you do know the answer to that question has zero impact on what I said right? ZERO LMAO
What part are you having trouble with, Im curious?
one more time, try and understand. Try to understand and read it as many times as possible.
A law or bill could pass with a 100% vote BUT if the courts rule differently that law or bill is meaningless so there for majority wil NOT always win.
This is 100% fact and I have already given examples of it.
I guess I don't understand the outrage for a couple of reasons. One, the idea that gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage seems disingenuous when one considers 50% of marriages - across all spectra of Americans - ends in divorce. The gay community had nothing to do with that, as far as I can tell. Secondly, from a religious standpoint, marriage is a sacrament, a sacred oath, before God and His people that has everything to do with religion and nothing to do with secular society. Third, where secular society is concerned (as in civil government), it is nothing more than a legal contract which can be forever dissolved with the stroke of a judge's pen. The marriage itself takes about 2 minutes at the county seat. It has nothing to do with anything "Holy." That is the Sacrament of Marriage's job, isn't it? That's the true declaration before God and The Church and the only one that really matters, right?
The real question to me, and one I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned (that I know of), is the question of straight folks who have chosen living together over traditional marriage. If one allows civil unions, what prevents your average straight couple living together from claiming access to civil unions? Then their unmarried partner has access to health care and legal decisions and property, etc. It becomes a mess. Better to leave the discussion about marriage, I think.
Just be done with it. Nobody will catch The Gay.
One more thing: Civil Rights questions should never, ever, ever be put on a ballot initiative. Think about it. How many votes would there have been for women's suffrage at the time?
Last edited by Kev316; 12-17-10 at 11:02 PM.
I've always felt that a person's intelligence is directly reflected by the number of conflicting points of view he can entertain simultaneously on the same topic. - Abigail Adams
I think it's wrong to push for it I have the right to believe, argue, and enact my opinion regarding gay marriage into law.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
correct you do have the right to believe, argue, and enact my opinion regarding gay marriage into law.
- but again theres no reasons that are sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american and non-discriminative.
Thats the discussion