the fact that a poll even has to be posted is an affront to what the constitution stands for. AMAZING. How can ANYONE give even the SMALLEST bit of merit to this idea? AMEND the CONSTITUTION?? Does ANYONE have ANY idea how significant it is to amend the constitution?? and to do it over a COMPLETE NON ISSUE that the GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NO SAY IN is LUDICROUS.
If you are in favor of the amendment, then you are pretty much in favor of altering the very foundation of the nation over a semantic issue.
I can't decide if that's worse than doing it simply because you are intolerant.
Originally posted by: Fausto1
I thought you weren't implying anything?
Who said I was? The government's ruling on homosexual marriages just made me wonder if there were other consentual marriages that the government doesn't allow. Maybe I am asking why we're so concerned about homosexual marriages, and not incestual, or polygamy. Let's be consistent.
I think the homosexual community and the media have made it very chic to stand up for gay rights. Yet, you aren't granted the same respect if you subscribe to a certain religious faith. I think people are very hypocritical with what they support and what they bash.
The Constitution should never be amended to address an issue which is best addressed by the states themselves. Historically, qualifications for marriage are determined by the state which confers the license.
An amendment who be an absolute travesty to state's rights - and civil liberties in general.
I would allow gay marriage. To create another name for it, like a "civil union," is semantic stupidity. You should be able to marry anyone you like, regardless of sexual orientation - with a few notable exceptions like children and immediate family members, because of the relevant policy considerations.
An amendment who be an absolute travesty to state's rights - and civil liberties in general.
I would allow gay marriage. To create another name for it, like a "civil union," is semantic stupidity. You should be able to marry anyone you like, regardless of sexual orientation - with a few notable exceptions like children and immediate family members, because of the relevant policy considerations.
Wow. That's some impressive parroting. That was almost verbatim Santorum and then Scalia.Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: Fausto1
I thought you weren't implying anything?
Who said I was? The government's ruling on homosexual marriages just made me wonder if there were other consentual marriages that the government doesn't allow. Maybe I am asking why we're so concerned about homosexual marriages, and not incestual, or polygamy. Let's be consistent.
I think the homosexual community and the media have made it very chic to stand up for gay rights. Yet, you aren't granted the same respect if you subscribe to a certain religious faith. I think people are very hypocritical with what they support and what they bash.
I think you have hit the heart of it.
A constitutional amendment is THE last thing that should be contemplated - especially an amendment that would DENY a right to a class of people. Rights should be expanded - not abridged.
I am frightened that many of you can not see why this is such a profoundly bad idea.
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,145
- 10
- 81
you know i always thought Marriage was the Union between 2 people that loved each other andwanted to spend the rest of there lives with each other.
I have more problems with people who feel that being married is only a 2 year deal. i would rather have 2 guys/girls get married and live together for life then a man and women that stay together for a year and get a divorce.
I have more problems with people who feel that being married is only a 2 year deal. i would rather have 2 guys/girls get married and live together for life then a man and women that stay together for a year and get a divorce.
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Wow. That's some impressive parroting. That was almost verbatim Santorum and then Scalia.Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: Fausto1
I thought you weren't implying anything?
Who said I was? The government's ruling on homosexual marriages just made me wonder if there were other consentual marriages that the government doesn't allow. Maybe I am asking why we're so concerned about homosexual marriages, and not incestual, or polygamy. Let's be consistent.
I think the homosexual community and the media have made it very chic to stand up for gay rights. Yet, you aren't granted the same respect if you subscribe to a certain religious faith. I think people are very hypocritical with what they support and what they bash.
Good guess, huh? Because I never read their statements.
Do you come from Planet Ignorance or what?
In any case, I voted against a constitutional amendment. The government has no business telling consenting adults who they can and can't marry.
Originally posted by: usualuse
gigapet--->I don't give a fu*k,but it's a wide social problem.There's this fear,called homophobia,and i don't want to be a victim
Honey, you're ALREADY a victim of homophobia. Your own. You don't "give a fu*k"??? Bullshit. Your stance on the issue was clear from your first post. "So far i'm in the maijority I hate queer***s"
What are you? Twelve years old?
Do a news search. Santorum predicted that overturning sodomy laws would lead to the downfall of western society and we'd all be humping goats in the street by the end of the year. Scalia ranted about "pandering to the gay agenda" in the dissent of the SC ruling.Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: Fausto1
Wow. That's some impressive parroting. That was almost verbatim Santorum and then Scalia.Originally posted by: Rob9874
Originally posted by: Fausto1
I thought you weren't implying anything?
Who said I was? The government's ruling on homosexual marriages just made me wonder if there were other consentual marriages that the government doesn't allow. Maybe I am asking why we're so concerned about homosexual marriages, and not incestual, or polygamy. Let's be consistent.
I think the homosexual community and the media have made it very chic to stand up for gay rights. Yet, you aren't granted the same respect if you subscribe to a certain religious faith. I think people are very hypocritical with what they support and what they bash.
Good guess, huh? Because I never read their statements.
Anyway; gay marriage (not sex....these are separate issues remember), polygamy, and within-family marriages are separate issues and must be considered as such. You can't just lump them together when it's convenient because you're opposed to gay marriage.
As for the "chic" thing; that's just a load of crap. Everyone yells and screams that gays are immoral partially because some of them are very promiscuous and then yell and scream even louder when they want to legally bind themselves in a commited relationship. Make up your mind. And give me a break with the religious thing.....you sound like all the people blathering about how oppressed the white man is today. The only time religious people have the fire hose turned on them is when they do things like mounting extrememly vocal opposition to things that aren't any of their business based on the rules and regs of a God that may or may not exist. You read your bible, I'll marry my boyfriend, everyone lives happily ever after.
How does it affect ME if a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman? It DOESN'T. For that reason, I see no problem with leaving the Constitution the way it is.
Yes, but do you like muff divers?Originally posted by: usualuse
So far i'm in the maijority
I hate queer***s
-- Jack
Yet you have the ability to be an asshole 100% of the time.Originally posted by: usualuse
BigDan---->what's wrong with my first post?
Homophobic i can be but only from time to time
F*ck off troll.
Originally posted by: usualuse
BigDan---->what's wrong with my first post?
Homophobic i can be but only from time to time
Do yourself and this forum a favor by growing up before you post again.
If that doesn't drive the point home, maybe this will.
Originally posted by: usualuse
BigDan---->what's wrong with my first post?
Homophobic i can be but only from time to time
It's not your first post that puzzles me so much as your other one. Don't you feel strange being fearful of people like yourself? You admit to homophobia, and yet you are afraid of others who are homophobic. I find that to be unsettling.
It is simply MIND boggling that 25 PEOPLE have seen fit to vote Change the constitution.
I am simply going to attribute it to youth and inexperience or just plain ignorance of the issue at hand.
talk about using a nuke to kill a fly.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH you hate gays, no matter HOW MUCH you don't want gays to get married, USING THE CONSTITUTION IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.
I have yet to see any support for it at ALL except for idiots voting for it.
THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO MAKE IT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.
I am simply going to attribute it to youth and inexperience or just plain ignorance of the issue at hand.
talk about using a nuke to kill a fly.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH you hate gays, no matter HOW MUCH you don't want gays to get married, USING THE CONSTITUTION IS JUST PLAIN STUPID.
I have yet to see any support for it at ALL except for idiots voting for it.
THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO MAKE IT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.
They don't necessarily need to be called a "marriage," but if they want to form a civil union in a commitment cerimony of some kind, then they should have the exact same rights, benefits, and protections as married hetrosexual couples.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter