'union' ceremonies.
There is a portion of the religion part of the first amendment that goes something like this: gov't shall not set up a gov't religion... Well, if under the exact same circumstances, gov't allows certain tax breaks to religions, while disallowing tax breaks to other religions, gov't is, in essence, setting up a gov't religion...... Like I said in another post. You don't care about the religion part of the first amendment of the Constitution.
You said in another post that this couldn't happen? Well, it happened to the Methodist Church of New Jersey.
like i said, you don't care about the religion portion of the first amemment when it comes to same-sex unions.
Here's your link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html?_r=0
The last line of the link states that, before tax exempt status of the Ocean Grove pavillion was revoked (supposedly), Ocean Grove, NJ. was the leading light for gay tolerance and that’s not the case anymore,” Mr. Goldstein said. What would Mr. Goldstein say about the religious tolerance of Ocean Grove, NJ? Ocean Grove NJ. is certainly not the leading light for religious tolerance.
And that boardwalk pavillion in Ocean Grove, NJ is 100 percent (or was) operated and maintained by the Methodist Church of New Jersey?
So you also agree with the NJ gov't. The canon of the NJ Methodist Church is wrong when attempting to achieve tax exempt status.... Did I get that right from you?
Should your right to marry be put to a vote Digs?Shoud the rights of inter-racial couples to marry be put to a vote?Majority rules, right?No, I support SSM at the state level but I respect that others disagree and I think it would be an atrocity to freedom to mandate SSM on a national level and deny people their right to vote on the issue.
Should your right to marry be put to a vote Digs?Shoud the rights of inter-racial couples to marry be put to a vote?Majority rules, right?
I used to think otherwise, but have since come to agree with this.It must be called marriage, gay people should settle for nothing less. Calling it something else but making it "equal" is a complete lie.
That is separate but equal, that is a complete oxymoron. Nothing can be separate and still be equal.
No compromise is possible.
I used to think otherwise, but have since come to agree with this.
It must be called marriage, gay people should settle for nothing less. Calling it something else but making it "equal" is a complete lie.
That is separate but equal, that is a complete oxymoron. Nothing can be separate and still be equal.
No compromise is possible.
100% correct
Should your right to marry be put to a vote Digs?Shoud the rights of inter-racial couples to marry be put to a vote?Majority rules, right?
I shouldn't even respond to the stawman of ssm=inter racial marriage or that they are even remotely similar.
Marriage policy is marriage policy. Redefining marriage to include new unions is a policy issue more closely related to setting a tax rate or something else that is policy (not rights) based. Majority rules, that's democracy and within the state's rights. When sexuality is a protected class in the constitution like race and religion then you may have an argument. It's unconstitutional to deny people the ability to marry based on their race, it is within a state's right and policy to not redefine marriage to include new unions like ssm.
As to the poll question, of course it's right for people to stop or try to prevent ssm from being legalized. They have every right to vote on their beliefs and stop something they believe is wrong just like anyone else.
Also to be clear Im also not saying its wrong for you to VOTE on the subject everybody has that right of course.
After debating on this sight, i have come to that conclusion.
See? This is what happens when extremist spew their stupidity too loudly. Compromise on issues can certainly happen, but when extremists... in this case, those who are anti-gay, spew stupid nonesensical comment after stupid nonsensical comment, people who are more moderate realize that there won't be any compromise, so one must take the opposing position. It's the anti-gay extremists that are going to make gay marriage a reality, simply because their arguments are so dumb and bigoted. If they played this smart, they'd stop arguing in the way that they do.
That means in America I think its fine for anybody to:
THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc<----------------------------
PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
etc
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?