Same sex marriage

[Alexithymia]

I'm also not comfortable with the government deciding that a church must recognize gay marriages when conducting an adoption agency, either.

True, our government, frankly, isn't well-run and simply isn't capable of deciding that sort of thing. Its much better to let private charities and organizations decide for themselves how they want to handle their adoptions, they're the experts.

The government needs to take care of promoting the domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, and ensuring the blessings of liberty, and keep the hell out of what it has no business doing.

Amen.

 

[Ejgertz]

This issue should never have been up to politicians and courts. Bottom line, if two people are happy together they make those around them happy. I don't really care if people of the same sex want to get married. Do you walk into a restaurant and see a man and a woman sitting together and think "I wonder if they are married". No. So who cares if same sex marriages are allowed. I won't miss a bit of sleep over the topic. Not when so many are out of jobs and Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

www.trulotics.com

 

[Pandora]

This issue should never have been up to politicians and courts. Bottom line, if two people are happy together they make those around them happy. I don't really care if people of the same sex want to get married. Do you walk into a restaurant and see a man and a woman sitting together and think "I wonder if they are married". No. So who cares if same sex marriages are allowed. I won't miss a bit of sleep over the topic. Not when so many are out of jobs and Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

www.trulotics.com

prop 8 was decided by voters not courts or politicians

are you against a state wide vote ?

 

[Ejgertz]

No. If this was really that much of an issue then a vote at the state level would be what was needed. I have hard time believeing that this was such a huge issue. Hey, I've been wrong before.

www.trulotics.com

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

prop 8 was decided by voters not courts or politicians

are you against a state wide vote ?

Yes, when it's the rights of other people being voted on. Christians would have voted Mormons out of almost everywhere had they been given the chance. Would you actually support a State-wide vote to take rights aways from blacks or Mexican-Americans?

 

[Pandora]

Yes, when it's the rights of other people being voted on. Christians would have voted Mormons out of almost everywhere had they been given the chance. Would you actually support a State-wide vote to take rights aways from blacks or Mexican-Americans?

of course not, and I am against the special rights many of them get too.

I can not marry my brother or my sister. You want to change the law so I can marry my sister but I still wont be able to marry my brother. Homosexual males can not marry their brother or thier sister, non homosexuals can not marry their brother or their sisters either. they have equal rights.



but that question was directed at the guy running for president, I want to know for sure where he stands

 

[PLC1]

of course not, and I am against the special rights many of them get too.

I can not marry my brother or my sister. You want to change the law so I can marry my sister but I still wont be able to marry my brother. Homosexual males can not marry their brother or thier sister, non homosexuals can not marry their brother or their sisters either. they have equal rights.



but that question was directed at the guy running for president, I want to know for sure where he stands

Someone is running for president already? Who?

 

[Pandora]

Someone is running for president already? Who?

I dont know how serious he is but there is a guy who joined the forum who is running. he has a thread about 2012. So far I disagree with him on abortion.

 

[PLC1]

I dont know how serious he is but there is a guy who joined the forum who is running. he has a thread about 2012. So far I disagree with him on abortion.

Oh. An internet forum as a starting place for a run for the presidency? Well, why not? Maybe I'll run against him.

 

[Pandora]

Oh. An internet forum as a starting place for a run for the presidency? Well, why not? Maybe I'll run against him.

maybe you should,

anything to get my mind off the corrination......

 

[PLC1]

maybe you should,

anything to get my mind off the corrination......

I'm going to watch, so I can get ideas and outdo him when my turn comes. I think I'll have it in Santa Barbara, so that people don't have to freeze to attend. Afterward, they can go to the beach.

Or, maybe Hawaii. I've never been to Hawaii, but it sounds nice.

 

[Pandora]

I'm going to watch, so I can get ideas and outdo him when my turn comes. I think I'll have it in Santa Barbara, so that people don't have to freeze to attend. Afterward, they can go to the beach.

Or, maybe Hawaii. I've never been to Hawaii, but it sounds nice.

You would be going up against the anointed one, Hawaii is his turf, so better stay with Santa Barbara

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

of course not, and I am against the special rights many of them get too.

I can not marry my brother or my sister. You want to change the law so I can marry my sister but I still wont be able to marry my brother. Homosexual males can not marry their brother or thier sister, non homosexuals can not marry their brother or their sisters either. they have equal rights.
but that question was directed at the guy running for president, I want to know for sure where he stands

Incest is a whole other group of laws that have no impact on non-sanguine, consenting adults getting married.

If all the consenting adults get the same privileges, then they can hardly be "special", can they? I know of no rational or legal reason why any non-sanguine pair of adults should not be able to marry if they both consent.

 

[Pandora]

Incest is a whole other group of laws that have no impact on non-sanguine, consenting adults getting married.

If all the consenting adults get the same privileges, then they can hardly be "special", can they? I know of no rational or legal reason why any non-sanguine pair of adults should not be able to marry if they both consent.

who are you to say incest is wrong or bad. Two men cant produce a child and with the rampid abortion rate a brother \ sister has nothing to worry about they could just kill the baby. The two reasons for stoping incest were morality and children, those are no longer factors. we have no more morals as a nation and its not up to you to say whos morals to go by and we kill more kids in abortion than I care to count. so there is no reason to have such a law anymore, or are you ok with discriminating against that group because its not your own group?

I can not legally marry a woman and I am not a homosexual, a homosexual woman can not marry a woman either. we have the same rights. I get nothing more than she does. Special rights would be that I can marry a woman but a homosexual woman can not marry a woman.

but again It was a question for the 2012 guy

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

who are you to say incest is wrong or bad. Two men cant produce a child and with the rampid abortion rate a brother \ sister has nothing to worry about they could just kill the baby. The two reasons for stoping incest were morality and children, those are no longer factors. we have no more morals as a nation and its not up to you to say whos morals to go by and we kill more kids in abortion than I care to count. so there is no reason to have such a law anymore, or are you ok with discriminating against that group because its not your own group?

I can not legally marry a woman and I am not a homosexual, a homosexual woman can not marry a woman either. we have the same rights. I get nothing more than she does. Special rights would be that I can marry a woman but a homosexual woman can not marry a woman.
but again It was a question for the 2012 guy

Incest is prohibited because of genetic problems due to close sanguinity, science has given us a clear picture of the dangers and we recognize those in law. Your comment that morality and children were the reasons for stopping incest is incorrect. Incest is taboo in most cultures because they have discovered the problems caused by it. The taboo is presented in moralistic terms because until recently people did not have the scientific knowledge to explain it. You know this, you are arguing for the sake of it.

Your rehash of the "everybody has the same rights" argument is just old racism in a new shirt. That self-same argument was used to deny interracial and inter-faith marriages. It was wrong then, it's wrong now. Or are you saying that we can once again deny black/white marriages on that basis? Inter-faith marriages too?