Gay marriage ban wins big in Alabama

[imported_gardener]

maybe zen wants to outlaw gays.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: gardener
maybe zen wants to outlaw gays.

I think that is a given for anything unlike him and his little master race.

 

[thoro86]

Just let people do what they want for US sake....

 

[Kirby]

the only gay guy i knew didn't support gay marriage....i would ask him why, but he died recently (car wreck).

if ur not gay and don't live in AL, why worry with it?

 

[feralkid]

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.

There's a significant difference between a man and an ear of corn, so what's your point; you fixing to marry a vegetable?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
the only gay guy i knew didn't support gay marriage....i would ask him why, but he died recently (car wreck).

if ur not gay and don't live in AL, why worry with it?

Because you care about other people? I mean, I know Alabama isn't exactly a state known for alternative behaviors of any sort (although I think being black is still considered "alternative" there), I'm sure there ARE gay people there who would like to get married. And while I don't think a gay marriage ban is something I'll ever have to personally deal with, I don't think there is much hope for our country if we only fight for things that help us personally.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: nkgreen
the only gay guy i knew didn't support gay marriage....i would ask him why, but he died recently (car wreck).

if ur not gay and don't live in AL, why worry with it?

Because you care about other people? I mean, I know Alabama isn't exactly a state known for alternative behaviors of any sort (although I think being black is still considered "alternative" there), I'm sure there ARE gay people there who would like to get married. And while I don't think a gay marriage ban is something I'll ever have to personally deal with, I don't think there is much hope for our country if we only fight for things that help us personally.

those gays are more than welcome to get married somewhere else. and the whole ban thing is stupid anyway, its already against the law in al, its just political bs.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I think it's time not to respond to any more of Zen's troll threads. I ask that anyone with any common sense not respond to Zen for at least a week.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: DonVito
I think it's time not to respond to any more of Zen's troll threads. I ask that anyone with any common sense not respond to Zen for at least a week.

Notice how I stayed out of this one? Waaay ahead of you. 😉

Errmm... Wait, I just posted in this thread. I can't win. 😛

 

[3chordcharlie]

Hey look - gay is the new jew!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: DonVito
I think it's time not to respond to any more of Zen's troll threads. I ask that anyone with any common sense not respond to Zen for at least a week.

Notice how I stayed out of this one? Waaay ahead of you. 😉

Errmm... Wait, I just posted in this thread. I can't win. 😛

You're a better man than I, sir. That said, it's time to stop the madness . . .

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: feralkid

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.

There's a significant difference between a man and an ear of corn, so what's your point; you fixing to marry a vegetable?

You're the one raising the topic of vegetable marriage, not me.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: randym431
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.

You mean like taxing the rich? Then again the Democrats' solution to everything is to tax the rich. Not much creativity.

 

[thraashman]

Why the hell would anyone wanna agree with something the state of Alabama did? I mean seriously have you ever been there? It's possibly the worst place on the planet I could ever imagine being. Though this is not surprising coming from the state that was the epicenter of most anit civil rights violence and KKK activities.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: thraashman
Why the hell would anyone wanna agree with something the state of Alabama did? I mean seriously have you ever been there? It's possibly the worst place on the planet I could ever imagine being. Though this is not surprising coming from the state that was the epicenter of most anit civil rights violence and KKK activities.

CA agreed to the same thing.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 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.

What is your definition of discrimination???

 

[Sunner]

I've always said it would be a good idea for the world to reserve an area somewhere, and make it a country of it's own.
Then we could deport nazi's, racists, fundamentals, and all those other hateful people who refuse to accept people different from themselves there.
Surely they'd find something about each other that they don't like, and eventually they'd all end up killing each other, and the rest of us, black, white, gay, hetro, christian, muslim, etc, could all live happily side by side.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: hardwareguru84

I still haven't heard a legitimate arguement on why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Seems the most common I've heard is "The Bible Says So" or some variation of that. Now, it would seem odd that we're fighting abroad for others freedoms, yet we seek to deny such freedoms to our own citizens.

SSSSHHHHH!!!! Stop thinking! You might get in trouble!!

I love old Al Franken's take on this issue.

He was talking to Newt Gingrich and ask:

"don?t you want gay people to have the same commitment you had with your first wife???"
"don?t you want Gay people to have the same devotion you had with your second wife?"
"don?t you want Gay people to have the same love you might have with your third wife?"

😀
Mr. Gingrich is just interested in protecting the institution of marriage, no matter how many tries it takes.

those gays are more than welcome to get married somewhere else. and the whole ban thing is stupid anyway, its already against the law in al, its just political bs.

Political BS - exactly. Anyone notice how the gay marriage debate has suddenly been fired up again so soon after the Haditha massacre story broke? The Administration twiddles their fingers a bit, and the puppets all dance accordingly.
"Yeah, bad stuff in Iraq. But there's REALLY bad stuff going on here - gays. Gays that want to get married."
*GASP*
They should up the terror alert to red every time a gay couple gets married somewhere. Much much much much greater threat. :roll:

Originally posted by: zendari
You mean like taxing the rich? Then again the Democrats' solution to everything is to tax the rich. Not much creativity.

Money for government's got to come from somewhere. Someone making $100,000 a year can afford to pay $50K in taxes and still live damn comfortably. Someone making $20,000 a year would feel a real hurt just paying $5K in taxes.
Oh wait, it's his own fault for not being born rich, I forgot. Screw him over then.
The other option to reduce the need for taxation is to lower costs, and that's not going to happen. By lower costs I mean to do what a competitive business does - trim the fat. Remove unnecessary positions, streamline common functions, and just make the government more efficient in general.
That'll only happen when someone directly threatens the life of a politician though - and even then, they'd probably be reluctant to do anything that might mildly irritate their voter base or lobbyists.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: randym431
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.

You mean like taxing the rich? Then again the Democrats' solution to everything is to tax the rich. Not much creativity.

Thats funny coming from someone who doesn't work and has had everything given to them.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) ? Voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Alabama on Tuesday, granting what conservative supporters called additional protection for traditional families in a state where homosexual unions already are illegal.

With 86 percent of 3,240 precincts reporting, "yes" votes to approve the measure were leading "no" votes 641,113-146,553, or 81 percent to 19 percent.

Returns showed the amendment passing by wide margins in both rural and urban areas, north and south.

Joseph Rembert Jr. said he didn't go to the polls solely because of the amendment, but he was glad it was on the ballot.

"I'm all man, so I ain't got nothing to do with that," said Rembert, 32, of Montgomery. "I go by what the Bible says ? man and woman."

But Gwen Carmack of Mobile said it's not the business of government to decide who can get married and who can't.

"I just prefer the state not do that. It's an individual choice," said Carmack, 56, a project manager in health care software.


Despite what certain leftwingers think, in the senate or elsewhere, this country has been united in its stance for proper marraige.

Support is certainly overwhelming in many states.

So it was for slavery. So it was for women's rights. So it was for segregation, and Black voting rights, and child labor, and every other civil right that had to be fought for over the years in this country.

The majority is not always right, and it is our moral duty to fight until it is.

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) ? Voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Alabama on Tuesday, granting what conservative supporters called additional protection for traditional families in a state where homosexual unions already are illegal.

With 86 percent of 3,240 precincts reporting, "yes" votes to approve the measure were leading "no" votes 641,113-146,553, or 81 percent to 19 percent.

Returns showed the amendment passing by wide margins in both rural and urban areas, north and south.

Joseph Rembert Jr. said he didn't go to the polls solely because of the amendment, but he was glad it was on the ballot.

"I'm all man, so I ain't got nothing to do with that," said Rembert, 32, of Montgomery. "I go by what the Bible says ? man and woman."

But Gwen Carmack of Mobile said it's not the business of government to decide who can get married and who can't.

"I just prefer the state not do that. It's an individual choice," said Carmack, 56, a project manager in health care software.


Despite what certain leftwingers think, in the senate or elsewhere, this country has been united in its stance for proper marraige.

Support is certainly overwhelming in many states.

So it was for slavery. So it was for women's rights. So it was for segregation, and Black voting rights, and child labor, and every other civil right that had to be fought for over the years in this country.

The majority is not always right, and it is our moral duty to fight until it is.

But how were all those decided?

Those were all decided by the majority - through the legislative process. Its the way these things should be decided.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: randym431
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.

You mean like taxing the rich? Then again the Democrats' solution to everything is to tax the rich. Not much creativity.

Yeah, not as creative as rolling out this gay marriage amendment nonsense in election years :laugh:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: LtPage1

Originally posted by: zendari
Text

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) ? Voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Alabama on Tuesday, granting what conservative supporters called additional protection for traditional families in a state where homosexual unions already are illegal.

With 86 percent of 3,240 precincts reporting, "yes" votes to approve the measure were leading "no" votes 641,113-146,553, or 81 percent to 19 percent.

Returns showed the amendment passing by wide margins in both rural and urban areas, north and south.

Joseph Rembert Jr. said he didn't go to the polls solely because of the amendment, but he was glad it was on the ballot.

"I'm all man, so I ain't got nothing to do with that," said Rembert, 32, of Montgomery. "I go by what the Bible says ? man and woman."

But Gwen Carmack of Mobile said it's not the business of government to decide who can get married and who can't.

"I just prefer the state not do that. It's an individual choice," said Carmack, 56, a project manager in health care software.


Despite what certain leftwingers think, in the senate or elsewhere, this country has been united in its stance for proper marraige.

Support is certainly overwhelming in many states.

So it was for slavery. So it was for women's rights. So it was for segregation, and Black voting rights, and child labor, and every other civil right that had to be fought for over the years in this country.

The majority is not always right, and it is our moral duty to fight until it is.

But how were all those decided?

Those were all decided by the majority - through the legislative process. Its the way these things should be decided.

I think his point was that all of those civil rights issues started out as something the majority was united against. A few people started out supporting the right thing, and eventually the majority of the people joined them. But the important thing to remember is that the majority doesn't decide right and wrong...morality isn't decided by a vote, even in a democracy like we have. The majority who supported slavery, or segregation, or child labor, or didn't support women's rights, or black voting rights, was just as wrong when they were the majority as when their numbers dwindled to a few angry white men in Mississippi.

Obviously deciding legal issues through some sort of absolute morality is tough, so democracy is the next best thing. But make no mistake, it's a flawed system, and the history of every civil rights issue in this country tells us why. The right and wrong side of civil rights issues doesn't change with the views of the majority, just the laws surrounding those issues. There is a BIG difference.

 

[BlancoNino]

The argument supporting gay marriage is the same argument that would support humans marrying animals and inanimate objects. Take your pick.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
The argument supporting gay marriage is the same argument that would support humans marrying animals and inanimate objects. Take your pick.

Animals and inanimate objects are capable of loving and wanting to marry a human?