Derby Trail Forums - Who shouldn't have the right to vote

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)

- The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Who shouldn't have the right to vote (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25988)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

No, just different.

1 Man and 1 Woman is call marriage.

A gay couple is something different and you can call it anything you want except Marriage.

why?

i think the high divorce rate, as well as having multiple marriages, has done more to damage the supposed sanctity of marriage than allowing gay people the same rights (no more, no less) as straight folks. tell me, if gays can call it marriage (since two adults, joining their lives, committing to each other, etc is basically marriage, regardless of their sex) how does that affect you? your life? your marriage, assuming you're married? i bet it won't. how could it? i have been married for almost 23 years to a wonderful guy...it bothers me tremendously to see folks who are married treat each other badly, or cheapen their vows by being disrespectful, hatefuly, downright mean, or selfish. they're certainly not teaching their children to honor marriage by doing so.
so, a guy or gal can get married, divorced, remarried, divorced, remarried, ad nauseum...and that's just ducky because it's a guy and a girl.
but two guys, two girls. oh, put on the brakes-how dare anyone want to damage marriage? HAH! that's a riot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

If you cant read or write English or need the help of an interpreter you shouldn't be able to vote. Im sure this would apply to half of Texas.

is that in the constitution?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

You can just be pro-equal rights for all!!

Yeah, I can go with that. That will make things a lot simpler for me and everyone else

it would for everyone. that's so true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

:D Cool!

I just finished doing my annual enrollment for the benefits package... and my company makes sure to put several times....

"*** requires a legal union between one man and one woman to be considered as a husband and wife (“spouse”) under the terms of our plan."

That makes me really upset.... So even in states like California (where I know we have offices) that have LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE... the partner would not be able to get the benefits because it specifically defines "between one man and one woman".

Or what about the states that have civil unions, or domestic partnerships?? This is def. discrimination by my employer... and with over 8,000 people that work for this company.. I wouldnt expect this because most large corporations offer "partner" benefits

:mad: :zz:

i bet you could sue. take that effer all the way to the supreme court!

Quote:

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

That's what I said isn't it? I said I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL to deny these rights to this minority. It's only being done because they don't have the power that the majority have. There are special rights given to married people. If they are gunna keep certain people from marrying, then they should atleast take away any financial advantages that married people now have. I can tell ya that the thing I dislike about all this the most is these Mormons from Utah sending checks here to try to make an impact on how people in another state vote. I despise them. It's never enough for them to live as their religion says. They have to try to make other people conform to their beliefs. You let them have small stuff like this, and eventually they will end up acting like those Moslem Savages.

Before you people freak out about that noun, I will define it.

Savage:
1 : a person belonging to a primitive society
2 : a brutal person
3 : a rude or unmannerly person

They all fit. Don't lie.

i'm sorry, i must have read your post too quickly and missed something.
and yeah, it's a shame that a cali issue has been made a national issue...but then again, if it provokes both sides supporters, maybe it isn't so bad. it's also why-maybe-they shouldn't call it a state issue. it impacts all u.s. citizens. this whole ridiculous notion of some having rights, while others don't, is total hogwash and anathema to what our basic principles are supposed to be. why can't people get that? probably because people who think they're 'normal' haven't yet been attacked for a perceived difference-yet. but i bet they'd want someone backing them up when they get attacked, are told they're different, therefore the rules are different!