bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.
Should we make polygamy legal as well?
NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.
Should we make polygamy legal as well?
NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?
I agree, this is one of the most compelling arguments I've heard as well. I certainly would not support legal polygamy marriages simply based on the clusterfuck it would create with taxes, legal claims on property, etc.... easy solution is just to define marriage between two people.
One argument that always makes me mad is that "I don't think ANYONE should be married... so I'm against gay marriage."
What it means is "I don't need it so you don't either, although I have the right to change my mind, but I don't think you'll ever need to change yours..."
If you think we should do away with marriage.. then try to do that. But telling me to pipe down because YOU don't want to get married is again.. just being mean.
I think what he means when he says that is that marriage is essentially a religious term that was adopted and incorporated into our secular government, and that he'd just as soon create one secular partnership for everyone and leave marriage to the churches. So theoretically, everyone can get a civil union with a partner of their choice, and if you're religious you can get whatever partnering your particular brand of religion chooses.
The difference is that the white person can't CHOOSE to be black and then go to the black school or vice versa. In the case of marriage, they can still choose to marry (even if it goes against their nature. Heck, sometimes marriage goes against my nature, but I still chose it.)
A gay person can't choose to be straight and then get a straight marriage either. But you're saying in the one case, it is perfectly acceptable to force them to go against their nature and in the other it is not. Have you ever heard of passing? It's an old term referring to blacks that were pale enough to pass as white people. So you're saying that for a black person that can pass, it is perfectly equitable to force them to pretend to be white and deny their racial background, because then they have the same right to attend a white school as others do?
I'm not saying any of that. I'm not even remotely saying that.
You are saying exactly that. You are saying gays are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can fake being straight and marry a woman, just like one could say blacks are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can try to pass as white and go to any school they like. They both have the equal opportunity for a sham inclusion, provided they renounce who they are to get it.
You are saying exactly that. You are saying gays are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can fake being straight and marry a woman, just like one could say blacks are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can try to pass as white and go to any school they like. They both have the equal opportunity for a sham inclusion, provided they renounce who they are to get it.
That's right! Blacks could always have the 'option' of trying out the Michael Jackson 'fade to white' experiment for themselves...Promising results in his case...not quite white, though...hmmm, let's see, perhaps it's better described as a ghoulish grey/beige blend but who's gonna split hairs, really? And oh yeaaaah, to all interested black people...be sure to check that certain innovations have been made in the nose alteration department. The MJ treatment still needs a little tweeking last I saw on that front but the motivation to better fit into privileged white/straight society is definitely there. Discrimination of minorities seems deadset on fueling that market well into the 21st century. :P
I came across this video in a friend's blog just now and it is quite fitting:
bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.
Should we make polygamy legal as well?
NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?
I agree, this is one of the most compelling arguments I've heard as well. I certainly would not support legal polygamy marriages simply based on the clusterfuck it would create with taxes, legal claims on property, etc.... easy solution is just to define marriage between two people.
Ahh....but if we define it as between two people then we're denying the same "rights" to people who are polygamists.
(the quotes around rights are because I do not believe that marriage is a right)
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.
Should we make polygamy legal as well?
NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?
and that dodge's the question.
bottomline is - there has not been even ONE compelling reason to deny homosexuals the rights of marriage. not one. asking if we should make polygamy legal has ZERO to do with if we should allow gays to marry. when a mixed race couple wanted the right to marriage...did you ask...should we allow children to marry...should we allow polygamy...sould we allow relatives? exactly. they have NOTHING to do with each other. so then, i say again, i have not seen ONE REASON for legal marriage to be denied homosexuals. you know it too, or you wouldn't doge the question with another question.
bottomline, i have NEVEr seen even ONE compelling reason as to WHY homosexuals should be denied the rights of legal marriage. not. one. there seems to be NO legal rationale behind it, and yet, it still stands as is...and that is simply wrong.
Should we make polygamy legal as well?
NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?
and that dodge's the question.
bottomline is - there has not been even ONE compelling reason to deny homosexuals the rights of marriage. not one. asking if we should make polygamy legal has ZERO to do with if we should allow gays to marry. when a mixed race couple wanted the right to marriage...did you ask...should we allow children to marry...should we allow polygamy...sould we allow relatives? exactly. they have NOTHING to do with each other. so then, i say again, i have not seen ONE REASON for legal marriage to be denied homosexuals. you know it too, or you wouldn't doge the question with another question.
I phrased it as a question, but it makes a point nonetheless. Just because it was a question doesn't mean I'm dodging the question.
I've already stated earlier in the thread that I'm not opposed to it being legal. And like you, I haven't seen a enough reasons. But I haven't seen enough reasons for or against it being legal. I think both sides' arguments are fairly weak.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I phrased it as a question, but it makes a point nonetheless. Just because it was a question doesn't mean I'm dodging the question.
I've already stated earlier in the thread that I'm not opposed to it being legal. And like you, I haven't seen a enough reasons. But I haven't seen enough reasons for or against it being legal. I think both sides' arguments are fairly weak.
I've been making them left and right, but you just keep dodging them by saying "it's different" without providing any cogent argument for why it's different:
"You are saying exactly that. You are saying gays are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can fake being straight and marry a woman, just like one could say blacks are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights under segregation because they can try to pass as white and go to any school they like. They both have the equal opportunity for a sham inclusion, provided they renounce who they are to get it."
So is segregation and exclusion ok, just as long as we leave some absurd justification for how they do have the same option for inclusion that depends upon them renouncing their very self?
NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?
and that dodge's the question.
bottomline is - there has not been even ONE compelling reason to deny homosexuals the rights of marriage. not one. asking if we should make polygamy legal has ZERO to do with if we should allow gays to marry. when a mixed race couple wanted the right to marriage...did you ask...should we allow children to marry...should we allow polygamy...sould we allow relatives? exactly. they have NOTHING to do with each other. so then, i say again, i have not seen ONE REASON for legal marriage to be denied homosexuals. you know it too, or you wouldn't doge the question with another question.
I phrased it as a question, but it makes a point nonetheless. Just because it was a question doesn't mean I'm dodging the question.
I've already stated earlier in the thread that I'm not opposed to it being legal. And like you, I haven't seen a enough reasons. But I haven't seen enough reasons for or against it being legal. I think both sides' arguments are fairly weak.
but you ARe dodging the question when it's asked: give one compelling reason for homosexuals not to be given the right to legal marriage...and you answer with 'should we make polygamy legal?' THAt is NOT an answer. you see? it may make a point, but it does NOT MATTER in the discussion. the discussion, and what is up for debate here, and out in the world is simply....
should homosexuals be allowed to legally marry?
that is...simply....a yes or no question.
either you say yes, or you say no.
as to BOTH sides having weak arguments, i STRONGLY disagree....and i would truly appreciate you giving some examples of what is 'weak' about homosexuals fighting towards the right to marry. while you admit you can think of NO reasons to deny it, you still say you see it, equally, as being weak. and hey, i am one of the first people out there to try and see both sides of an issue, and/or oftentimes accused of not taking a stand - but that is usually on issues that are entirely individual, and thus, up to individuals. when it comes to LAW, while i certainly believe in following what is RIGHT while ALSO following your personal beliefs, i am totally against discrimination, and no matter what one personally believes, one should not support discrimination of others, as that is entirely AGAINST what our country is about.
homosexuals are denied the right of marriage SOLEY on their sexual orientation.
that is a discriminatory practice.
therefore homosexuals should be afforded the rights of marriage.
there is nothing 'weak' about pointing out discrimination.
so while you say you are not opposed to it, you also won;t come out and say you think they should be afforded these rights, so then my only question is.....what is your purpose?
of course, i'd still like to know what is 'weak' about the pro-gay marriage argument.
Sorry.. I've been singing this all day after being told I should leave my husband and enter a sham, fake marriage of convienice so the poor straight boy doesn't have to give away his "better than me" status.
Sorry.. I've been singing this all day after being told I should leave my husband and enter a sham, fake marriage of convienice so the poor straight boy doesn't have to give away his "better than me" status.
that vid is great....you've got a great attitude jasun...i really hope you'll be able to marry one day
Sorry.. I've been singing this all day after being told I should leave my husband and enter a sham, fake marriage of convienice so the poor straight boy doesn't have to give away his "better than me" status.
Hang in there, bro. It's going to be a long fight, but I believe you guys are going to come out on top. If it gets on a ballot in Michigan, I'll think of you and your husband when I vote for gay marriage.
"The dude abides. I don't know about you, but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there. The Dude. Takin' her easy for all us sinners."
Sorry.. I've been singing this all day after being told I should leave my husband and enter a sham, fake marriage of convienice so the poor straight boy doesn't have to give away his "better than me" status.
Hang in there, bro. It's going to be a long fight, but I believe you guys are going to come out on top. If it gets on a ballot in Michigan, I'll think of you and your husband when I vote for gay marriage.
thanks very much. It really does make me feel that there's hope for mankind in America when I see such great support from people who really.. have pretty much nothing to gain by supporting me other than knowing they did the right thing.
Sorry.. I've been singing this all day after being told I should leave my husband and enter a sham, fake marriage of convienice so the poor straight boy doesn't have to give away his "better than me" status.
Hang in there, bro. It's going to be a long fight, but I believe you guys are going to come out on top. If it gets on a ballot in Michigan, I'll think of you and your husband when I vote for gay marriage.
thanks very much. It really does make me feel that there's hope for mankind in America when I see such great support from people who really.. have pretty much nothing to gain by supporting me other than knowing they did the right thing.
It's evolution, baby.
I truly hope to have the chance to vote to repeal our ban in Ohio sometime in the not so distant future. But I have to be honest, I won't be thinking of you and your husband when I do. I'll be thinking of gorgeous blonde women with perfect bodies doing nasty things to each other... I'm only human!
Sorry.. I've been singing this all day after being told I should leave my husband and enter a sham, fake marriage of convienice so the poor straight boy doesn't have to give away his "better than me" status.
Hang in there, bro. It's going to be a long fight, but I believe you guys are going to come out on top. If it gets on a ballot in Michigan, I'll think of you and your husband when I vote for gay marriage.
Word! me too.
~*~Me and Hippiemom dranketh the red wine in Cleveland 2003~*~
First PJ Show: March 20, 1994 | Ann Arbor | Crisler Arena
I truly hope to have the chance to vote to repeal our ban in Ohio sometime in the not so distant future. But I have to be honest, I won't be thinking of you and your husband when I do. I'll be thinking of gorgeous blonde women with perfect bodies doing nasty things to each other... I'm only human!
Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox. Not blonde but yum. Nothing wrong with dreaming is there?
The government should have no say in marriage anyway.
should have no say in practically everything
makes me sick to be a californian....and we're supposed to be the "left coast"....not so much when iowa is more liberal than us
California..............the "I.O.U" State. Not really funny. Being a non- Lib - I still believe in same-sex marriage as well as their right to adopt children............many gay friends whom would provide a very loving home to children - contrary to popular belief - better a "Loving" homelife" versus an "Abusive" one.) I remain pro-life (I am "Agnostic") but I still try my best to respect those whom are "pro-choice) There is room in this world for all of us.
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated - Gandhi
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
I don't know about gay "marriage." Marriage has religious overtones that may be insurmountable. The Bible says that sex with someone of the same gender is an abomination. Of course, it says eating a shrimp is an abomination, too. Practically everyone agrees that eating shrimp and other crustaceans, bivalves, etc., is too yummy to pass up, so we sensibly choose to ignore that part of the Bible (which presumably we shouldn't take seriously 'cause it's just a little out there in left field) and load up at the seafood bar. But, we like the one about keeping same sex people off each other because most of us don't see that as quite as yummy for ourselves as scampi or thermidor. Plus, it gives us a "them," which in turn gifts us with an "us"--and you know, that's always quite a gift you can give yourself--someone to be better than and in turn have more rights than because we're going to heaven, even if we have a mouthful of lobster in our craws at the time we kick off.
Here's what I think should be done about the "marriage" thing...everyone should have civil unions. Those who wish to layer something over the top of the civil union to make it right for themselves, should do so. This should include gay couples who want some church's approval, when they can get it. But the legal union should be the civil union. The religious union should be between a couple and their god. That way, religions that do not want to join gay people don't have to and everyone can be "married" who want to be in the American Way--serial monogamy, well a kind of monogamy, that also includes a lot of philandering and a better than 50% divorce rate. But, it's the right thing and a desirable and good thing because we do it. Like the shrimp bit. Leviticus 11:9-12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
I don't know about gay "marriage." Marriage has religious overtones that may be insurmountable. The Bible says that sex with someone of the same gender is an abomination. Of course, it says eating a shrimp is an abomination, too. Practically everyone agrees that eating shrimp and other crustaceans, bivalves, etc., is too yummy to pass up, so we sensibly choose to ignore that part of the Bible (which presumably we shouldn't take seriously 'cause it's just a little out there in left field) and load up at the seafood bar. But, we like the one about keeping same sex people off each other because most of us don't see that as quite as yummy for ourselves as scampi or thermidor. Plus, it gives us a "them," which in turn gifts us with an "us"--and you know, that's always quite a gift you can give yourself--someone to be better than and in turn have more rights than because we're going to heaven, even if we have a mouthful of lobster in our craws at the time we kick off.
Here's what I think should be done about the "marriage" thing...everyone should have civil unions. Those who wish to layer something over the top of the civil union to make it right for themselves, should do so. This should include gay couples who want some church's approval, when they can get it. But the legal union should be the civil union. The religious union should be between a couple and their god. That way, religions that do not want to join gay people don't have to and everyone can be "married" who want to be in the American Way--serial monogamy, well a kind of monogamy, that also includes a lot of philandering and a better than 50% divorce rate. But, it's the right thing and a desirable and good thing because we do it. Like the shrimp bit. Leviticus 11:9-12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
I see and actually do understand your point of view (While MOST on here won't). I am kind of on the "weird" side - as I am anti-Leftist (also anti-Rightist), I'm not a "Bible-Thumper," I personally don't care for organized (Christian) religeon - because they tend to be "Extremely" judgmental (some will say I am, too)- but "Christian's" are always first in line at the Liquor store - when church ends. Very Double Standard - at least some. What is the difference between "Civil Unions" and "Marriage." It's when people want to start marrying animals and stuff that I absolutley must oppose. There are so many wonderul "gay" people/ couples, You probably know some - perhaps you just don't know. And my opinion means nothing anyway.
The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated - Gandhi
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
congrats north carolina...good to see you're keeping up the ignorant southern stereotype...what's next? white only areas? :roll:
Bummer. Unfortunately it's not just the south- "liberal" Oregon and California basically did the same thing.
i know it's just really disheartening that this is happening at all...i guess there is still a large portion of society that will continue to wallow in their ignorance and hate...sad, really
but I have a question.. I have no answer for this question and maybe someone can provide me with some insight into how they feel...
How do we rectify perceived wrongs made by a democratic vote?
Is it "un-democratic" for the supreme court to declare a law unconstitutional that was passed by popular vote?
I'm gone ..Long gone..This time I'm letting go of it all...So long...Cause this time I'm gone
Comments
Should we make polygamy legal as well?
NOTE: I'M NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO POLYGAMY, BUT RATHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T DENY THOSE ADULTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY EITHER, RIGHT?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I agree, this is one of the most compelling arguments I've heard as well. I certainly would not support legal polygamy marriages simply based on the clusterfuck it would create with taxes, legal claims on property, etc.... easy solution is just to define marriage between two people.
I think what he means when he says that is that marriage is essentially a religious term that was adopted and incorporated into our secular government, and that he'd just as soon create one secular partnership for everyone and leave marriage to the churches. So theoretically, everyone can get a civil union with a partner of their choice, and if you're religious you can get whatever partnering your particular brand of religion chooses.
You are saying exactly that. You are saying gays are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can fake being straight and marry a woman, just like one could say blacks are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can try to pass as white and go to any school they like. They both have the equal opportunity for a sham inclusion, provided they renounce who they are to get it.
That's right! Blacks could always have the 'option' of trying out the Michael Jackson 'fade to white' experiment for themselves...Promising results in his case...not quite white, though...hmmm, let's see, perhaps it's better described as a ghoulish grey/beige blend but who's gonna split hairs, really? And oh yeaaaah, to all interested black people...be sure to check that certain innovations have been made in the nose alteration department. The MJ treatment still needs a little tweeking last I saw on that front but the motivation to better fit into privileged white/straight society is definitely there. Discrimination of minorities seems deadset on fueling that market well into the 21st century.
I came across this video in a friend's blog just now and it is quite fitting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNiqfRyoAyA
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Ahh....but if we define it as between two people then we're denying the same "rights" to people who are polygamists.
(the quotes around rights are because I do not believe that marriage is a right)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
and that dodge's the question.
bottomline is - there has not been even ONE compelling reason to deny homosexuals the rights of marriage. not one. asking if we should make polygamy legal has ZERO to do with if we should allow gays to marry. when a mixed race couple wanted the right to marriage...did you ask...should we allow children to marry...should we allow polygamy...sould we allow relatives? exactly. they have NOTHING to do with each other. so then, i say again, i have not seen ONE REASON for legal marriage to be denied homosexuals. you know it too, or you wouldn't doge the question with another question.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
I phrased it as a question, but it makes a point nonetheless. Just because it was a question doesn't mean I'm dodging the question.
I've already stated earlier in the thread that I'm not opposed to it being legal. And like you, I haven't seen a enough reasons. But I haven't seen enough reasons for or against it being legal. I think both sides' arguments are fairly weak.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I've been making them left and right, but you just keep dodging them by saying "it's different" without providing any cogent argument for why it's different:
"You are saying exactly that. You are saying gays are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights because they can fake being straight and marry a woman, just like one could say blacks are not being discriminated against or denied equal rights under segregation because they can try to pass as white and go to any school they like. They both have the equal opportunity for a sham inclusion, provided they renounce who they are to get it."
So is segregation and exclusion ok, just as long as we leave some absurd justification for how they do have the same option for inclusion that depends upon them renouncing their very self?
I suppose so. but from a legal perspective it can be made illegal maybe? I'm no lawyer.
but you ARe dodging the question when it's asked: give one compelling reason for homosexuals not to be given the right to legal marriage...and you answer with 'should we make polygamy legal?' THAt is NOT an answer. you see? it may make a point, but it does NOT MATTER in the discussion. the discussion, and what is up for debate here, and out in the world is simply....
should homosexuals be allowed to legally marry?
that is...simply....a yes or no question.
either you say yes, or you say no.
as to BOTH sides having weak arguments, i STRONGLY disagree....and i would truly appreciate you giving some examples of what is 'weak' about homosexuals fighting towards the right to marry. while you admit you can think of NO reasons to deny it, you still say you see it, equally, as being weak. and hey, i am one of the first people out there to try and see both sides of an issue, and/or oftentimes accused of not taking a stand - but that is usually on issues that are entirely individual, and thus, up to individuals. when it comes to LAW, while i certainly believe in following what is RIGHT while ALSO following your personal beliefs, i am totally against discrimination, and no matter what one personally believes, one should not support discrimination of others, as that is entirely AGAINST what our country is about.
homosexuals are denied the right of marriage SOLEY on their sexual orientation.
that is a discriminatory practice.
therefore homosexuals should be afforded the rights of marriage.
there is nothing 'weak' about pointing out discrimination.
so while you say you are not opposed to it, you also won;t come out and say you think they should be afforded these rights, so then my only question is.....what is your purpose?
of course, i'd still like to know what is 'weak' about the pro-gay marriage argument.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Go here-
http://act.credoaction.com/stickers/?r_by=-2044415-urUS_Sx&rc=taf.stickers
to order one of these, FREE!
First PJ Show: March 20, 1994 | Ann Arbor | Crisler Arena
thanks man... I do too. And don't worry.. I will. you can slow us down but you don't stop us. We know we're in the right.
most definitely in the right!
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/821457 ... ud-parents
Hang in there, bro. It's going to be a long fight, but I believe you guys are going to come out on top. If it gets on a ballot in Michigan, I'll think of you and your husband when I vote for gay marriage.
thanks very much. It really does make me feel that there's hope for mankind in America when I see such great support from people who really.. have pretty much nothing to gain by supporting me other than knowing they did the right thing.
It's evolution, baby.
I truly hope to have the chance to vote to repeal our ban in Ohio sometime in the not so distant future. But I have to be honest, I won't be thinking of you and your husband when I do. I'll be thinking of gorgeous blonde women with perfect bodies doing nasty things to each other... I'm only human!
Word! me too.
First PJ Show: March 20, 1994 | Ann Arbor | Crisler Arena
Angelina Jolie and Megan Fox. Not blonde but yum. Nothing wrong with dreaming is there?
It's cool. I also occasionally think of Wentworth Miller and TR Knight and who would carry whom across the threshold.
California..............the "I.O.U" State. Not really funny. Being a non- Lib - I still believe in same-sex marriage as well as their right to adopt children............many gay friends whom would provide a very loving home to children - contrary to popular belief - better a "Loving" homelife" versus an "Abusive" one.) I remain pro-life (I am "Agnostic") but I still try my best to respect those whom are "pro-choice) There is room in this world for all of us.
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
Here's what I think should be done about the "marriage" thing...everyone should have civil unions. Those who wish to layer something over the top of the civil union to make it right for themselves, should do so. This should include gay couples who want some church's approval, when they can get it. But the legal union should be the civil union. The religious union should be between a couple and their god. That way, religions that do not want to join gay people don't have to and everyone can be "married" who want to be in the American Way--serial monogamy, well a kind of monogamy, that also includes a lot of philandering and a better than 50% divorce rate. But, it's the right thing and a desirable and good thing because we do it. Like the shrimp bit. Leviticus 11:9-12 "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
I see and actually do understand your point of view (While MOST on here won't). I am kind of on the "weird" side - as I am anti-Leftist (also anti-Rightist), I'm not a "Bible-Thumper," I personally don't care for organized (Christian) religeon - because they tend to be "Extremely" judgmental (some will say I am, too)- but "Christian's" are always first in line at the Liquor store - when church ends. Very Double Standard - at least some. What is the difference between "Civil Unions" and "Marriage." It's when people want to start marrying animals and stuff that I absolutley must oppose. There are so many wonderul "gay" people/ couples, You probably know some - perhaps you just don't know. And my opinion means nothing anyway.
"Empty pockets will Allow a greater Sense of wealth...." EV/ITW
Bummer. Unfortunately it's not just the south- "liberal" Oregon and California basically did the same thing.
i know it's just really disheartening that this is happening at all...i guess there is still a large portion of society that will continue to wallow in their ignorance and hate...sad, really
but I have a question.. I have no answer for this question and maybe someone can provide me with some insight into how they feel...
How do we rectify perceived wrongs made by a democratic vote?
Is it "un-democratic" for the supreme court to declare a law unconstitutional that was passed by popular vote?