• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Would you support an amendment to ban gay marriages?

I think this covers the issue very well already:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
 
No... the gov. has no right to tell people how to live their lives or who they can marry....
Click to expand...

So would you support polygamy as well? The issue goes beyond the religious realms, though many people only see that side.
 
Originally posted by: Thraxen
No... the gov. has no right to tell people how to live their lives or who they can marry....
Click to expand...

So would you support polygamy as well? The issue goes beyond the religious realms, though many people only see that side.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go far as to say I support polygamy, but if all parties involved are OK with it, then it's up to them who they live with/have sex with/have kids with/whatever. It's not my place to tell them how to lives their own lives unless they're affecting other people.
 
Originally posted by: Thraxen
No... the gov. has no right to tell people how to live their lives or who they can marry....
Click to expand...

So would you support polygamy as well? The issue goes beyond the religious realms, though many people only see that side.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with polygamy if they all agree to it? The only thing I can see wrong with it is that people can abuse it to get economical benefits to people they know. If we restrict those benefits to the first wife, then I see no problem in it.
 
Originally posted by: notfred
I think this covers the issue very well already:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Actually it doesnt, because other parts of the constitution gives the federal govt the power to regulate interstate commerce, and with past Supreme Court rulings, thats a wide spectrum, which would include gay marriage. Then you also have the part about citizens of one state, are entitled to privleges and immunities of several states...
 
Originally posted by: notfred
I think this covers the issue very well already:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Obviously, you haven't heard of a little something called the supremecy clause, which all but negates that amendment.
 
Originally posted by: notfred
I think this covers the issue very well already:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I agree. No need to amend discrimination onto the Constitution, let it stay on a state-by-state basis.
 
As long as people aren't protesting to allow them to marry there dogs/cats, gay marriages are OK (as long as they keep there distance😀).
 
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: notfred
I think this covers the issue very well already:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I agree. No need to amend discrimination onto the Constitution, let it stay on a state-by-state basis.
Click to expand...

1. Thats not what gays want.
2. It would end up being ruled unconstitutional for various reasons.

At this point its ALL or NOT AT ALL. The only way to prevent gay marriage is a constitutional amendment, which will ultimately fail.

 
I wouldn't go far as to say I support polygamy, but if all parties involved are OK with it, then it's up to them who they live with/have sex with/have kids with/whatever. It's not my place to tell them how to lives their own lives unless they're affecting other people.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it from that aspect, but I'm talking about from a legal standpoint. We already have the institution of marriage as is. The same-sex marriage issue possibly opens doors for other things like polygamy. So I'm curious how far people are willing to expand the institution of marriage. IMO, I just say leave it as is... but I have no problems with gay couples living together.
 
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
And what's a valid argument to banning Gay marriages?
Click to expand...

My thinking exactly. To preserve the definition of marriage to be only between a man and a woman? B.S. Can can the US claim to support democracy and free speech when they use law to say who can marry and who can't?

I'm glad I'm Canadian.
rolleye.gif
 
Originally posted by: Nitemare
I'd support an amendment that banned morons for running for office
Click to expand...

amen. but back on topic, i dont agree with the gay thing, i dont want other guys hitting on me, but, i have no problem letting them do their thing and getting the same benefits a straight married couple gets. stupid republicans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top