Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678914 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 398
  1.    #61  
    I can and never will view it in the light you are suggesting. This country is based upon the wish of the majority. Isn't that why we have a legislature? We have a court system that points out liminitations and we at that point have a right to go back and amend the law to work around those limitations. What is wrong with that?

    Let the people rule, that is what this country stands for.

    Ben
  2. #62  
    Update:
    • luv
    • lifelong commitment
    • signature


    Any more?
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Where does it say that? You are reading more to it than there is and that is the problem with this conversation - you read the max into any and everything. Please point out where it says this. When I look in the dictionary I sure do not find anything close to what you write.
    Oh puleez. Any Constitutional first year student knows the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution to prevent the tyranny of the majority in a democracy.
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Update:
    • luv
    • lifelong commitment
    • signature


    Any more?
    What's your point? Sex is often involved and I guess in some states required.
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Signing the marriage license and whatever the particular state requires.
    Most states require you to be of the opposite sex.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Apparently, a lot of intelligent people disagree or this would have been settled long ago. In fact, some say it has been settled long ago and you are wrong.
    I'll give you 4:1 it will happen.
  7. #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    I can and never will view it in the light you are suggesting. This country is based upon the wish of the majority. Isn't that why we have a legislature? We have a court system that points out liminitations and we at that point have a right to go back and amend the law to work around those limitations. What is wrong with that?

    Let the people rule, that is what this country stands for.

    Ben
    You don't have an amendment.

    And when the people ruled for a race of people in this country could be owned, what then?
  8.    #68  
    Please do not take this wrong, but this is not back then. My family is a mixed up mess of differences and there is nothing illegal about it. We are talking now, not then. If you want to marry your girl friend, then more power to you - it is probably the right thing to do. I have and never will consider race to be a factor in marriage.

    [QUOTE=daThomas]She's Black.




    Why does the gov't need to be involved with it??!??!! Are you daft? The gov't i already involved in it. We're talking about laws and gov't issued licenses! Jeebus!


    You are the one wanting the government to get involved. Not me. Leave it alone, keep the government out of it.

    ----------

    And no, there does not need to be a benefit to society but if you want one here Ya go, roughly 10% of your fellow Americans will have equal rights provided by marriage.


    Does not make sense.

    ------------------------

    Where do I draw the line? I draw it where the gov't has already provided the right to a majority.


    And the majority likes it like it is. The vocal minority wants the change and if left to the majority, it will not happen.

    Ben
  9.    #69  
    A question, are you a constitutional student?

    Ben


    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Oh puleez. Any Constitutional first year student knows the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution to prevent the tyranny of the majority in a democracy.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    What's your point? Sex is often involved and I guess in some states required.
    The initial criterion was 2 people. Then we introduced luv and lifelong commitment. Followed by signature and state requirements.

    The point is, the debate is not "simply" affording rights to a minorty group. The debate is about fundamentally "redefining" an institution. And when there is redefining, you inherently are not talking about the "same" rights/privileges but about "new" ones.

    So we can debate whether to create this new institution. But to frame the conversation in the emotional language of "discrimination" is to undercut the debate that needs to occur.
  11.    #71  
    Well said. Civil marriages are fine and not a problem with most of us. The majority of people though, regardless of where they live, do not condone homosexuality. I believe in some places of this world, it's a sin that can result in death. Definitely not the norm of treatment here.

    Ben
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Oh puleez. Any Constitutional first year student knows the Founding Fathers wrote the constitution to prevent the tyranny of the majority in a democracy.
    The what about how the Mormons have been tyrannized?
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger

    You are the one wanting the government to get involved. Not me. Leave it alone, keep the government out of it.

    Ben
    Are you even thinking about what you're saying or are you just spouting the old conservative "less gov't" line. Because when you say leave the gov't out of it, that makes absolutely no sense. These are gov't laws we're talking about. Marriage laws and rights/privelages under marriage laws.

    So please stop saying that, it makes no sense.
  14. #74  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    So we can debate whether to create this new institution. But to frame the conversation in the emotional language of "discrimination" is to undercut the debate that needs to occur.
    Considering how the majority of voters have felt in the past, it appears the discrimination card is the only one proponents of gay marriage have left.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    The what about how the Mormons have been tyrannized?
    Please see prior post in this thread on marrying multiple partners in relation to this issue.
  16. #76  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The initial criterion was 2 people. Then we introduced luv and lifelong commitment. Followed by signature and state requirements.

    The point is, the debate is not "simply" affording rights to a minorty group. The debate is about fundamentally "redefining" an institution. And when there is redefining, you inherently are not talking about the "same" rights/privileges but about "new" ones.

    So we can debate whether to create this new institution. But to frame the conversation in the emotional language of "discrimination" is to undercut the debate that needs to occur.
    There is absolutely no difference and it will be debated as discrmination because that's what it is. It is not redefining an institution, although even if it were, it would have to happen.
  17. #77  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Well said. Civil marriages are fine and not a problem with most of us.

    Ben
    So for you it's referring to it as "marriage" as opposed to "civil union". Explain this to me.

    (edited to spell 'marraige' correctly)
    Last edited by daThomas; 07/06/2006 at 04:52 PM.
  18.    #78  
    It sure does - the government does not need to get further invovled in the issue. The majority sees no reason to change it, though it will be changed and only because of activist judges. If you put it to a general vote, it will be an overwhelming win for the middle and conservative sides of this country. I know that you are fully aware that every state that has put the issue to a vote has seen it go against what you are advocating. Every state. Why are you so afraid of letting the people decide what is right for themselves through their legislative insitutions? No one is advocating we burn anyone at the stake - I sure did not bring it up - your side did and that says a lot.



    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Are you even thinking about what you're saying or are you just spouting the old conservative "less gov't" line. Because when you say leave the gov't out of it, that makes absolutely no sense. These are gov't laws we're talking about. Marriage laws and rights/privelages under marriage laws.

    So please stop saying that, it makes no sense.
  19.    #79  
    Marriage is defined by tradition as the union of one man and one woman. In my dictionary,

    The state of being united as husband wife: conjugality, connubiality, matrimony, wedlock.

    The act or ceremony by which two people become husband and wife.

    Husband: a man joined to a woman in marriage; a male spouse.

    Wife: a woman joind to a man in marriage; a female spouse.

    It's right there. Male/female.

    Marriage

    --------------

    Civil union - from Wikipedia - it is a legal partnership agreement between two persons. They are typically created for same-sex couples with the purpose of granting them benefits that are found in marriage.


    I have not problems with a civil union. Ben

    ***************

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    So for you it's referring to it as "marraige" as opposed to "civil union". Explain this to me.
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #80  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Please see prior post in this thread on marrying multiple partners in relation to this issue.
    The previous post did not address the issue. You feel there is a difference, the person who wants to have 3 wives may not see the difference. Why would you not consider multiple consenting partners the same as same sex consenting partners?
    In my opinon if we change the law to allow 2 men to marry, why not 4 consenting adults? It is their choice, you stated it would dissolve the privilages, how is it any different, now the 3 wives could not be forced to testify against the husband. I prefer to leave it as is as does the majority of the people and the courts.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 12345678914 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions