|
|
| Same-sex Marriage? |
| Yes for Same-sex Marriage |
|
47% |
[ 18 ] |
| Religion out of the Gov't Civil Unions for All |
|
13% |
[ 5 ] |
| Same-sex Civil Unions are Okay |
|
7% |
[ 3 ] |
| No |
|
31% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:53 pm
Ruyashie Lord Bitememan Ruyashie Lord Bitememan You and Mouse have that agreement. I never took shots at Wiki. What do mean by shots? I mean I never attacked the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. That was you and Mouse. Do you have a problem with states voting by themselves about this issue?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:21 am
Ruyashie Ruyashie Lord Bitememan Ruyashie Lord Bitememan You and Mouse have that agreement. I never took shots at Wiki. What do mean by shots? I mean I never attacked the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. That was you and Mouse. Do you have a problem with states voting by themselves about this issue? I wouldn't phrase it that way. I have no problem with legislatures deciding the issue, state or federal. I have a HUGE problem with courts deciding the issue, state or federal. That said, one state should not decide policy for the whole country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:51 pm
RenFlower Now for Ren's Rambles, why I'm pro-same sex marriage heart : 1. They're going to have sex anyways, why not do it holy. 2. Why should people who happen to be attracted to people of the same gender be denied the rights straight people have? 3. Their attractions to each other are biologically and chemically the same as straight people's attractions. 4. Just because their hormone's, or feelings are different doesn't mean they aren't as good as the rest of us. 5. The classic Love is Love, regardless of gender. EXACTLY!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 9:18 am
i dont care if the same sex are together but i dont want them in any church
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:22 pm
nightowl of breezeclan i dont care if the same sex are together but i dont want them in any church In any church? What if they make one of their own? Or how about if other established churches invite them, like the Episcopal Church and ELCA have done? Maybe you mean "I don't want them in my church?" We can discuss the theology of that later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:24 pm
Lord Bitememan Ruyashie Ruyashie Lord Bitememan Ruyashie Lord Bitememan You and Mouse have that agreement. I never took shots at Wiki. What do mean by shots? I mean I never attacked the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. That was you and Mouse. Do you have a problem with states voting by themselves about this issue? I wouldn't phrase it that way. I have no problem with legislatures deciding the issue, state or federal. I have a HUGE problem with courts deciding the issue, state or federal. That said, one state should not decide policy for the whole country. I ment that if NC wanted to stay straight then they stay straight but if New York wants to allow Gay Marriage then OK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 25, 2009 5:50 am
Ruyashie Lord Bitememan Ruyashie Lord Bitememan Ruyashie Lord Bitememan You and Mouse have that agreement. I never took shots at Wiki. What do mean by shots? I mean I never attacked the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. That was you and Mouse. Do you have a problem with states voting by themselves about this issue? I wouldn't phrase it that way. I have no problem with legislatures deciding the issue, state or federal. I have a HUGE problem with courts deciding the issue, state or federal. That said, one state should not decide policy for the whole country. I ment that if NC wanted to stay straight then they stay straight but if New York wants to allow Gay Marriage then OK. I know what you meant, I have a different view of it than you. I don't believe undemocratic bodies such as the courts should have broad latitude in dictating the policies of this nation in spite of the will of the people. But I also believe that public will should be binding on the nation, and if the matter is taken up federally, than the entire nation should comply. The sentiment you are articulating hearkens back to 1964 when states thought they could buck the federal will on the segregation issue. I wouldn't allow North Carolina to practice segregation if that was the will of that state, if federal policy allowed marriage equality I wouldn't allow North Carolina to buck that either. Now, what you really mean is do I think it should be an exclusively state-decided matter. So long as there is a lack of broad social consensus, then yes. However, if public will begins to turn on the matter, and it will, then the issue should be taken up by congress and decided federally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 5:53 am
I say make it legal for one reason. It would get rid of a conflict (topic, if anyone prefers that word) that seems tiny in comparison to other current events. If I had the power to do something about it, I would make it legal in specific places only. I think that would be an easily reached and decent halfway point for people to meet on the subject. I see this like Voltaire did when he said "I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it." (or something like that, anyway :p).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 12:56 pm
So, it should be something like we did with slavery, just make it legal in some places even though a category of people are being discriminated against based on sexual orientation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 2:51 pm
lol slaves really ? lol Owell see my only problem is them calling it a marriage that is a religious event and shall not be tainted by evil so call it something else and I'm fine call it a union or something . I don't like it I strongly think that it is wrong on every level but its not my life this is america and that means they should be aloud to be two in one a some what like legal marriage should be allowed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 7:28 pm
And once again we come back to the perfect solution that will make everyone happy. . . or no one depending on how you view it. Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Government would no longer recognize any institution called "marriage." Governments would recognize only "civil unions" which would be available to everyone and confer the same rights to everyone. "Marriage" would be a religious function. So, if you don't like gay marriage, join a church that doesn't perform them. If you like them, join a church that permits them. But, in neither case will "marriage" be a function of the state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 6:56 am
Rainbowfied Mouse So, it should be something like we did with slavery, just make it legal in some places even though a category of people are being discriminated against based on sexual orientation? Pretty much, except the big difference is no one is keeping them in one place, they can easily leave an area if they want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 5:13 pm
Enoine Rainbowfied Mouse So, it should be something like we did with slavery, just make it legal in some places even though a category of people are being discriminated against based on sexual orientation? Pretty much, except the big difference is no one is keeping them in one place, they can easily leave an area if they want to. It still allows the unjust discrimination of a people, when it's liberty and justice for all, not just those that live in X, and if you live in Y, then you're screwed, so we'll ask you to move to X if you want to be an equal citizen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 4:05 pm
Lord Bitememan And once again we come back to the perfect solution that will make everyone happy. . . or no one depending on how you view it. Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Government would no longer recognize any institution called "marriage." Governments would recognize only "civil unions" which would be available to everyone and confer the same rights to everyone. "Marriage" would be a religious function. So, if you don't like gay marriage, join a church that doesn't perform them. If you like them, join a church that permits them. But, in neither case will "marriage" be a function of the state. thank you its all put together now Its fare and its freedom things are so much better when the government gets out of it oh and rainbowfiedmouse I don't know what you where saying could you explain it again in another way for me
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:56 pm
goodshot911SNK oh and rainbowfiedmouse I don't know what you where saying could you explain it again in another way for me Well referring to Enoines "compromise" would exhibit dividing the US to pro-gay and anti-gay sides. So, it's compared to slavery (north and south)... what I'm stating is how is it any better for the government to now enforce laws based on where you are If you live in Michigan you can be an equal citizen, but if you live in Ohio then you cannot, unless you move to Michigan, so it sucks that you were born/raised/live here. So, if you want to be equal, leave everything behind and get your freedom elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
