Who shouldn't have the right to vote

[Mike]

Mark this liberal as No on gay marriage; YES on civil unions


Why do you guys and gals want to get "married" anyways? I think marriage is more of a religious ceremony, and religions should have the right to say no to it(gay marriage).

If you can tell me a benefit to being married that isn't covered by Civil Unions(we have 'em here in Vermont, I think we were the first), let me know, I don't know much about the details


Now, I'm unmarried and living with my opposite sex partner for 13 years now, and we have two kids. So I guess I don't care much about marriage

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Mike

Mark this liberal as No on gay marriage; YES on civil unions


Why do you guys and gals want to get "married" anyways? I think marriage is more of a religious ceremony, and religions should have the right to say no to it(gay marriage).

If you can tell me a benefit to being married that isn't covered by Civil Unions(we have 'em here in Vermont, I think we were the first), let me know, I don't know much about the details


Now, I'm unmarried and living with my opposite sex partner for 13 years now, and we have two kids. So I guess I don't care much about marriage

they always have and nothing about that changed with the court ruling.

the only people being "forced" to perform gay marriages in california are county clerks. they also have to marry interracial couples regardless of their personal opinions.

churches in california regularly refuse to marry couples that aren't members of their sect. why would you think they can't refuse to perform a gay marriage?

this is like saying that laws preventing a restaurant from discriminating means i have no say about who can join me at home for dinner. it ignores the difference between public and private space. it's utter nonsense.

i really do think at least some of the people getting really worked up over this have to be serious closet cases. they doth protest too much.

[Mike]

hi i'm god,I'm not sure but I think you misunderstood me. Perhaps I should have stated things clearer. I know the churches always have had the right to refuse gay marriages

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Mike

hi i'm god,I'm not sure but I think you misunderstood me. Perhaps I should have stated things clearer. I know the churches always have had the right to refuse gay marriages

well...okay.

i was going to change my answer to landowning white males except mike but i'll give you a pass now.

[Mike]

Gotta' watch McCain-Obama on MNF in a few minutes, while handicapping Mountaineer's nightcap, so ...

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Mike

Gotta' watch McCain-Obama on MNF in a few minutes, while handicapping Mountaineer's nightcap, so ...

he...could...go...all...the...way...

good line.

but don't they have a "rent-a-minority" aisle at walmart? i know they could have found a cuban somewhere.

that was the whitest crowd on the block.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Mike

Mark this liberal as No on gay marriage; YES on civil unions


Why do you guys and gals want to get "married" anyways? I think marriage is more of a religious ceremony, and religions should have the right to say no to it(gay marriage).If you can tell me a benefit to being married that isn't covered by Civil Unions(we have 'em here in Vermont, I think we were the first), let me know, I don't know much about the details


Now, I'm unmarried and living with my opposite sex partner for 13 years now, and we have two kids. So I guess I don't care much about marriage

now, what about the churches who support gay marriage? they're out there.
you don't have to understand why someone would want to get married-that's got nothing to do with it. i don't understand why two folks would live together, and raise a family without making that commitment-doesn't mean i think there should be laws against it.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Danzig

now, what about the churches who support gay marriage? they're out there.
you don't have to understand why someone would want to get married-that's got nothing to do with it. i don't understand why two folks would live together, and raise a family without making that commitment-doesn't mean i think there should be laws against it.

Fine with me if some churches choose to perform gay marriage. I guess I'm pro gay marriage after all.

There are two aspects to marriage, I think. I believe I could, here in Vermont, get married in a church, but not have the marriage filed with the state, if I so chose. Say an elderly couple wanted to get married, in a church, but didn't want to lose any social security income. They could do this, and they would be married in the eyes of God, just not in the eyes of the state

I don't know much about marriage and the technicalities and paperwork aspect, perhaps someone here can chime in

(And please, I don't want to specifically argue about this scenario of retirees and s.s., I'm just trying to give one example)

[Mike]

I guess you just don't have to get the marriage license after the ceremony

Anyways, I certainly don't run around howling about the "sanctity of marriage", I'm amused when I hear it said

[Mortimer]

Well it should be sanctitied.




But very hard to do especially in today's world....there is not a lot of meaning in anything,I don't think.

If nothing is true....then everything has to be false...no?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

As long as they give the majority the say-so, then the minority is gunna have to do as they say. These aren't special rights for gays, so I don't know why it's constitutional to keep them from marrying (by just simply voting in majority against them.)

[Mortimer]

Hey..ya look better..really do.

[Mike]

Here's a decent, quick answer on the origin and purpose of marriage:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1002439AAAxdTz

This issue is extremely low on my list. I understand it's very high on others, both sides of the argument.

I could agree on people marrying pigs if you talked to me about it long enough

[Mike]

Sounds like women definitely got the short end of the stick in the history of marriage.

In the brief googling and wiki answers search I've done in the last 20 minutes, it seems marriage never had any sanctity

One might htink feminists and women in general would be trying to tear down this oppressive marriage thing. But, women have children as a result of their men, and a marriage "contract" helps ensure some stability for the current and future generations

I guess that's why I was not pro gay marriage. I feel marriage is about children. I'm fine with gay couples having kids(whether adopted, in vitro fertilization,cloned,whatever) and feel gay couples with kids absolutely should have a legal contract. You want to call that marriage, fine with me

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

As long as they give the majority the say-so, then the minority is gunna have to do as they say. These aren't special rights for gays, so I don't know why it's constitutional to keep them from marrying (by just simply voting in majority against them.)

because you can't give civil rights to some members-by allowing marriage, naming someone as your legal rep, etc-but not allowing other adults those same rights, because they're 'different'.
the constitution is to keep the often-times voiceless minority from losing their rights, regardless of majority thoughts.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

because you can't give civil rights to some members-by allowing marriage, naming someone as your legal rep, etc-but not allowing other adults those same rights, because they're 'different'.
the constitution is to keep the often-times voiceless minority from losing their rights, regardless of majority thoughts.

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.

[Danzig]

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!