Reply With Quote
Gay marriage is such a behemoth issue for something so inconsequential.
c'mon Manny...step up to the plate and swing...
Gay marriage is such a behemoth issue for something so inconsequential.
It's a mandate to undertake legislative action and a mandate for the President.It's just sweet to take that argument away from the Left this time...by 3 and a half million votes. And, in this election, that's a mandate.
It's not a mandate to use majoritarian power to ins utionalize efforts at discriminating against minority groups like sexuals or non-Christians.
since Manny doesn't want to play any of you other supporters of gay marriage please feel free to jump in...
I'm in support of gay marriage as long as marriage is sanctioned by the government. I'm not really sure how a legal "marriage" differs from a civil union, but if straight couples get any priviledges from their married status, then same sex couples should have that opportunity as well.
But ideally, the government would stop sanctioning "marriage" altogether, because to me that's like sanctioning baptism. And these bans on gay marriage only add to the problem of government involvement in private matters.
Last edited by Spurminator; 11-04-2004 at 02:45 PM.
I want a flat tax rate, free liquor, and a Playboy bunny to serve me and my buds beer and food naked while we watch the game.like no taxes and free beer.
I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of America
Exactly. Too bad some can't seem to grasp that.But ideally, the government would stop sanctioning "marriage" altogether, because to me that's like sanctioning baptism. And these bans on gay marriage only add to the problem of government involvement in private matters.
Angela Little anyone?I want a flat tax rate, free liquor, and a Playboy bunny to serve me and my buds beer and food naked while we watch the game.
I don't think you have your finger on the pulse of America
if straight couples get any priviledges from their married status, then same sex couples should have that opportunity as well.
You just don't get it...its not just about government recognition of government granted rights or benefits...
I will give you an example...
I pay 100% of health insurance for my employees and their families.
I am not required to do so by any law and do it because I want to.
With the legalization of gay marriage I would not have a choice whether or not to pay the gay spouses insurance if I paid my marriage spouses insurance...
I I chose not to pay the mans insurance (which I am not required by law to pay health insurance at all) I would not only be subject to civil damage litigation but criminal litigation as well as a felon for not doing something I am not required to do by law...
that...
Nail. Head. Bang.With the legalization of gay marriage I would not have a choice whether or not to pay the gay spouses insurance if I paid my marriage spouses insurance...
I I chose not to pay the mans insurance (which I am not required by law to pay health insurance at all) I would not only be subject to civil damage litigation but criminal litigation as well as a felon for not doing something I am not required to do by law...
I was thinking more along the lines of Crista Nicole.
Next link is NSFW...
http://www.bellezzevip.com/modelle/c..._nicole_09.jpg
That's fine, but why does that require a BAN on gay marriage? I wouldn't be in favor of any law that requires you to recognize gay marriages in your own private practice.With the legalization of gay marriage I would not have a choice whether or not to pay the gay spouses insurance if I paid my marriage spouses insurance...
I I chose not to pay the mans insurance (which I am not required by law to pay health insurance at all) I would not only be subject to civil damage litigation but criminal litigation as well as a felon for not doing something I am not required to do by law...
that...
It's not my understanding that we are creating a law to accept gay marriage... we're pulling one out of thin air to ban it. Let me know if I'm mistaken.
The bans are a move to cir vent a judicial imposition that would force the private recognition of gay marriage.
In that case, it seems that the term "Ban" is misleading in regards to this legislation.
What are the terms, exactly? I would assume that businesses who choose to recognize gay marriage can still do so in these states, correct?
I'm not sure that the state bans are uniform. Yes, I believe that firms are currently free to recognize "gay marriage." Not sure how those 'bans' would effect that ability.
Personally I don't think we need an amendment to ban gay marriage.
It's not legal now in many states am I right?
So if it's not legal why do the feds want and amendment.
Shouldn't this be left to the individual States? Like Cheney said?
But I do think if 2 guys or gals are shacked up and supporting each other and buying a home together then they should be able to speak on each other's behalf if one of them goes nuts or is incapacitated for some reason.
I don't think that some other family member can just jump in and take over and that is a right I feel they should have.
exactly...
thats why I would support laws allowing civil unions that granted specific rights to couples choosing civil unions as opposed to a broad "every right granted to married couples" law that goes along with the concept of gay marriage.
I'd be okay with that.
There are some companies that I work with that currently recognize "domestic partnership" which gives them the "married" rates.
I oppose all forms of marriage.
Sincerely, ME!
I was reading through this thread earlier and had a thought...granted, I have some pretty off the wall thoughts sometimes...maybe relevant, maybe not...but I was wondering...
How many of you men (and remember, I've been around here a long time, I remember everything, and I've heard most of ya'll talk some serious at one point or another) get off watching 2 women together? I don't think I've ever heard any man even infer that they found that repulsive...and in no context that such an act of immorality and offensiveness be *forced* upon them, that they shouldn't have to accept or recognize that kind of behavior.
Which translates to me, given what I've heard over time and the opposing responses in this thread, that if you're female, it's okay if you each other (provided you're relatively attractive and I can watch and/or participate) but you can't have feelings for each other, want to make a committment to each other...to enjoy the benefits that other human beings have (ie, straight couples) in a legally binding relationship--because you don't want to recognize it and have it forced on you--like somehow by them getting married they are suddenly moving in with you or something. And if you're a man...well you can't do either, because that's just TOTALLY wrong and against everything you believe in..morally, religiously...whatever.
So you advocate *just ing* (just the females, of course), because that's okay if you're the one being entertained, which in that same archaic social and religious stance is immoral and wrong in itself.
That sounds seriously hypocritical to me.
I personally don't care one way or the other if a gay couple want to get married, raise monkeys, or climb Mt. Everest in nothing but a bikini top and chaps....I don't consider other people's personal lives my business, and has absolutely no bearing on how I make it through the day.
Please don't take me too seriously SW, BUT, could you watch a video of "hot lesbian action?" Could you watch a video of "hot gay oral sex?"
I'm all for live and let live, but, at a gut level, I think 90% of the population is creeped-out by man on man sex, and it has nothing to do with morality.
More succinctly ...
Given the choice, would you rather catch your man in bed with another woman, or another man?
Oh wait! This is the POLITICAL forum.
Disregard.
It's not just all about sex, though. On the one hand, promiscuous sex between two woman is okay, because it turns YOU on....but the minute they actually start having serious feelings for each other and you aren't invited, all of the sudden it's morally corrupt and you don't want it forced on you.
And if brussell sprouts make me want to vomit....and 90% of the world gets nauseous at the site of brussell sprouts too, is it wrong for the 10% that's left to happen to like those nasty things?
Well, considering the only man I plan on having in my life is my son....I'd rather not catch him with anyone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
