Five reasons why gay marriage is a basic, conservative value

Originally posted by RoyBatty
Annee, please tell me which statute you are referring to when you state that the rules can't be changed.

My point is very clear.

You are choosing not to understand it.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RoyBatty
Annee, please tell me which statute you are referring to when you state that the rules can't be changed.

My point is very clear.

You are choosing not to understand it.

So you won't answer the question. You say NOPE, the rules can't be changed so I challenge you to be specific. Vague insults are not answers.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by SaturnFX
We do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic

It truely is frightening that the pro-gay marriage movement appears to have no respect for democracy.

How can the gay movement expect to be respected when it doesn't respect democracy?

I don't understand how one's having knowledge of the governmental systrem of the nation one calls home somehow is construed as having no respect for democracy.

The poster was referring to the United States of America, which all who have taken a high school civics class, and all who have even a shred of awareness of our federal government knows is a Constitutional Republic. There isn't some conspiracy where the people of our nation who don't want Big Brother limiting personal freedoms somehow have "no respect for democracy."

So anyhow, there's no need to be frightened of the "pro-gay-marriage crowd" anymore, now that you know they simply know what type of government they live under.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I love your reasons and agree with them all. The conservative side of me is the reason I agree that ALL people should have equal access to the same liberties and freedoms, without interference from the government. If they are going to offer a contractual agreement to some people, it should be available to all.

In the UK, gays have access to the same rights via a 'civil union'. That is not enough for them however. They also want their civil unions to be called marriages.

This isn't about legal rights. It's about the gay community demanding that the heterosexual majority lend them moral support.

Marriage means a legal union between a man and a women. Not between two men.

You say it isnt about legal rights then go on to legally define marriage. The states didnt even "define" marriage until gay people demanded to have their marriages recognized. The laws were passed to expressly discriminate against hoosexual couples.

Marriage is an abstact idea that many have different definitions for. Saying marriage is between A man and a woman DOES NOT define marriage. It simply says who may wnter into one and have it hose recognized by the state. If we were to REALLY define marriage, it would be easier to see how discriminitory it is to exclude gays marriages from being labeled as such.

So i ask all proponents to define their marriage or any marriage and THEN we can have a real debate about gay marriage.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by SaturnFX
We do not live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic

It truely is frightening that the pro-gay marriage movement appears to have no respect for democracy.

How can the gay movement expect to be respected when it doesn't respect democracy?

If the majority democratically decide to kill all gays should that be respected too?

I realized this many years ago....If I am going to stand for limited government, and fight for the government to stay our of peoples lives, then that means that some people are going to be able to do things that I do not agree with...and that's where I stand. I think homosexuality is *in many cases* a sinful and lustful lifestyle and I do not agree with it, but who am I to say, politically, that they cannot marry or have equal rights? I also want to note that just because one disagrees with another persons lifestyle doesn't mean they should be treated any differently...

Originally posted by RoyBatty

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by RoyBatty
Annee, please tell me which statute you are referring to when you state that the rules can't be changed.

My point is very clear.

You are choosing not to understand it.

So you won't answer the question. You say NOPE, the rules can't be changed so I challenge you to be specific. Vague insults are not answers.

My explanation was very clear.

There is no reason for me to state it again.

Originally posted by nunya13

So i ask all proponents to define their marriage or any marriage and THEN we can have a real debate about gay marriage.

There is only marriage - - for everyone.

Do we make reference to Black Marriage - Hetero Marriage - Old People Marriage?

No - - its just marriage.

reply to post by Annee


And just where is it increasing? I had to google that one, but it seems to be of the Open Marriage type, the kind that Progressives were condemning Newt gingrich for having...ironically. But note that it is currently illegal to be married to more than one person in the States and even those Utah Mormon families have been raided.

Isn't there another name for this? Oh yes Swingers. How classy(not)

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

And just where is it increasing?

Just read stuff about it.

There are blogs.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

And just where is it increasing? I had to google that one, but it seems to be of the Open Marriage type, the kind that Progressives were condemning Newt gingrich for having...ironically. But note that it is currently illegal to be married to more than one person in the States and even those Utah Mormon families have been raided.

An Open Marriage isn't quite the same as a group marriage - now is it.

Seriously? - - only Progressives condemn Newt for his behavior? Come on now.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

And just where is it increasing? I had to google that one, but it seems to be of the Open Marriage type, the kind that Progressives were condemning Newt gingrich for having...ironically. But note that it is currently illegal to be married to more than one person in the States and even those Utah Mormon families have been raided.

An Open Marriage isn't quite the same as a group marriage - now is it.

Seriously? - - only Progressives condemn Newt for his behavior? Come on now.

Well the first site I pulled up put them in a similar category. Obviously an Open Marriage cannot equal a group marriage as group marriage is not legal. But the concept is the same, just screw other people with your spouse's permission.
So not my idea of a romantic marriage. That's just people who are narcissistic and bored with marriage and think if they just screw someone else their life will feel better.

But what would one expect of a society which adores Sex in The City?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Annee

 

And just where is it increasing? I had to google that one, but it seems to be of the Open Marriage type, the kind that Progressives were condemning Newt gingrich for having...ironically. But note that it is currently illegal to be married to more than one person in the States and even those Utah Mormon families have been raided.

An Open Marriage isn't quite the same as a group marriage - now is it.

Seriously? - - only Progressives condemn Newt for his behavior? Come on now.

No not only Progressives. But you know Progs jumped on that bandwagon. It was a convenient way to tank him.
I've already found a few Progressive blogs and news media articles about it.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus


No not only Progressives. But you know Progs jumped on that bandwagon. It was a convenient way to tank him.
I've already found a few Progressive blogs and news media articles about it.

edit on 24-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

I am comfortable in speaking against what Newt Gingrinch did. However, I don't speak against him based on my own theology or beliefs but based on his own. He speaks out against others such as homosexuals, single mothers, those not of the Christian faith, Christians not of his own denomination or set of beliefs and so on. He is very hypocritical. He wants people to look the other way concerning his sexual activity then turn around and condemn others based on theirs. Basically, I hold him to his own standard....and he fails miserably.
If he were open to all other people's beliefs and relationships, then I would have no issue with him practicing his own relationships how he sees fit.

Originally posted by Garfee
If the majority democratically decide to kill all gays should that be respected too?

No one has suggested that a law should be passed to kill all gays, so your argument is a non sequitur.

By the way, what are your thoughts on North Carolina voters banning gay marriage and civil unions?

North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions May 8, 2012

North Carolinians voted to change the state constitution Tuesday to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership" in the state is marriage between a man and a woman.

The amendment passed 61 to 39 percent, making North Carolina the 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution.

The state already outlawed gay marriage, but the constitutional amendment makes it more difficult for politicians to ever change the law.

Personally, I don't mind gays having civil unions but I respect the wishes of the majority in North Carolina who don't want it.

I was surprised how large the vote against gay marriages and unions was. 61% to 39%. A bit of a landslide in fact for those who support the tradtional definition of marriage.

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Garfee
If the majority democratically decide to kill all gays should that be respected too?

No one has suggested that a law should be passed to kill all gays, so your argument is a non sequitur.

By the way, what are your thoughts on North Carolina voters banning gay marriage and civil unions?

North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions May 8, 2012

North Carolinians voted to change the state constitution Tuesday to say that the only valid "domestic legal partnership" in the state is marriage between a man and a woman.

The amendment passed 61 to 39 percent, making North Carolina the 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution.

The state already outlawed gay marriage, but the constitutional amendment makes it more difficult for politicians to ever change the law.

Personally, I don't mind gays having civil unions but I respect the wishes of the majority in North Carolina who don't want it.

I was surprised how large the vote against gay marriages and unions was. 61% to 39%. A bit of a landslide in fact for those hwo support the tradtional definition of marriage.

Oh, so just because the majority wants it, it means it's ok?

Another North Carolina law passed in 1830 made it a crime to teach a slave to read or write. Laws were even extended to restrict the rights of free blacks. An 1835 law prevented free blacks from voting, attending school, or preaching in public.

31 states huh? Did you know that number had some other implications? Yup, sure does. Seems that 42 years ago, they did the same thing, same number of states....same discrimination

For many years, prevailing attitudes of racism in the United States prompted many states to adopt laws that explicitly denied "Negroes" the right to marry whites. By 1940, a majority (31 out of 48) of states had banned interracial marriage (or "miscegenation") in some form.

*Hawaii and Alaska didn't become states until 1959 .... before somebody shows their idiocy and shouts "there are 50 states, not 48!"

Unless we stand for equality for all, everyone stands for equality for all, slowly but surely, the rights will be taken away, one at a time, until none are left.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Oh, so just because the majority wants it, it means it's ok?

Clearly the majority do not want homosexual marriage.

North Carolinian is 29th state with a gay marriage ban in its constitution.

The odd yellow states are the ones who allow gay marriage.

The dark blue states are the ones which have the fact that a marriage is between a man and a women written into their constitution.

reply to post by ollncasino


One more time, since you are hard of hearing (reading):

"What is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right"

For many years, prevailing attitudes of racism in the United States prompted many states to adopt laws that explicitly denied "Negroes" the right to marry whites. By 1940, a majority (31 out of 48) of states had banned interracial marriage (or "miscegenation") in some form.

The SCOTUS had to step in to ensure equal rights for races

The issue was settled once and for all in 1967. In the case of Loving v. Virginia the United States Supreme Court ruled that all bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. The miscegenation laws of the remaining 16 states thus became invalidated:

Now, around 40 years later, we're doing it again...
And again, the SCOTUS will step in and stop this discrimination. Just as the KKK preached from the local church pulpits for discrimination against people of color, they now preach from the pulpit from the local church for discrimination against a minority.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
"What is right is not always popular, what is popular is not always right"

The voters of North Carolina don't consider gay marriage to be right.

N.C. gay marriage vote spells the end of Obama

North Carolina is so important to the re-election chances of Barack Obama that he picked Charlotte as the host city for the Democratic nominating convention.

On May 8, all his careful plans came crashing down when 61% of voters in a North Carolina referendum adopted a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Pre-election polls showed that a majority of Democratic voters supported this amendment, as did independents and an overwhelming majority of African-Americans and Republicans.

CNN

Obama is perhaps going to learn that while he thinks that gay marriage is the right thing to support, the voters of North Carolina, who are so important to his re-election campaign, do not.

Even the majority of Democratic voters in North Carolina supported the amendment to ban gay marriage.

Clearly, Obama has made a serious miscalculation and both his re-election campaign and the gay marriage campaign are in serious trouble.