However, it would solve the overpopulation problem.

 

lol

That all depends on if destroying the family is destroying society. If you allow gay marriage, where do you draw the line? If gay marriage is legal, then what about polygamy, or polymory. If two men can get married, then laws may be changed until 50 years later, there can be a marriage between 3 men, 7 women, and a dog.

446839[/snapback]

 

This is one of my big points...eventually 3 men will want to marry, or 2 women and a man, and "who is the government to tell them what love is?".

That all depends on if destroying the family is destroying society.? If you allow gay marriage, where do you draw the line?? If gay marriage is legal, then what about polygamy, or polymory.? If two men can get married, then laws may be changed until 50 years later, there can be a marriage between 3 men, 7 women, and a dog.

446839[/snapback]

 

This is one of my big points...eventually 3 men will want to marry, or 2 women and a man, and "who is the government to tell them what love is?".

447071[/snapback]

 

Let's spice up the argument more...what about incest?

Sorianofan and I got into a discussion a couple months ago about this. I think incest is VERY similar. Shouldn't a brother and sister, or 1st cousins be allowed to get married? No one is saying they're gonna have children. Maybe it'll help them with tax breaks and such.

Just curious for The Conservatives who want to take another American's right to get married. What are your thoughts on the government taking away guns?

 

Both Parties want to take away certain rights or restrict them but only if it's not one of their interests, it's plain BS.

 

I don't agree with their policy's because I honestly do think it would ruin society but The Libretarians are the only ones who aren't hipocrites when it comes to civil rights because they want all civil rights(When I mean All, basically you could buy an ak-47, PCP, and a prostitute all legally and without any questions asked).

 

Gay Marriage would not destroy society. Gay culture has done nothing any of the other groups have done to society. If they're not bothering you directly, I have no idea why so many people care about this.

Guns = 2nd Ammendment.

 

I could definitely be wrong (hell, I'm wrong most of the time anyway :lol ), but is there anything in the Constitution saying that one of our rights is marriage?

Guns = 2nd Ammendment.

 

I could definitely be wrong (hell, I'm wrong most of the time anyway :lol ), but is there anything in the Constitution saying that one of our rights is marriage?

447402[/snapback]

 

If there isn't... Then why Bush wants to ammend it to say as "between Man and a Woman"?

I didnt say he should.

Guns = 2nd Ammendment.

 

I could definitely be wrong (hell, I'm wrong most of the time anyway :lol ), but is there anything in the Constitution saying that one of our rights is marriage?

447402[/snapback]

 

As Cyberlina said Bush and most conservatives want to make it an constitutional amendment. I just think it's wrong that Conservatives are so fierce in their protection of The Second Amendement but their opposition to Gay Marriage.

 

I just don't think anyone should care so much about taking away one's right yet protecting one of their own.

marriage is not a Constitutional right!

 

Personally I believe:

1) Gay marriage or civil unions are wrong.

2) I feel that the President should NOT try ammending the constitution to ban gay marriages because he is not of the legislative branch. The presidency is the executive branch.

3) I feel it should be left up to the states. If the state I live in ever votes to allow gay marriages, I'm peacin' out. Fortunately, it won't happen anywhere in the South (even Florida), so I'm fine.

marriage is not a Constitutional right!

 

Personally I believe:

1) Gay marriage or civil unions are wrong.

2) I feel that the President should NOT try ammending the constitution to ban gay marriages because he is not of the legislative branch. The presidency is the executive branch.

3) I feel it should be left up to the states. If the state I live in ever votes to allow gay marriages, I'm peacin' out. Fortunately, it won't happen anywhere in the South (even Florida), so I'm fine.

447427[/snapback]

 

Either is making gun registration and ownership a stricter process, you'd still have the right to own a gun if you were suitable yet gun advocates are still against them.

 

So your point?

if there are laws being pushed to make ownership stricter, that means some people are getting their right to own guns taken away. (I obviously don't include convicted felons into the "some people" category, because they have many rights taken away).

if there are laws being pushed to make ownership stricter, that means some people are getting their right to own guns taken away. (I obviously don't include convicted felons into the "some people" category, because they have many rights taken away).

447456[/snapback]

 

So then you're strongly opposed to the patriot acts then? Once again it seems advocates for certain civil rights prefer the pick and choose method over what's fair for everyone and what's right for everyone not just them.

you just described many conservatives and liberals alike.

you just described many conservatives and liberals alike.

447471[/snapback]

 

Which I put in my first post

good call then :lol

 

Anyway, to get this back on topic, marriage is not a constitutional right...and homosexual marriages should not be granted by our government ....or federal government should NOT be banned by Bush either. It's up to the states. The states, like the 3 branch federal government system, is another form of checks and balances put on this government to make this nation fair.

 

If people in Mass. wanna let homos marry, let em. I'll fight hard to keep it from happening in my state.

No, it won't.

 

If anything, just because it can't get much worse anyways.

That all depends on if destroying the family is destroying society. If you allow gay marriage, where do you draw the line? If gay marriage is legal, then what about polygamy, or polymory. If two men can get married, then laws may be changed until 50 years later, there can be a marriage between 3 men, 7 women, and a dog.

446839[/snapback]

 

This is one of my big points...eventually 3 men will want to marry, or 2 women and a man, and "who is the government to tell them what love is?".

447071[/snapback]

 

I have never, never understood that canard. What is wrong with deeming marriage between 2 consenting adults, with the addendum that their genes be sufficiently mixed as not to produce freakish children (or grandchildren most likely, as 1st-generation incest kids don't usually possess abnormalities.) Merely extend the laws governing sex to marriage (but first getting rid of those dumb anti-sodomy laws in the South. The people want buttsex, dammit!)

That all depends on if destroying the family is destroying society.? If you allow gay marriage, where do you draw the line?? If gay marriage is legal, then what about polygamy, or polymory.? If two men can get married, then laws may be changed until 50 years later, there can be a marriage between 3 men, 7 women, and a dog.

446839[/snapback]

 

This is one of my big points...eventually 3 men will want to marry, or 2 women and a man, and "who is the government to tell them what love is?".

447071[/snapback]

 

I have never, never understood that canard. What is wrong with deeming marriage between 2 consenting adults, with the addendum that their genes be sufficiently mixed as not to produce freakish children (or grandchildren most likely, as 1st-generation incest kids don't usually possess abnormalities.) Merely extend the laws governing sex to marriage (but first getting rid of those dumb anti-sodomy laws in the South. The people want buttsex, dammit!)

447648[/snapback]

 

By doing that, you redefine marriage once, and it can be redefined again to be totally messed up eventually. That's why you draw the line where it already is.

people can have children thru incest whether they're married or not.

 

There's only one "couple" that actually is experiencing jail time for incest anyway. They had 4 kids....they were brother and sister. From Michigan in fact.

 

Just wanted to throw that fact out. My grandma tried setting me up with a cousin. It was a distant cousin, but still not cool. :plain

 

My family is from Tennessee :plain

That all depends on if destroying the family is destroying society. If you allow gay marriage, where do you draw the line? If gay marriage is legal, then what about polygamy, or polymory. If two men can get married, then laws may be changed until 50 years later, there can be a marriage between 3 men, 7 women, and a dog.

446839[/snapback]

 

This is one of my big points...eventually 3 men will want to marry, or 2 women and a man, and "who is the government to tell them what love is?".

447071[/snapback]

 

I have never, never understood that canard. What is wrong with deeming marriage between 2 consenting adults, with the addendum that their genes be sufficiently mixed as not to produce freakish children (or grandchildren most likely, as 1st-generation incest kids don't usually possess abnormalities.) Merely extend the laws governing sex to marriage (but first getting rid of those dumb anti-sodomy laws in the South. The people want buttsex, dammit!)

447648[/snapback]

 

By doing that, you redefine marriage once, and it can be redefined again to be totally messed up eventually. That's why you draw the line where it already is.

447652[/snapback]

 

Oh puh-leeze. Sex laws were redefined, but I don't see bestiality and pedophilia being legalized anytime soon. I'm not a big "progressive", but I don't think we should abstain from making law solely from fear.

it shouldnt be up to the federal government anyway. I guarantee 80+% does not wanna legalize gay marriage in its state. If they wanna do it in Mass., then let em do it. It shouldnt be legalized or banned by the President (who doesn't even have the Constitutional power to do so) or by Congress.

it shouldnt be up to the federal government anyway. I guarantee 80+% does not wanna legalize gay marriage in its state. If they wanna do it in Mass., then let em do it. It shouldnt be legalized or banned by the President (who doesn't even have the Constitutional power to do so) or by Congress.

447660[/snapback]

 

You have a stronger argument there, but be warned that just because something is supported or opposed by 80% of the population doesn't mean it's right or wrong. Besides, I doubt a lot of Americans have any idea of what the "gay lifestyle" is really like, preferring to go by what they hear from voices like Jerry Falwell or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Forgive me for sounding indignant, but gays are people too. Each one is different.

this is true, RippyO....and I don't think they should be neglected their rights as American citizens. I just dont think marryin another dude is a Constitutional right. I think marriage is a religious act, and it's sad that marriage is used for such things as tax breaks, and not for what it was meant for: a committment before God that you will love your wife/husband through thick and thin.

 

I dont wanna make this into a religious rant, especially since it gives people the wrong idea that I'm some guy that wants to make the US Government a theocracy.

this is true, RippyO....and I don't think they should be neglected their rights as American citizens. I just dont think marryin another dude is a Constitutional right. I think marriage is a religious act, and it's sad that marriage is used for such things as tax breaks, and not for what it was meant for: a committment before God that you will love your wife/husband through thick and thin.

 

I dont wanna make this into a religious rant, especially since it gives people the wrong idea that I'm some guy that wants to make the US Government a theocracy.

447675[/snapback]

 

And I support your belief, and agree that not everyone against gay marriage is a bigot or ignorant. Even though I am non-religious, I believe that organized religion has played a vital role in our country's foundation and well-being.

 

See how easy that was, Bush-haters? Reasonable people can disagree.