Gay marriage ban wins big in Alabama

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Can any one name a state that NOT support a one man one marriage inititive, law, admendment? Even CA approved one.

I've never heard of a "one man one marriage" initiative law, but it would sure help reduce the divorce rate.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Its disgusting that people care so much about what other unrelated people do in their private lives.

And despite their Jesusmongering, they've done nothing to prevent gay people from existing or having relationships.

That's not the objective. Everyone is tolerant of gays, but we will not endorse their behavior..

That's just the thing. Why do you care about their behavior? Why is it any of your business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: sonoma1993
why can't people mind there own business? If a gay/lesbian people want to get married. It's fine by me because it none of my business what they do in there own personal life. it's there choice what they want todo not mine.

I couldn't tell you. But for some reason, our country is FILLED with nanny-staters who think it's the government's job to enforce their particular views on moral issues...especially when it comes to sex.

Nobody is enforcing anything. Gays are free to be gay on their own accord.

A parent who says no to his kid going to chuckycheeses isn't enforcing his antipizza views on his kid.

An interesting analogy. The common wisdom is that conservatives thing the government is supposed to be their daddy...

In any case, the government is enforcing your view of marriage on everyone by only declaring marriage to be something hetero couples do.

Marraige is not a moral issue. It is a contract granted by our society.

No it isn't. It is a contract that is entered into between two consenting non-related adults that is sanctioned and recognized by the states. Society has nothing to do with it and neither does society's views.

That is what makes this blatant discrimination. The government, under the equal protection clause, cannot disallow people to enter into a legal arrangement based solely on sexual preference.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Its disgusting that people care so much about what other unrelated people do in their private lives.

And despite their Jesusmongering, they've done nothing to prevent gay people from existing or having relationships.

That's not the objective. Everyone is tolerant of gays, but we will not endorse their behavior..

That's just the thing. Why do you care about their behavior? Why is it any of your business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives?

I dont; when they come to get a marraige license they make it society's business.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
No it isn't. It is a contract that is entered into between two consenting non-related adults that is sanctioned and recognized by the states. Society has nothing to do with it and neither does society's views.

That is what makes this blatant discrimination. The government, under the equal protection clause, cannot disallow people to enter into a legal arrangement based solely on sexual preference.

And the state can thus choose to saction and recognize certain contracts, but not others. There are plenty of contracts that 2 consenting adults have entered that are not recognized.

You yourself just named 1 qualification: nonrelated. gender difference is another.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
No it isn't. It is a contract that is entered into between two consenting non-related adults that is sanctioned and recognized by the states. Society has nothing to do with it and neither does society's views.

That is what makes this blatant discrimination. The government, under the equal protection clause, cannot disallow people to enter into a legal arrangement based solely on sexual preference.

And the state can thus choose to saction and recognize certain contracts, but not others. There are plenty of contracts that 2 consenting adults have entered that are not recognized.

The state cannot saction based on sexual preference. What part of discrimination do you not understand?

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Can any one name a state that NOT support a one man one marriage inititive, law, admendment? Even CA approved one.

I've never heard of a "one man one marriage" initiative law, but it would sure help reduce the divorce rate.

oops, typo.

One man, one woman marriage.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
No it isn't. It is a contract that is entered into between two consenting non-related adults that is sanctioned and recognized by the states. Society has nothing to do with it and neither does society's views.

That is what makes this blatant discrimination. The government, under the equal protection clause, cannot disallow people to enter into a legal arrangement based solely on sexual preference.

And the state can thus choose to saction and recognize certain contracts, but not others. There are plenty of contracts that 2 consenting adults have entered that are not recognized.

The state cannot saction based on sexual preference. What part of discrimination do you not understand?

It can and it has. There is no discrimination.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Its disgusting that people care so much about what other unrelated people do in their private lives.

And despite their Jesusmongering, they've done nothing to prevent gay people from existing or having relationships.

That's not the objective. Everyone is tolerant of gays, but we will not endorse their behavior..

That's just the thing. Why do you care about their behavior? Why is it any of your business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives?

I dont; when they come to get a marraige license they make it society's business.

Really, how so? Does the government or society, in general, get to come inspect how my wife and I live our lives? Do they get to know what kind of birth control, if any, we use? Do they get to collect data on our preferred sexual positions? Obviously not.

I fail to see how marriage is any of society's business. Its a contract between the people involved in the marriage.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Its disgusting that people care so much about what other unrelated people do in their private lives.

And despite their Jesusmongering, they've done nothing to prevent gay people from existing or having relationships.

That's not the objective. Everyone is tolerant of gays, but we will not endorse their behavior..

That's just the thing. Why do you care about their behavior? Why is it any of your business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives?

I dont; when they come to get a marraige license they make it society's business.

Really, how so? Does the government or society, in general, get to come inspect how my wife and I live our lives? Do they get to know what kind of birth control, if any, we use? Do they get to collect data on our preferred sexual positions? Obviously not.

I fail to see how marriage is any of society's business. Its a contract between the people involved in the marriage.

It is society's business as it is society which makes a marraige legitemate.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: zendari


Marraige is not a moral issue. It is a contract granted by our society.

And as such, sexual orientation should not limit it.

Fight harder, flatlander.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Its disgusting that people care so much about what other unrelated people do in their private lives.

And despite their Jesusmongering, they've done nothing to prevent gay people from existing or having relationships.

That's not the objective. Everyone is tolerant of gays, but we will not endorse their behavior..

Their "behavior" is the same "behavior" that most normal couples are planning on engaging (no pun intended) in at some point. How awful of them.

Maybe in prison. Their way of punishing themselves i guess.

How would they go to prison?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: zendari


Marraige is not a moral issue. It is a contract granted by our society.

And as such, sexual orientation should not limit it.

Fight harder, flatlander.

No, it most certainly should.

 

[imported_gardener]

Why?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Its disgusting that people care so much about what other unrelated people do in their private lives.

And despite their Jesusmongering, they've done nothing to prevent gay people from existing or having relationships.

That's not the objective. Everyone is tolerant of gays, but we will not endorse their behavior..

That's just the thing. Why do you care about their behavior? Why is it any of your business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives?

I dont; when they come to get a marraige license they make it society's business.

Really, how so? Does the government or society, in general, get to come inspect how my wife and I live our lives? Do they get to know what kind of birth control, if any, we use? Do they get to collect data on our preferred sexual positions? Obviously not.

I fail to see how marriage is any of society's business. Its a contract between the people involved in the marriage.

It is society's business as it is society which makes a marraige legitemate.

Actually, marriage is defined by a collection of laws. The proper application of the laws is what makes a marriage legitimate. No societal approval is necessary to get married, just the adherence to the law.

Your religion or belief system might make it more than that, but that's the business of you and your partner. Not mine nor anyone elses.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
No it isn't. It is a contract that is entered into between two consenting non-related adults that is sanctioned and recognized by the states. Society has nothing to do with it and neither does society's views.

That is what makes this blatant discrimination. The government, under the equal protection clause, cannot disallow people to enter into a legal arrangement based solely on sexual preference.

And the state can thus choose to saction and recognize certain contracts, but not others. There are plenty of contracts that 2 consenting adults have entered that are not recognized.

You yourself just named 1 qualification: nonrelated. gender difference is another.

So is it ok to limit marriages based on RACE (no marrying between races)? I think most of us agree that it wouldn't be...so clearly some limits are unacceptable, the state's right to sanction and recognize contracts aside. You're trying to hide behind the issue...just because there are some limits does not make ALL limits acceptable.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
It is society's business as it is society which makes a marraige legitemate.

Actually, marriage is defined by a collection of laws. The proper application of the laws is what makes a marriage legitimate. No societal approval is necessary to get married, just the adherence to the law.

Your religion or belief system might make it more than that, but that's the business of you and your partner. Not mine nor anyone elses.

And gay relationships are not adhering to that collection of laws, thus is it not legitemate.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
It is society's business as it is society which makes a marraige legitemate.

Actually, marriage is defined by a collection of laws. The proper application of the laws is what makes a marriage legitimate. No societal approval is necessary to get married, just the adherence to the law.

Your religion or belief system might make it more than that, but that's the business of you and your partner. Not mine nor anyone elses.

And gay relationships are not adhering to that collection of laws, thus is it not legitemate.

So your argument is that it's bad because it's illegal? I suspect you have it backwards...

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: gardener

Originally posted by: zendari


Marraige is not a moral issue. It is a contract granted by our society.

And as such, sexual orientation should not limit it.

Fight harder, flatlander.

We limit age
we limit relationship
we limit the number
we limit the gender

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
No it isn't. It is a contract that is entered into between two consenting non-related adults that is sanctioned and recognized by the states. Society has nothing to do with it and neither does society's views.

That is what makes this blatant discrimination. The government, under the equal protection clause, cannot disallow people to enter into a legal arrangement based solely on sexual preference.

And the state can thus choose to saction and recognize certain contracts, but not others. There are plenty of contracts that 2 consenting adults have entered that are not recognized.

You yourself just named 1 qualification: nonrelated. gender difference is another.

So is it ok to limit marriages based on RACE (no marrying between races)? I think most of us agree that it wouldn't be...so clearly some limits are unacceptable, the state's right to sanction and recognize contracts aside. You're trying to hide behind the issue...just because there are some limits does not make ALL limits acceptable.

Nobody is discussing limiting marraiges to race. If there are unacceptable limits, clearly, this is not one of them.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
No it isn't. It is a contract that is entered into between two consenting non-related adults that is sanctioned and recognized by the states. Society has nothing to do with it and neither does society's views.

That is what makes this blatant discrimination. The government, under the equal protection clause, cannot disallow people to enter into a legal arrangement based solely on sexual preference.

And the state can thus choose to saction and recognize certain contracts, but not others. There are plenty of contracts that 2 consenting adults have entered that are not recognized.

You yourself just named 1 qualification: nonrelated. gender difference is another.

So is it ok to limit marriages based on RACE (no marrying between races)? I think most of us agree that it wouldn't be...so clearly some limits are unacceptable, the state's right to sanction and recognize contracts aside. You're trying to hide behind the issue...just because there are some limits does not make ALL limits acceptable.

Is there a significant differnce between a black man and a white man? no

is there a significant difference between a woman and a man?

yes - at every level: biology, appearnce, pyschology, societal there are differnce between men and women. And our society allows laws to be pasted on those differences - selective service being a prime example.

we can say that marriage requires one of each gender, just like we say one can only be married to one person.

 

[randym431]

Marriage has NEVER been some kind of "moral" law/issue. It was devised to address "property" in a marriage. The so called "right" are the ones that have twisted its meaning, as usual.

I feel NO group of people should be able to join together and pass laws against another group they disagree with. Who gave voters the legal right to make/pass laws of this nature? Like if half of my neighbors got together and passed a neighborhood law
"no red haired people allowed".

This banning together and making up laws governing others should in itself be illegal.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
No it isn't. It is a contract that is entered into between two consenting non-related adults that is sanctioned and recognized by the states. Society has nothing to do with it and neither does society's views.

That is what makes this blatant discrimination. The government, under the equal protection clause, cannot disallow people to enter into a legal arrangement based solely on sexual preference.

And the state can thus choose to saction and recognize certain contracts, but not others. There are plenty of contracts that 2 consenting adults have entered that are not recognized.

You yourself just named 1 qualification: nonrelated. gender difference is another.

So is it ok to limit marriages based on RACE (no marrying between races)? I think most of us agree that it wouldn't be...so clearly some limits are unacceptable, the state's right to sanction and recognize contracts aside. You're trying to hide behind the issue...just because there are some limits does not make ALL limits acceptable.

Is there a significant differnce between a black man and a white man? no

is there a significant difference between a woman and a man?

yes - at every level: biology, appearnce, pyschology, societal there are differnce between men and women. And our society allows laws to be pasted on those differences - selective service being a prime example.

we can say that marriage requires one of each gender, just like we say one can only be married to one person.

I'm not really interested in arguing what kind of limits are acceptable, I was just making the point that EVERYONE draws a line somewhere. Even someone like me who supports gay marriage thinks that marriage needs to be between consenting adults. And even someone like you, who opposes gay marriage, thinks that limiting marriage by race is wrong.

Zendari's argument seems to be that since limits exist, ANY proposed limit is automatically acceptable. That's all I was talking about...I'm tired of arguing the other issue with you people. You're wrong...you're ignorant...and you're going to lose in the long run. For the moment, I'm happy with that.

Edit: Removed insult, just because you guys are being jackasses is no reason for me to join in.

 

[imported_gardener]

you redhaired randys are a dangerous group.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: zendari
It is society's business as it is society which makes a marraige legitemate.

Actually, marriage is defined by a collection of laws. The proper application of the laws is what makes a marriage legitimate. No societal approval is necessary to get married, just the adherence to the law.

Your religion or belief system might make it more than that, but that's the business of you and your partner. Not mine nor anyone elses.

And gay relationships are not adhering to that collection of laws, thus is it not legitemate.

True, but what's wrong with making it legitimate? You haven't said anything to convince me why that government and society should deny these people marriage.