- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,915
- Reaction score
- 510
- Location
- ND
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I feel like I been played, and worth every second.
it was my pleasure
I feel like I been played, and worth every second.
it was my pleasure
How selfish.
- Show me that a significant demographic of gay couples are raising children.
- Show me that gay couples who are raising children would be in first-marriages if the legislation were to pass.
- Show me that gays couples in first marriages are not in step-parent homes.
Historically in the USA that is what it has meant, and so far still means. So much so the government tried to go before congress (a waist of time for certain) to have it legally and permanently mean exactly that.
Sorry man, you are indeed wrong.
Historically in the USA that is what it has meant, and so far still means. So much so the government tried to go before congress (a waist of time for certain) to have it legally and permanently mean exactly that.
Sorry man, you are indeed wrong.
watch the ad homs, will you?
I know that is what it means, I also never indicated otherwise so I aint wrong about ****, dog.
What you are not getting is that marriage is a word/term. It is only a word/term. Marriage has many meanings, and until people (you, for example) realize this, they are only going to succeed in making illogical and bigoted arguments that offer nothing regarding solutions and everything about unnecessary division.
See, I can, and have, offered proof of this. You have offered proof of nothing that would contradict it either. Sorry... *shrugs*
Yes it did...and failed. Can you tell me why it failed?
Fact: The majority of US Citizens see it exactly how I do. It is a religious institution and recognized as such and has been for the history of this nation. It is part of our traditions and heritage. To deny this as you are trying to do is nothing but a fallacy.
What this has to do with my argument being illogical and bigoted is absolutely ridicules. I assume you never read my initial position in this thread?
All you have shown thus far is that while understanding my premise to a degree, you do not understand my statement and it's limited meaning in the context of my responce.
Then you can and will provide your evidence, right? Because almost everbody I know, family, friends, etc. were married when they had a non-religious ceremony or when they went down to the local courthouse, like my wife and I did *as well as others that I know) and were "married". It had nothing to do with religion. A very large percentage of those that I know are not religious in any way, and others that are did not have a religious ceremony.
Without evidence, all you are doing is being guilty of casting about "opinions" just like you accuse me of.
Well, it is certainly an illogical argument that you have, though I would not call it bigoted since I don't know if you want to deny homosexuals the right to marry for a reason other than a bigoted one. You are probably a really nice guy...
I think that I completely understand what you are saying... I simply don't agree.
If you could display how I am misunderstanding you, that would help.
You have got to be kidding?
"Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage; Florida and Arizona also placed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage on the November 2008 ballot." What message does this send? All 3 passed.
The map below should show you the grim picture of same sex marriage in this country.
File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By far the largest lobby against gay marriage is from religious groups.
Do I really need to post anymore than that? It is or so I thought common knowledge.
Your anecdotal evidence means little.
Well at least you admit you have no clue as to what I am talking about or what it was in reference to. If you understood the conversation from the beginning, we would not even be having this silly debate. Where your assumptions and anecdotal evidence mean nothing.
My only contention is that in this country from the beginning marriage (good or bad) is and is still seen as a religious institution by the majority. You and the other guy read way more into it without doing any reading on the full discussion in context. Shame on you.
Here is my first post in this thread...
"Being a Christian I feel marriage is between a man and a woman. Call me old fashioned, but that is the way I see it.
I also think homosexual couples in this country are being discriminated against because of government involvement in marriage.
I try very hard not to let my religious morals interfere with this a secular government and it's laws. So I think civil unions for gay couples with the full rights of married straight couples would rectify that. Barring of course government getting the hell out of marriage all together. Which is the best solution." - Blackdog
Pretty much shown above.
So why not just make the religious argument in support of gay marriage?
You have got to be kidding?
"Same-sex marriage opponents in California placed a state constitutional amendment known as Proposition 8 on the November ballot for the purpose of restoring an opposite-sex definition of marriage; Florida and Arizona also placed constitutional bans on same-sex marriage on the November 2008 ballot." What message does this send? All 3 passed.
The map below should show you the grim picture of same sex marriage in this country.
File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By far the largest lobby against gay marriage is from religious groups.
Do I really need to post anymore than that? It is or so I thought common knowledge.
Your anecdotal evidence means little.
Well at least you admit you have no clue as to what I am talking about or what it was in reference to. If you understood the conversation from the beginning, we would not even be having this silly debate. Where your assumptions and anecdotal evidence mean nothing.
My only contention is that in this country from the beginning marriage (good or bad) is and is still seen as a religious institution by the majority. You and the other guy read way more into it without doing any reading on the full discussion in context. Shame on you.
Here is my first post in this thread...
"Being a Christian I feel marriage is between a man and a woman. Call me old fashioned, but that is the way I see it.
I also think homosexual couples in this country are being discriminated against because of government involvement in marriage.
I try very hard not to let my religious morals interfere with this a secular government and it's laws. So I think civil unions for gay couples with the full rights of married straight couples would rectify that. Barring of course government getting the hell out of marriage all together. Which is the best solution." - Blackdog
Pretty much shown above.
God bless and I am off to bed.
Because congress made the right choice not waisting our federal tax dollars and time on what is a state level issue.
We need less Federal government not more.
The Federal government has addressed this issue.Marriage cannot just be a state level issue because it is recognized by the federal government and across all states. If it wasn't then you would have a case.
When something affects all of the states then the federal government must make sure that it is applied equally across all states. That is their job.
The Federal government has addressed this issue.
Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), the group that won the right for same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts in 2003, has filed suit in federal district court on behalf of eight couples and three surviving spouses who have been denied federal benefits such as Social Security spousal payments and the right to file joint tax returns with the IRS.
<snip>
GLAD is only going after the section of DOMA that denies federal recognition of legal same-sex marriages, arguing that the federal government recognizes all other marriages licensed by the states even though the laws governing which different-sex couples can marry varies widely from state to state. The group noted that the federal government does not itself license any marriages, "only states do."
GayCityNews - Major Challenge to DOMA From Massachusetts
Part of it, yes.And the DOMA is being challenged:
Marriage cannot just be a state level issue because it is recognized by the federal government and across all states. If it wasn't then you would have a case.
When something affects all of the states then the federal government must make sure that it is applied equally across all states. That is their job.
Wrong. States retain certain rights that the federal government has no jurisdiction over...certain state taxes, usage of revenues, repair of roads and infrastructures (mind you that they get much of their funds from the federal level, but it is still up to the state to implement these things). So, if a certain state, such as Texas, wants to ban gay marriage, another state like California might not want to do so, and it is a state's right issue to be voted on by residents of that state.
Not according to the Constitution. The powers of the federal government as a whole are limited by the Constitution, which, per the Tenth Amendment, gives all power not directed to the National government, to the State level, or to the people, period.
Give it up man. You have been off topic on every point and keep using fallacy arguments and changing the subject.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and joins a nuptial contract with a goose,
call it a marriage, because it's not the state's job to brand the consensenting interactions with any moralistic labels.
Leave the moralizing to the people that care, and make sure those people don't have the power to interfere in the lifestyle choices of anyone else.
I don't care what two adults do in their bedrooms, or if they do it on their couches. I don't care if they get married, or not. None of my business. No one else's business, either, as far as I can tell.
For those of you who oppose using the simple word "marriage" to describe the simple process, how are you, personally, being hurt by what those two people are doing?
According to the Constitution:
"Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Marriage is a "Public record" and if one state allows marriage of same sex couples, that marriage has to be recognized by all others.
"Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note carefully....the Fourteenth Amendment says "any person", not "any man" or "any woman", or "any heterosexual combination of man and woman".
Nope, there's no hiding place for bigots in the Constitution.
So changes and the powers of the state to recognize marriage will remain as they are.
Give it up man. You have been off topic on every point and keep using fallacy arguments and changing the subject.
According to the Constitution:
"Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Marriage is a "Public record" and if one state allows marriage of same sex couples, that marriage has to be recognized by all others.
"Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Note carefully....the Fourteenth Amendment says "any person", not "any man" or "any woman", or "any heterosexual combination of man and woman".
Nope, there's no hiding place for bigots in the Constitution.