Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Gay marriage


detlef
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seriously?

 

The USA is nearly bankrupt and on the brink of survival. And you have time to contemplate this?

 

Just vote NO, only because administering this will cost you more money.

 

and we all know that basic human rights isn't worth the investment. just look at Iraq and Afganistan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously?

 

The USA is nearly bankrupt and on the brink of survival. And you have time to contemplate this?

 

Just vote NO, only because administering this will cost you more money.

Exactly, with all the crap going on, why are these a-holes trying to waste everyone's time by trying to pass this amendment?

 

And if you don't think gay marriages would be outstanding for the economy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the State wants to be involved in the business of recognizing marriage at all, then it should also recognize same-sex marriage IMO. When it comes from the State it is not a moral issue it is a contractual issue. Churches are where we should debate the morality of homosexual vs. heterosexual marriages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the State wants to be involved in the business of recognizing marriage at all, then it should also recognize same-sex marriage IMO. When it comes from the State it is not a moral issue it is a contractual issue. Churches are where we should debate the morality of homosexual vs. heterosexual marriages.

You make far too much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isn't one.

Agreed.

 

 

 

If the State wants to be involved in the business of recognizing marriage at all, then it should also recognize same-sex marriage IMO. When it comes from the State it is not a moral issue it is a contractual issue. Churches are where we should debate the morality of homosexual vs. heterosexual marriages.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd simply like to have my marriage recognized. After spending $9500 in attorney fees fighting immigration , I still don't have the blessing of this fine country to permit my wife to stay here.

 

She came here 16 months ago , married for 9 months now and they are threatening to deport her , lol.

 

If a man can marry a man, then i should be allowed to marry a Russian, no ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the State wants to be involved in the business of recognizing marriage at all, then it should also recognize same-sex marriage IMO. When it comes from the State it is not a moral issue it is a contractual issue. Churches are where we should debate the morality of homosexual vs. heterosexual marriages.

Completely agree and churches should be free to conduct gay marriages or not, according to their own judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd simply like to have my marriage recognized. After spending $9500 in attorney fees fighting immigration , I still don't have the blessing of this fine country to permit my wife to stay here.

 

She came here 16 months ago , married for 9 months now and they are threatening to deport her , lol.

 

If a man can marry a man, then i should be allowed to marry a Russian, no ?

Pocs would help us answer that question :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

except that the initiatives are voted down

 

 

If in one fell swoop the country as a whole went one way or the exact opposite, status quo or new direction, this debate will still rage as a political issue for another decade or two before it dies down. Neither side will let the other be. Past legislative efforts do not matter to either side. Neither side is ready for a last word on this issue. Sad really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If in one fell swoop the country as a whole went one way or the exact opposite, status quo or new direction, this debate will still rage as a political issue for another decade or two before it dies down. Neither side will let the other be. Past legislative efforts do not matter to either side. Neither side is ready for a last word on this issue. Sad really.

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If in one fell swoop the country as a whole went one way or the exact opposite, status quo or new direction, this debate will still rage as a political issue for another decade or two before it dies down. Neither side will let the other be. Past legislative efforts do not matter to either side. Neither side is ready for a last word on this issue. Sad really.

 

 

i agree.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If in one fell swoop the country as a whole went one way or the exact opposite, status quo or new direction, this debate will still rage as a political issue for another decade or two before it dies down. Neither side will let the other be. Past legislative efforts do not matter to either side. Neither side is ready for a last word on this issue. Sad really.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. But "not let the other side be" or "ready for a last word" sort of sounds like a trivialization of one sides rather legitimate quest for equality. I would imagine that any of us, if faced with a constant attack on our rights, would also "not let the other side be".

 

I can't say for sure, but I'd like to think that, were gays granted equal rights, they'd "let the other side be". I can certainly say this, if the solution was as Savage Beatings suggests and the states just got out of the marriage game and simply recognized legal unions between consenting adults and let churches define marriage as they liked (which is exactly how I feel it should be handled), I would not be an ally to any gay person who tried to fight any church to recognize their marriage.

 

It also happens that every gay person I've spoken to would be more than happy to let churches define marriage as they pleased and would simply not choose to join that church.

 

It would be a logical solution, but unfortunately, likely not good enough for a side that seems hell bent on defining a sector of our society as wrong and beneath the rest of us. But that's not two sides refusing to let the other be. That's one side hell-bent on attacking the other and the other refusing to lie down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the State wants to be involved in the business of recognizing marriage at all, then it should also recognize same-sex marriage IMO. When it comes from the State it is not a moral issue it is a contractual issue. Churches are where we should debate the morality of homosexual vs. heterosexual marriages.

 

 

 

I agree with the right-wing religious lunatic (in this case, at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information