Ravens 03 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Let's see what the Geeks think. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted June 7, 2006 you know the saying, it's adam and eve not adam and carl btw, good thread to find out who the funny people are Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravens 03 0 Posted June 7, 2006 My guess is this ends up 50/50. Why aren't the gays happy with "Civil unions" or whatever they are called and leave the marriage thing to 1 man and 1 woman. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted June 7, 2006 Why not let the states decide instead of issuing a federal fiat? Do you think there should be a Federal Constitutional amendment banning everything you don't personally agree with? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
naomi 343 Posted June 7, 2006 Prinicple wise, I'm against it, but would like to learn the ancient history and origin of marriage. As for trying to ban it in this country, it's only another step that divides us more at this point. A gay friend of mine has no desire to ever get married because to him that's a straight people thing, hence wanting to know the origins and weigh the biblical significance of the union. We're so obviously not a christian country, no use in passing laws that merely keep up appearence while we lack substance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Snoopy1 0 Posted June 7, 2006 My guess is this ends up 50/50.Why aren't the gays happy with "Civil unions" or whatever they are called and leave the marriage thing to 1 man and 1 woman. From a legal standpoint, "Civil Union" = "Marriage". Don't get hung up on the word. Gays are asking for the right to enjoy the same state/federal benefits and legal status that married couples recieve. Marriage, IMO, is the scare word that the right keeps tossing out, to galavanize conservative religious voters. I doubt Joe Righty voter is going to come out to the polls like they did in 2004 to oppose civil unions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeremy 0 Posted June 7, 2006 My guess is this ends up 50/50.Why aren't the gays happy with "Civil unions" or whatever they are called and leave the marriage thing to 1 man and 1 woman. A poll a few weeks ago had it going 56-44 against gay marriage (in favor of the ban). Which was really funny because a week or 2 later 70% of guys here claimed they would have no problem sleeping with another man's wife if they were still single. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whoisjgalt 0 Posted June 7, 2006 My guess is this ends up 50/50.Why aren't the gays happy with "Civil unions" or whatever they are called and leave the marriage thing to 1 man and 1 woman. Separate but equal? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ravens 03 0 Posted June 7, 2006 A poll a few weeks ago had it going 56-44 against gay marriage (in favor of the ban). Which was really funny because a week or 2 later 70% of guys here claimed they would have no problem sleeping with another man's wife if they were still single. Are these related? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoffdaddy 1 Posted June 7, 2006 Are these related? I think it's a general comment on the whole 'sanctity' thing. Like a "Yeah, we really care about the sanctity of marriage. Gays will destroy it. Oh yeah, if I were single I'd nail a married woman, screw sanctity." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeremy 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Are these related? Well I assume those that oppose gay marriage do so for moral reasons. Anyone who would sleep with another man's wife has no morals. So how could they possibly have a problem with gay marriage? Yet some of the same people who would sleep with another man's wife (a deplorable act of immorality) apparently voted for the marriage ban. Hypocrisy, no? I think it's a general comment on the whole 'sanctity' thing. Like a "Yeah, we really care about the sanctity of marriage. Gays will destroy it. Oh yeah, if I were single I'd nail a married woman, screw sanctity." That's even a better way to put it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 756 Posted June 7, 2006 Why not let the states decide instead of issuing a federal fiat? Do you think there should be a Federal Constitutional amendment banning everything you don't personally agree with? this is probably my take, but in our district the stand against gay marriage is the popular one so it doesnt bother me if the office view is to stand against it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted June 7, 2006 this is probably my take, but in our district the stand against gay marriage is the popular one so it doesnt bother me if the office view is to stand against it. There are bigger things at issue here than just gay marriage; why does the Federal Government need and/or deserve the power to make this mandate? What happened to federalism and states' rights? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZeroTolerance 582 Posted June 7, 2006 There are bigger things at issue here than just gay marriage; why does the Federal Government need and/or deserve the power to make this mandate? What happened to federalism and states' rights? States rights? What kind of Republicans do you think these Republicans are? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 5,206 Posted June 7, 2006 Why not let the states decide instead of issuing a federal fiat? Do you think there should be a Federal Constitutional amendment banning everything you don't personally agree with? Because currently, states recognize marriages from other states. HTH. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 756 Posted June 7, 2006 well answer me this, if our district is upwards of 60% in favor of this proposal (which it is), isn't it the job of the guy representging this district to support this measure, whether he believes in it or not? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted June 7, 2006 Because currently, states recognize marriages from other states. HTH. It doesn't. There have been exceptions to full faith and credit made in the past for things like polygamy so there is no precedent for the idea that states must recognize marriages that offend their accepted standards. Beyond that, DOMA explicitly states that states can deny same sex marriages even if they are recognized in another state. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeremy 0 Posted June 7, 2006 There are bigger things at issue here than just gay marriage; why does the Federal Government need and/or deserve the power to make this mandate? What happened to federalism and states' rights? As long as it helps his boy get reelected, he doesn't care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 756 Posted June 7, 2006 As long as it helps his boy get reelected, he doesn't care. not necessarily true, but at the same time don't you put your family ahead of your work? I like my job and where it might take me! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted June 7, 2006 well answer me this, if our district is upwards of 60% in favor of this proposal (which it is), isn't it the job of the guy representging this district to support this measure, whether he believes in it or not? No, a Senator swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and popular sentiment doesn't change that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 756 Posted June 7, 2006 No, a Senator swears an oath to uphold the Constitution and popular sentiment doesn't change that. then who's job is it to change the Constitution if they don't agree with something int it? the courts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 789 Posted June 7, 2006 then who's job is it to change the Constitution if they don't agree with something int it? the courts? What is it that they disagree with that this amendment would change exactly? The idea that certain powers are reserved to the states and to the people? Or maybe the idea that we all warrant equal protection under the law? This is not some subtle change to some arcane rule, it's explicit erosion of a fundamental right. Call me old fashioned, but I don't think either of those things need to be changed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeremy 0 Posted June 7, 2006 well answer me this, if our district is upwards of 60% in favor of this proposal (which it is), isn't it the job of the guy representging this district to support this measure, whether he believes in it or not? So you're telling me your boss votes for every measure based on the opinion polls of your district? So if something changes and 10 years down the road the majority support gay marriage, he'd change his stance on the issue? Didn't Kerry get ripped for this kind of thing pretty mercilessly in the last election? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Q.Lazzarus 0 Posted June 7, 2006 Why the fock do the conservatives care so much? Not everyone thinks/acts like they do. They can't seem to get over it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 5,206 Posted June 7, 2006 So you're telling me your boss votes for every measure based on the opinion polls of your district? So if something changes and 10 years down the road the majority support gay marriage, he'd change his stance on the issue? Didn't Kerry get ripped for this kind of thing pretty mercilessly in the last election? I agree with this. I never vote for candidates on individual positions. I vote for my belief that they have an inner compass guiding them, and that in general I agree with the direction of that compass. This was my biggest objection to Kerry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cmh6476 756 Posted June 8, 2006 So you're telling me your boss votes for every measure based on the opinion polls of your district? So if something changes and 10 years down the road the majority support gay marriage, he'd change his stance on the issue? Didn't Kerry get ripped for this kind of thing pretty mercilessly in the last election? It just depends. To a certain extent, the people knew his positions going in and they voted him in for what he believes in, but at the same time we do opinion polls to keep in line with what the district wants. I could see a scenario where it might not be a bad idea to change directions if the mood of the public shifts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeremy 0 Posted June 8, 2006 It just depends. To a certain extent, the people knew his positions going in and they voted him in for what he believes in, but at the same time we do opinion polls to keep in line with what the district wants. I could see a scenario where it might not be a bad idea to change directions if the mood of the public shifts. Fair enough. I trust you weren't one of the conservatives on this board that bashed Kerry for being a flip flopper, then. I agree with this. I never vote for candidates on individual positions. I vote for my belief that they have an inner compass guiding them, and that in general I agree with the direction of that compass. This was my biggest objection to Kerry. That was my biggest objection to Bush. Also that whole incompetence thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gocolts 300 Posted June 8, 2006 Why the fock do the conservatives care so much? Not everyone thinks/acts like they do. They can't seem to get over it. Oh.I don't know,maybe: It has been the same way for a long long time.All the men and women who ever lived were all wrong,and the 2-5% of gay people now are right The Slippery slope.The liberals grip is "Equal protection clause".Going by that logic ,How can we stop someone to marry their brother/sister/mom/dad/cousin/grandma/uncle/whoever.If you let the gays marry,then how do you stop all the other situations.What about someone who wants to marry 3,4,even 10 women,and they are all for it???What about 2 dudes and 2 girls want to all get married together??? Equal protection = Equal protection. You will not be able to stop the insanity that will loom if we start to let the gays marry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted June 8, 2006 Oh.I don't know,maybe: It has been the same way for a long long time.All the men and women who ever lived were all wrong,and the 2-5% of gay people now are right The Slippery slope.The liberals grip is "Equal protection clause".Going by that logic ,How can we stop someone to marry their brother/sister/mom/dad/cousin/grandma/uncle/whoever.If you let the gays marry,then how do you stop all the other situations.What about someone who wants to marry 3,4,even 10 women,and they are all for it???What about 2 dudes and 2 girls want to all get married together??? Equal protection = Equal protection. You will not be able to stop the insanity that will loom if we start to let the gays marry. On which side of the issue do you stand? All I hear is idiot babble. At least come up with something that makes sense. TIA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redtodd 7 Posted June 8, 2006 I have no problem with queers marrying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brinett9 0 Posted June 8, 2006 Gay marriage will lead to men butt-focking dogs at every local playground. It's a proven fact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,892 Posted June 8, 2006 Oh.I don't know,maybe: It has been the same way for a long long time.All the men and women who ever lived were all wrong,and the 2-5% of gay people now are right The Slippery slope.The liberals grip is "Equal protection clause".Going by that logic ,How can we stop someone to marry their brother/sister/mom/dad/cousin/grandma/uncle/whoever.If you let the gays marry,then how do you stop all the other situations.What about someone who wants to marry 3,4,even 10 women,and they are all for it???What about 2 dudes and 2 girls want to all get married together??? Equal protection = Equal protection. You will not be able to stop the insanity that will loom if we start to let the gays marry. What does gay marriage have to do with everyone other than that 2-5% being "wrong?" Two dudes getting married doesn't invalidate your marriage. Far as the slippery slope, gay marriage is legal in MA and I haven't heard anything about people marrying their brothers, sister, mom, etc. I'm sure it's illegal in most states to marry within your immediate family (at least). I don't see what that has to do with two consenting, non-related adults. Has gay marraige had any negative consequences for MA? I know I'm not going to change your mind. I just think these arguments are kind of tired and unrealistic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thetxstang 0 Posted June 8, 2006 You will not be able to stop the insanity that will loom if we start to let the gays marry. This sentence alone deftly illustrates your ignorance on this matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
phillybear 364 Posted June 8, 2006 Ban it. Don't ban it. Just make this issue go away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toro 1 Posted June 8, 2006 I finally found a solid reason for not allowing gays to marry - social security benefits and VA benefits. Your SO is entitled to your SS benefits after death and for veterans, their spouses are also allowed to continue to receive those benefits after death. Allowing gays to marry would increase the amount of SS payments and VA benefits that will be paid out, thus costing the taxpayers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Korben Dallas 0 Posted June 8, 2006 Don't people like GoColts get tired of having opinions so focking stupid that they can't possibly imagine that anyone would believe them? I mean come on, "we can't let gays marry because that will make homophobes feel bad for being wrong?" What kind an argument is that? Or, in spite of tens of thousands of unofficial gay marriages, allowing them rights to insurance, hospital visitation and due entitlement after death will make people want to have animal sex? It scares me that people are this ignorant. Homosexuality is a human condition. The only people that don't think so either have amazing never met a gay person or just haven't taken the time to think it through. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted June 8, 2006 Allowing gays to marry would increase the amount of VA benefits that will be paid out, thus costing the taxpayers. Don't Ask Don't Tell Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GettnHuge 1 Posted June 8, 2006 For or Against Gay Marriage ban? For the Ban [ 26 ] ** [40.00%] Against the Ban [ 39 ] ** [60.00%] That's funny...cause we all know the moment people are actually faced with it and step into the voting booth it's 80% for 20% against. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,892 Posted June 8, 2006 For or Against Gay Marriage ban?For the Ban [ 26 ] ** [40.00%] Against the Ban [ 39 ] ** [60.00%] That's funny...cause we all know the moment people are actually faced with it and step into the voting booth it's 80% for 20% against. About half of Americans oppose gay marriage in general. What makes you think 80% of them want to rewrite the Constitution? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,432 Posted June 8, 2006 For or Against Gay Marriage ban?For the Ban [ 26 ] ** [40.00%] Against the Ban [ 39 ] ** [60.00%] That's funny...cause we all know the moment people are actually faced with it and step into the voting booth it's 80% for 20% against. That is in Alabama. I don't think that the majority of the US has a 4-1 ratio. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
