Poll: Should Same-Sex Marriages be Legalized Nationally?

Page 4 of 79 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1181

Thread: For or Against Gay Marriage

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    northern Ky.
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell
    Then you should take that up with the appropriate authorities, not with me. I don't control the legal hauling weight rules.
    I was trying to show how that looks when held up to that first sentence of section 2 that you quoted. If that's constitutional, then one states almost complete disregard for another state's gay marriage laws will also be constitutional.


    You mean the same way interracial marraiges fought their way across the country? So you DO admit it will happen. heheheh
    Oh yes, I'd say it will happen - our society is deteriorating. The longer it takes the better, hopefully I'll be outa here and in a better place when it does.





    Majority oppression is also responsbile for the blood of millions. Majority oppression is responsible for denying minorities rights in the past. Majority oppression is responsible for years of slavery. Majority oppression is responsible (party in theory) for the civil war. Majority oppression is responsible for illegal internment of millions of Japanese. Majority oppression is not a viable, nor a just reason for denying rights, unless you wish to repeat the atroicites of the past and be bathed in the blood of innocents.
    I agree for the most part. But who determines what are rights? If they're not clearly listed in the constitution, let our system work.
    Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

  2. #47
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Waxy

    I'm bookmarking this thread.

    Waxy
    You'd better. You won't see me singing Slick's praise very often.

  3. #48
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by marc9000
    .....
    I agree for the most part. But who determines what are rights? If they're not clearly listed in the constitution, let our system work.
    Who determines what are rights? Why unelected, unaccountable liberal judges, that's who. It seems like our society is heading into the pits as a result, too.

    I Agree we should let the system work.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    But can a 16 year old licensed driver in Michigan move to NY and get his NY license at 16?
    Why would he need to get a NY license? Can you even have two licenses from two different states legal at the same time? If he voided his Michigan license, it is no longer a public act, and therefore the full faith and credit no longer applies should he apply for a license in NY.

    It does require a state license to operate a brothel.
    I don't the answers to everything. Perhaps someone else will take this up. I conced the point simply because I don't fully understand the legal circumstances regarding prositution.

    Why unelected, unaccountable liberal judges, that's who. It seems like our society is heading into the pits as a result, too.
    Are you forgetting that the governer of massacuhets (?) is a republican who openly supports gay marriage?

    marc9000
    If that's constitutional, then one states almost complete disregard for another state's gay marriage laws will also be constitutional.
    However, you may be ignoring the safetly laws accepted in both states. I'm not a truck driver, but even if it was true, it does not make it correct.

    our society is deteriorating.
    Not sure anyone can back that up. Fisically, you probably have a point, but everything else? Perhaps, changing is a far better choice of words.

    But who determines what are rights? If they're not clearly listed in the constitution, let our system work.
    Interpreting constitunal law is the job of the judical branch, wther it be federally or state.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,474
    Actually Duo

    The Mass Gov..Mitt Romney is not a proponet of gay marriage. He is a morman who has done everything he can to stop gay marriage. He has thankfully failed at his attempts to block the marriages.
    ---------------------------------------------------
    "It is never freedom of religion and freedom of speech when you use your religion as a guise to demean other people."
    ---------------------------------------------------

    I have joined the world of blogging...at
    www.joebrummer.com

  6. #51
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell
    Why would he need to get a NY license? Can you even have two licenses from two different states legal at the same time? If he voided his Michigan license, it is no longer a public act, and therefore the full faith and credit no longer applies should he apply for a license in NY.
    If you move to a different state, you HAVE to get a driver's license issued in that state. Normally, you would surrender your old license and be issued one for the new state after paying the licensing fee. If you're 16 though, you're SOL.
    I don't the answers to everything. Perhaps someone else will take this up. I conced the point simply because I don't fully understand the legal circumstances regarding prositution.
    Excuse me?! Are my eyes deceiving me. Did you just admit that you didn't know everything? Quick, where's my nitro......


    Are you forgetting that the governer of massacuhets (?) is a republican who openly supports gay marriage?
    Bzzzt! Wrong answer...but thanks for playing. Mit is anti-gay marriage.
    http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0406250924.asp

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    joebrummer: Okay, maybe wrong state. But there is a republican governer who is for gay marriage.

    If you move to a different state, you HAVE to get a driver's license issued in that state. Normally, you would surrender your old license and be issued one for the new state after paying the licensing fee. If you're 16 though, you're SOL.
    Then that isn't a issue of full faith and credit. Actually, what you said is not entirely true. People have been using licsences from other states for years without incident in states they currently reside in.

    Alright, so you got something right for once. Congradulations, he does however, Republican Mitt Romney opposes civil unions, but supports domestic partnership laws that would give gay couples access to health benefits and survivorship rights.

    However, this republican candidate does

  8. #53
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Duo_Maxwell

    Then that isn't a issue of full faith and credit. Actually, what you said is not entirely true. People have been using licsences from other states for years without incident in states they currently reside in.
    There's no problem as long as you NEVER get stopped by the police. I'm sure that most states are like Michigan; you are given 60 days to get a new license. After that, you are ticketed.
    Alright, so you got something right for once. Congradulations, he does however, Republican Mitt Romney opposes civil unions, but supports domestic partnership laws that would give gay couples access to health benefits and survivorship rights.
    Just tugging on your cape a bit, keeping you on your toes.
    However, this republican candidate does
    Remind me to cross him off my Christmas card list.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,628
    There's no problem as long as you NEVER get stopped by the police.
    That's not true. My uncle got a ticket using a liscence from a state he no longer lived in, and he still uses it.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDutyHaulin
    The very definition of Marriage prevents gays from being married. If they want to call it something else and get the tax benifts they want so bad go ahead. But marriage is between a man and a woman PERIOD.
    Well, yeah, you're right. The modern definition of marriage, in this country, prevents gays from being married.

    Obviously, THAT'S THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THE REASON THIS DEBATE EXISTS!!!

    If the modern definition of marriage were FAIR, and not based on RELIGION, it would be broadened back to more general rules which have been held by many societies, religions, and cultural groups throughout history.

    Take Mormons, for example. As little as a hundred years ago, Mormon men traditionally had multiple wives. Back then, the definition was different.

    So what's the problem with changing the definition again... to expand our freedoms, in the name of fairness and justice for all?

  11. #56
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by scrueballl
    Well, yeah, you're right. The modern definition of marriage, in this country, prevents gays from being married.

    Obviously, THAT'S THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THE REASON THIS DEBATE EXISTS!!!

    If the modern definition of marriage were FAIR, and not based on RELIGION, it would be broadened back to more general rules which have been held by many societies, religions, and cultural groups throughout history.
    Give me some examples of where homosexual marriage was supported in the past. I'm not aware of any.......except perhaps, Sodom and Gomorrah, and we know what that got them.
    Take Mormons, for example. As little as a hundred years ago, Mormon men traditionally had multiple wives. Back then, the definition was different.
    Nowhere did the Mormons EVER support same sex marriage.
    So what's the problem with changing the definition again... to expand our freedoms, in the name of fairness and justice for all?
    Fine, but do it constitutionally via an amendment, not via some activist judge or mayor in Podunk, NY or SF.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12
    Give me some examples of where homosexual marriage was supported in the past. I'm not aware of any.......except perhaps, Sodom and Gomorrah, and we know what that got them.

    Nowhere did the Mormons EVER support same sex marriage.

    Fine, but do it constitutionally via an amendment, not via some activist judge or mayor in Podunk, NY or SF.
    You seem to hold an awefully lot of trust for a strong central government which controls every aspect of the law.

    Not everybody is as trusting as you are. Including me.

    That's how dictatorships happen, you know. Now, mind you... I'm not one of those people who compares Bush to a dictator. I'm voting for him this election, after all.

    Though, I also look to the future. I'll have no single central figure, at the head of a single central government, in charge of my life. That just seems dangerous and stupid to me.

    And your other point: no, the mormons never supported same-sex marriage. But you missed my point by a mile: they DID support a definition of marriage which was entirely different from the one used today. Which goes to show that the one we use today is just one of MANY possible definitions of marriage... and you might do well to remember this, when you argue against same sex marriage simply because it violates the "definition of marriage".

  13. #58
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by scrueballl
    You seem to hold an awefully lot of trust for a strong central government which controls every aspect of the law.

    Not everybody is as trusting as you are. Including me.
    Quite the contrary. It takes 37 states to ratify a new Constitutional Amendment. THATS state control.
    That's how dictatorships happen, you know. Now, mind you... I'm not one of those people who compares Bush to a dictator. I'm voting for him this election, after all.
    Huh? How does ensuring that 37 states ratify an amendment move us towards a dictatatorship???????
    Though, I also look to the future. I'll have no single central figure, at the head of a single central government, in charge of my life. That just seems dangerous and stupid to me.

    And your other point: no, the mormons never supported same-sex marriage. But you missed my point by a mile: they DID support a definition of marriage which was entirely different from the one used today. Which goes to show that the one we use today is just one of MANY possible definitions of marriage... and you might do well to remember this, when you argue against same sex marriage simply because it violates the "definition of marriage".
    I think if you've read any of my posts on the topic, you'd see that I argued against it on several points.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12
    I think if you've read any of my posts on the topic, you'd see that I argued against it on several points.
    Really? I looked over your posts. Most of them run along the lines of defaming judges because you disagree with their judgements, and calling gays a "mythical group" which deserves no rights because of its underlying nonexistence.

    Not one of these things is a "point". Mostly its a bunch of hot air.

    Not once have you presented any evidence of somebody gaining anything from your point of view. You have not presented a single number, not a single statistic, that any part of society is aided or bettered by your point of view. Though over and over again, you submit this to be the case, saying that "society is going downhill, because of issues like this."

    All you do is put people down. You put down judges, you put down gay people, and you put down the people on this string who offer you reason and rationality. Not once have you responded to any of it.

  15. #60
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by scrueballl
    Really? I looked over your posts. Most of them run along the lines of defaming judges because you disagree with their judgements, and calling gays a "mythical group" which deserves no rights because of its underlying nonexistence.
    If you consider calling judicial activism what it is, then I guess I'm guilty. We have a very clear definition of marriage today, one man, one woman, to attempt to use fair faith and credit arguments to justify illegal unions is absurd.
    Not one of these things is a "point". Mostly its a bunch of hot air.
    In YOUR opinion.
    Not once have you presented any evidence of somebody gaining anything from your point of view. You have not presented a single number, not a single statistic, that any part of society is aided or bettered by your point of view. Though over and over again, you submit this to be the case, saying that "society is going downhill, because of issues like this."
    Wrong again. I've given lots of numbers and references to back up my claims.
    I've given mortality numbers, Federal costs of treating AIDS and a host of others. I suggest that you go back and do some rereading before making false assertions about what I did or didn't do.
    All you do is put people down. You put down judges, you put down gay people, and you put down the people on this string who offer you reason and rationality. Not once have you responded to any of it.
    Show me where I put down gay people. I've stated many times that I don't care what they do as long as it doesn't impact me or my family. I wouldn't call that putting them down. I even said that I would favor civil unions that gave gays all of the non-fiscal rights that married couples enjoy. Was that putting them down? Or was I putting them down when I said that the gay lifestyle decreased their average life expectancy and supported the claim with CDC statistics?
    I suggest that you rethink your blanket statements in the future. They don't stand up to scrutiny.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •