Obama says same-sex couples should be able to marry

[Ed_S]

So is this a scramble for votes or am I being too cynical?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18014102

[Ridge]

I agree with him. It won't do well for him, though.

He'll lose the religious vote that wasn't already going to the GOP, and he isn't gaining the gay vote, because they won't vote for Romney anyways.

[Clint45]

I think the gays should suffer through marriage just like everyone else.

[palepainter]

I think the gays should suffer through marriage just like everyone else.

Exactly. They will learn sometime. :)

[bogie]

And in 2008 he was in favor of traditional marriage. The fact that he waffles and lies is not new. He's already gone so far left he has nothing to lose.

[UncleDave]

Let them loose half their stuff too.

[Zundfolge]

Look, nobody has ever believed that O'Barry DIDN'T support gay marriage ... everyone knows that Rev Wright, the Black Liberation Theology crowd and black Democrats in general are apposed to homosexuality in general and specifically gay marriage and he had to pretend to agree with them just to prevent conflict with his base.



He supports the destruction of EVERY element of Western Civilization, American Culture, Christian Culture and Capitalism but like most other liberals, progressives and Democrats he practices something akin to Taqiyya when it comes to the real goals and beliefs of him and his fellow travelers.



Critical Theory of Marxism has been fed to him intravenously since birth ... his mind marinates in it ... it is his true religion.


I honestly don't know 1) why anyone is surprised and 2) why anyone believes that pointing this out will harm this guy.

[Jumpstart]

I'm with Romney and history " I believe marriage is between a man and a women." Two men getting married? Absurd.

[kj4963]

Obama needs to go, don't care what his stance is on Gay marriage!

[CO303]

He'll come out of the closet soon.

[lex137]

I don't care if they want to marry. They will wish they didn't just like 99% of us in this forum!!!!

[Ridge]

http://themetapicture.com/media/funny-gay-divorce-court.jpg

[DEAGLER]

I don't care if they want to marry. They will wish they didn't just like 99% of us in this forum!!!!

LOL amen

[cofi]

I think the gays should suffer through marriage just like everyone else.

Me too I don't even see how people have an issue with it

[Ridge]

Me too I don't even see how people have an issue with it

Apparently if gays can get married, it means that their happy marriage means less to everybody else around them that they think gives a shit.

[Jumpstart]

Me too I don't even see how people have an issue with it

I don't see why people think it is okay.

[Tinelement]

Ya know.....

I don't know. (Deep down its all wrong)

I'm still 50/50 on it.

If you aren't in that position it's a tuff call.

Like I'm not (this should ruffle some feather) a woman, so I dont know what it's like to make the decision to put my body and mind through an abortion.

[Ridge]

I don't see why people think it is okay.

Why is it up to the government to have any say in something that is purely of religious notion?

[HBARleatherneck]

there should NOT be government recognized marriage. just civil unions or contracts, as i see it.

if a religious institution wants to marry you, well thats yours and their business. be it man man, woman woman, man woman woman woman, etc. if your choice of religion will marry you go for it. the government should only recognize contracts between individuals.

[Inconel710]

I don't see why people think it is okay.

Ummm, Freedom of Religion? That First Amendment thing? Basic liberty to pursue happiness?

Gays aren't bending you over, so why do you care? Jesus didn't tell us to kill all sinners or impose his will by force. Even Paul told the young churches in Greece to not pull away from the nonbelievers they lived among and to get along with them, just don't fall into sin with them. Your soul is your problem - let the gays worry about theirs.

[tmleadr03]

I don't see why people think it is okay.

Two words:


Hot lesbians.


One concept:

Gay divorce court on TV. Who wouldn't watch that? Oh My!





But to be serious for a second. It really is not that big a deal to me. The less the government involves itself in my life or the lives of those around me the better. If two guys or two girls want to live there lives out with each other and have a civil union to show that they are together thick and thin, or if a church wants to perform a marriage for them, I really do not care. It is no more my concern then my marring a women is to them. Or entering into a civil union with one.

[XC700116]

there should NOT be government recognized marriage. just civil unions or contracts, as i see it.

if a religious institution wants to marry you, well thats yours and their business. be it man man, woman woman, man woman woman woman, etc. if your choice of religion will marry you go for it. the government should only recognize contracts between individuals.

BINGO!! couldn't agree more. Contracts/civil unions can handle all the legalities there should be no benefits either way, single married, married to 5 women, or 2 dudes. Get the govt out of the marriage business and 95% of people won't give a flying F what 2 people want to do.

[blacklabel]

BINGO!! couldn't agree more. Contracts/civil unions can handle all the legalities there should be no benefits either way, single married, married to 5 women, or 2 dudes. Get the govt out of the marriage business and 95% of people won't give a flying F what 2 people want to do.

You and Hbar nailed it. The government needs to stay the hell out of it.

[Rucker61]

I don't care if they want to marry. They will wish they didn't just like 99% of us in this forum!!!!

Why? Unless us, their partner still has a libido after marriage.

[DavieD55]

The way I see is if they wanna plug each other in the butt, that is cool with me.
Just dont try to teach my children that an alternative lifestyle style is the way to go. Like public school has been trending toward these days. Barry butthole is just trying to be a political saviour again.

[Jumpstart]

Why is it up to the government to have any say in something that is purely of religious notion?

1. It's not purely a religious notion.
2.It's not up to the government, it's up to the people. (excluding abuse of powers)
3. Marriage is for building families,
Families for building nations.
Homosexaulity is for what now?

[Ridge]

1. It's not purely a religious notion.
2.It's not up to the government, it's up to the people. (excluding abuse of powers)
3. Marriage is for building families,
Families for building nations.
Homosexaulity is for what now?

Pursuit of happiness

[asmo]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/375533_329802433715883_205344452828349_1237348_151 030899_n.jpg

[Jumpstart]

Pursuit of happiness

That's quite a broad stroke. Is that why they like to be called "gay"?

[Ridge]

That's quite a broad stroke. Is that why they like to be called "gay"?

Please tell me how it negatively affects you for two men to get an arbitrary piece of paper that says they are together?

[TS12000]

Before this thread spirals out of control I would just like to say that those who would take away the rights of the minority by forcing their views on them via vote deserve to see the same when it comes to things they enjoy. Just because 51% of people say something is so doesn't make it so. You are not the morality police and neither is the government, a nation of HOA boardmembers is what we've become it seems.

[Ridge]

Well said, TS12000.

[Jumpstart]

Please tell me how it negatively affects you for two men to get an arbitrary piece of paper that says they are together?

Part 1. Tell me why it is necessary for two men to get an arbitrary piece of paper that says they are together?

Part 2. Devaluation of real marriages = Divorces >children hurt > crime rates higher single family homes> teen pregnancy > higher drug use > moral decay > breakdown of societies.

Hence marriage needs valuation in our times, not devaluation.

[Byte Stryke]

Before this thread spirals out of control I would just like to say that those who would take away the rights of the minority by forcing their views on them via vote deserve to see the same when it comes to things they enjoy. Just because 51% of people say something is so doesn't make it so. You are not the morality police and neither is the government, a nation of HOA boardmembers is what we've become it seems.

HUGE +1


not my thing, but its not MY business what other consenting adults do.

[tmleadr03]

Part 1. Tell me why it is necessary for two men to get an arbitrary piece of paper that says they are together?

Part 2. Devaluation of real marriages = Divorces >children hurt > crime rates higher single family homes> teen pregnancy > higher drug use > moral decay > breakdown of societies.

Hence marriage needs valuation in our times, not devaluation.

Part 1: Tell me why it is necessary for a man and a women to get an arbitrary piece of paper that says they are together?

[TS12000]

And why is it necessary for a man and a woman to get that piece of paper? Devaluation of marriage? What are traditional marriages averaging these days. 40% success rate? Shit, they can't do much worse than that.

[Jumpstart]

Part 1: Tell me why it is necessary for a man and a women to get an arbitrary piece of paper that says they are together?

Well, why has it been necessary for hundreds of years? All those reasons.

[BPTactical]

I am so very torn on this subject.
1- I am all for personal freedoms, if that is the life that one wishes then so be it. Just don't expect me to accept it as "normal" and don't you dare think you deserve anything exceptional or "protected class" status.
2-Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
3-Adoption-Bullshit. It takes a man and a woman to make a child and it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. I sincerely feel that a child in a gay marriage is set up to fail. The additional stresses it places on a child must be tremendous.
We have seen historically that a large amount of children that commit serious crimes come from dysfunctional families. Seriously, how much more dysfunctional than wife and wife or husband and husband can you get?

What is the worst part is the clear indicator that this is a further degradation of the very fiber of our society, morals.
Without morals there is no right or wrong.

I think this is by design, one way to weaken a strong county and society is to destroy the basis of said society.
Destroy the traditional family, destroy the morals of society and you have a society that is very easily influenced and manipulated.
Perfect Marxist strategy.

[Ridge]

Part 2. Devaluation of real marriages = Divorces >children hurt > crime rates higher single family homes> teen pregnancy > higher drug use > moral decay > breakdown of societies.

Your marriage is already in trouble if gays getting to use a word put yours into a tailspin.

[Ridge]

Well, why has it been necessary for hundreds of years? All those reasons.

So the government can get money out of you with a license.

[BPTactical]

So the government can get money out of you with a license.

No, that it is a legally recognized union between man and wife.
Not that gubberment intervention is needed for that though......

[Ridge]

Well now we've just come full circle...

[Tinelement]

I already put my 2 cents in.

Is this gonna be the first closed thread of the new forum!?

Coffee
Popcorn

[Jumpstart]

So the government can get money out of you with a license.

First you paint it as a "religious notion" and now it's about the government taking your money. Men and women have been getting "married" across societies for thousands of years. There is a reason behind that fact.

[Wulf202]

No, that it is a legally recognized union between man and wife.

Or if you live together for more than 6 months. With all the common law marriage laws it doesn't mean shit, no union, no ceremony or vows, just living under the same roof. Hell male and female room mates qualify quite often.

[Ridge]

Men and women have been getting "married" across societies for thousands of years. There is a reason behind that fact.

And what is the reason? And why do two people that begrudgingly live together to support an illegitimate child have more right to it than two people who love each other?

[BPTactical]

And what is the reason? And why do two people that begrudgingly live together to support an illegitimate child have more right to it than two people who love each other?

Dr Phil wants to know........

[Jumpstart]

And what is the reason? And why do two people that begrudgingly live together to support an illegitimate child have more right to it than two people who love each other?

Because they can create that child.

[Ridge]

Because they can create that child.

And then treat it like shit.

[tmleadr03]

Well, why has it been necessary for hundreds of years? All those reasons.

Snort. Jumping over a broom has been going on for a lot longer then wedding licences.

[Rucker61]

I am so very torn on this subject.
1- I am all for personal freedoms, if that is the life that one wishes then so be it. Just don't expect me to accept it as "normal" and don't you dare think you deserve anything exceptional or "protected class" status.


Like the tax exempt status of churches?




2-Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.


Then let the various churches handle it. The government doesn't have any business in sacred activities. What's your feeling on divorce? As strict as the Pope's, as in don't allow it, or stronger, or weaker?




3-Adoption-Bullshit. It takes a man and a woman to make a child and it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. I sincerely feel that a child in a gay marriage is set up to fail. The additional stresses it places on a child must be tremendous.



It takes a act of sex to make a child, test tubes and petri dishes notwithstanding, but there have been millions of kids raised in single parent homes. Do you feel that since it takes a man and woman to raise a child, surrogate fathers should be assigned to single moms by the government? Forced to enter the sacred union of marriage to make sure that the kids are raised by two loving parents?

I know kids raised in gay homes, and they're fine. Anecdote, not data, but it's a couterpoint. I would bet that if you were to actually study the children of two gay parnents you'd find that they have about the same success/failuer rate as kids raised in hetero couple homes, and better than you'd find in single parent homes.




We have seen historically that a large amount of children that commit serious crimes come from dysfunctional families. Seriously, how much more dysfunctional than wife and wife or husband and husband can you get?


Seriously? A lot frigging worse. Do you even know any gay couples?




What is the worst part is the clear indicator that this is a further degradation of the very fiber of our society, morals.
Without morals there is no right or wrong.



So gay people are Evil, and bent on destroying American society? You need to get out more. Greed and selfishness are more detrimental than gay marriage by many orders of magnitude.




I think this is by design, one way to weaken a strong county and society is to destroy the basis of said society.
Destroy the traditional family, destroy the morals of society and you have a society that is very easily influenced and manipulated.
Perfect Marxist strategy.

How does the two guys living together across the street getting to enjoy the same legal benefits as my wife and I do affect our marriage, your marriage, or any other marriage? Answer - not at all. There are many other factors today that do, however. I'd say that the inability of single income family to afford a middle class lifestyle has been more detrimental than anything on the gay agenda could ever hope for.

[Rucker61]

First you paint it as a "religious notion" and now it's about the government taking your money. Men and women have been getting "married" across societies for thousands of years. There is a reason behind that fact.

More than one. Political alliances, for one. Women as chattel not getting a choice, another, and lets not forget societies where one man could own many wives. Marriage as a religious sacrament is all about control of society.

[Ridge]

http://i.imgur.com/6LXjj.gif

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

Doesn't adversely affect me, I don't care. If it doesn't affect you, follow me.

[Goodburbon]

HOLY COW I agree with Obama.

Happens almost as often as I agree with Republicans.

[rockhound]

It is a noj issue for me, what do i care who anyones else chooses to spend their lives with

[rockhound]

It is a non issue for me, what do i care who anyones else chooses to spend the
ir lives with

[XC700116]

I am so very torn on this subject.
1- I am all for personal freedoms, if that is the life that one wishes then so be it. Just don't expect me to accept it as "normal" and don't you dare think you deserve anything exceptional or "protected class" status.
2-Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
3-Adoption-Bullshit. It takes a man and a woman to make a child and it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. I sincerely feel that a child in a gay marriage is set up to fail. The additional stresses it places on a child must be tremendous.
We have seen historically that a large amount of children that commit serious crimes come from dysfunctional families. Seriously, how much more dysfunctional than wife and wife or husband and husband can you get?

What is the worst part is the clear indicator that this is a further degradation of the very fiber of our society, morals.
Without morals there is no right or wrong.

I think this is by design, one way to weaken a strong county and society is to destroy the basis of said society.
Destroy the traditional family, destroy the morals of society and you have a society that is very easily influenced and manipulated.
Perfect Marxist strategy.

Generally I agree with you in many aspects and used to hold the exact same views until my mother remarried a man who's oldest son, now my step brother, is gay. He's from a strong Catholic family, my step father's first wife died from cancer shortly after their youngest was born or they would probably still be together and I wouldn't even know them. He's not "out" they don't talk about it, he's not "LOOK AT ME I'm GAY and YOU have to accept it". He's just a early 40 something guy that happens to be attracted to other men. Who am I to say it's wrong? So to point #1 I 100% agree.

Point #2 is where I diverge, in the traditional sense marriage is between a man and woman, except early Mormons and many other cultures in this world believe/believed in plural marriage. Then the fact that marriage is born of religion, so I tend to think of it in the light of, it's part of certain religions and it shouldn't be applied in a general sense, or by the government in any form. IMO it equates to sharia law to a point in that it's a religious view enforced by government. I realize that is a pretty bold statement but it's merely meant to illustrate my point.

Point #3, I'm pretty much with you, but this part
Seriously, how much more dysfunctional than wife and wife or husband and husband can you get? Well I can tell you I'd much rather have grown up in a home with two loving parents of the same sex than a mother that took care of me and an abusive drunk. Or what about the home where the parents are constantly fighting openly but "stay together for the kids" I actually know one of these couples that adopted their first child, how well adjusted do you think that kid is? The ONLY reason that a child in the home of a same sex marriage faces so much turmoil is the fact that society, and those that think they should be able to control other people's lives, put it there. The rest of the turmoil is in the hands of how the parents raise the child and their interactions in the home.

Do I really agree with gay couples adopting? No, but I have to say it's no worse than single mothers too young to have grown up before having a child, and then never really grow up and become a responsible parent, or couples that shouldn't be together that "stay together for the kids" yet fight like cats and dogs, or the home with an abusive parent.

As to degradation of morals, IMO, it's not a question of morality, it's a question of someone else's life as compared to YOUR morality. No government should be dictating personal morality as long as it does not interfere with another individual's choice, property, or freedom. If someone's sensibilities or feelings are somehow hurt by someone else's choices in life, well too fricken bad, get over it.

Marxism has no reference to promoting the degradation of morality, It for the most part revolves around economics and the fallacy that people will still work and achieve when there really is no incentive. So that really is a false idea, see the 10 pillars below. HOWEVER I do agree that the leftists in this country are picking and choosing strong 1 issue voters to pander to in order to get them to hand them the power, some it's gay rights, some it's abortion rights, some it's class warfare (this one boggles me to no end because half these idiots voting for them can't make the connection that they are voting for some of the biggest examples of what they are against or want confiscated in their name).

It seems sometimes that the average voter in this country can't apply logic or has the attention span of a 12 year old with A.D.D. after a double espresso. They can't see beyond the "I WANT" part of the thought process and never seem to connect the dots on the political ramifications of what they want and how to go about getting it. They just want someone to hand it to them and the leftists are perfectly willing to do so in order to gain or retain power. Should they ever get all of the power, it's all over and people will finally wake up, but it will be far too late.




1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

[UncleDave]

You cannot legislate morality. If you passed a law that you must love your neighbor, how often would that law be broken. The strength of your morals comes from within and how you are raised, not legislative action. That is why Jesus said my kingdom is no part of this world. If gays marry or don't marry has no bearing on what a person of faith does, and legislating against it will not stop them from living together in a union of a marital nature. Behaviors are only changed from within a person.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Wouldn't we all be better off if his mother had been a lesbian?

[bryjcom]

The way I see it is this. Who gives a shit if gays marry?? We got FAR WORSE things to worry about then whether 2 dudes have to split their belongings after they break up.


Honestly, it should be left up to the states to decide. Nowhere in the constitution does it say the federal government can regulate marriages....At least nowhere that I know of....

[Sharpienads]

Here's my problem with the gay marriage movement.

Most of the activists are liberal. If they hadn't spent the last 100-ish years working so hard to centralize as much power as possible in the government, they would have the right to marry whoever they wanted. The way I see it, as long as you're not infringing on anybody else's rights, you should be able to do whatever you want. However, liberals disagree. They want the government to do everything for them, and then when they want something like gay marriage, they bitch about not having the right to do it.

You cannot separate rights from responsibility. You want the government to be responsible for everything? Well now you don't have the right to do what you want. You want the right marry whoever you want? Well then you need to take responsibility for your own life and quit relying on the government to provide you with everything you think you want/need.

[XC700116]

Here's my problem with the gay marriage movement.

Most of the activists are liberal. If they hadn't spent the last 100-ish years working so hard to centralize as much power as possible in the government, they would have the right to marry whoever they wanted. The way I see it, as long as you're not infringing on anybody else's rights, you should be able to do whatever you want. However, liberals disagree. They want the government to do everything for them, and then when they want something like gay marriage, they bitch about not having the right to do it.

You cannot separate rights from responsibility. You want the government to be responsible for everything? Well now you don't have the right to do what you want. You want the right marry whoever you want? Well then you need to take responsibility for your own life and quit relying on the government to provide you with everything you think you want/need.

couldn't have said it any better

[GilpinGuy]

Here's my problem with the gay marriage movement.

Most of the activists are liberal. If they hadn't spent the last 100-ish years working so hard to centralize as much power as possible in the government, they would have the right to marry whoever they wanted. The way I see it, as long as you're not infringing on anybody else's rights, you should be able to do whatever you want. However, liberals disagree. They want the government to do everything for them, and then when they want something like gay marriage, they bitch about not having the right to do it.

You cannot separate rights from responsibility. You want the government to be responsible for everything? Well now you don't have the right to do what you want. You want the right marry whoever you want? Well then you need to take responsibility for your own life and quit relying on the government to provide you with everything you think you want/need.

While I agree with most of this, I've read the Constitution many times and don't recall that a US Citizen has a RIGHT to marry anyone but maybe I'm off-base. And maybe I'm being a little anal here, but let's not fall into the liberal trap of making common terms like "right to marry" a regular thing that we all utter like it is an actual right under the Constitution. There is no such right that I know of. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

And for the record I'm one of the "I really don't have a huge opposition to gay marriage or 'civil unions' (aka gay marriage), but it just doesn't SEEM like the right way to go to me" crowd. I'll leave it at that.

If it goes, fine. And I think we will see it nation-wide eventually, just like legalized pot, prostitution, etc. Weeeeeeee!

[mevshooter]

I'm not budging on gay marriage, because most of the people on that side of the argument have been infringing on my second amendment rights for longer than the gay marriage movement has been around.

Yes, you're dang right, this is my political ammunition to fight with.

Stay the hell away from my guns, and I will stay the hell out of your bedroom.

Until then, the fight continues.

[Sharpienads]

While I agree with most of this, I've read the Constitution many times and don't recall that a US Citizen has a RIGHT to marry anyone but maybe I'm off-base. And maybe I'm being a little anal here, but let's not fall into the liberal trap of making common terms like "right to marry" a regular thing that we all utter like it is an actual right under the Constitution. There is no such right that I know of. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

And for the record I'm one of the "I really don't have a huge opposition to gay marriage or 'civil unions' (aka gay marriage), but it just doesn't SEEM like the right way to go to me" crowd. I'll leave it at that.

If it goes, fine. And I think we will see it nation-wide eventually, just like legalized pot, prostitution, etc. Weeeeeeee!

"The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

On top of that, the federal government has no power to legislate on marriage. And by getting married you're not infringing on anybody else's rights or making anybody else carry any sort of responsibility for your actions.

I get what you're saying though. But I don't think something like the "right" to healthcare or the "right" to an education is the same as the the right to marry whoever you want.

[Sharpienads]

I'm not budging on gay marriage, because most of the people on that side of the argument have been infringing on my second amendment rights for longer than the gay marriage movement has been around.

Yes, you're dang right, this is my political ammunition to fight with.

Stay the hell away from my guns, and I will stay the hell out of your bedroom.

Until then, the fight continues.

True, but there are better arguments for the 2A than that.

[Flatline]

there should NOT be government recognized marriage. just civil unions or contracts, as i see it.

if a religious institution wants to marry you, well thats yours and their business. be it man man, woman woman, man woman woman woman, etc. if your choice of religion will marry you go for it. the government should only recognize contracts between individuals.

Couldn't agree more.


Part 1. Tell me why it is necessary for two men to get an arbitrary piece of paper that says they are together?

Part 2. Devaluation of real marriages = Divorces >children hurt > crime rates higher single family homes> teen pregnancy > higher drug use > moral decay > breakdown of societies.

Hence marriage needs valuation in our times, not devaluation.

Are you sure that the devaluation of marriage is affected by gays and not by the change in morals by straight couples?



3-Adoption-Bullshit. It takes a man and a woman to make a child and it takes a man and a woman to raise a child.

I can tell you as a fact that mammal offspring can be created by from only females.
Furthermore plenty of single parents have raised children successfully. Maybe you think I should head down to the battered women's shelter and tell those women that if they have children and they don't get back with a man ASAP then they risk forever corrupting their children!

[GilpinGuy]

"The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

I believe (strongly) that these "certain rights" were the ones specifically outlined by the founders and further amendments. Nothing else, ever, unless ratified by the States as a new Right through the proper process (not judicial activism) is a right.


On top of that, the federal government has no power to legislate on marriage. And by getting married you're not infringing on anybody else's rights or making anybody else carry any sort of responsibility for your actions.

I get what you're saying though. But I don't think something like the "right" to healthcare or the "right" to an education is the same asthe the right to marry whoever you want.

None of these things is a right, including the "right to marry whoever you want". The words "marry" or "marriage" are never once mentioned in the US Constitution. Marriage to whoever you want is simply not a "right" granted by the US Constitution.

Again, if I'm off here, someone please correct my Crown and Diet Pepsi basted brain. (yeah, I know...gotta lay off the diet pepsi...)

[GilpinGuy]

I can tell you as a fact that mammal offspring can be created by from only females.

Any of them ever been human? We are a bit different than, say, platypuses (are they even mammals?).

[Irving]

I believe (strongly) that these "certain rights" were the ones specifically outlined by the founders and further amendments. Nothing else, ever, unless ratified by the States as a new Right through the proper process (not judicial activism) is a right.





Sounds like you should read the Constitution several more times then. One of the very first things that it says is that it is not an exclusive list of rights. I read the Constitution to say that anything that is not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, everything is a right, unless it is specifically stated to not be a right. Right?

[GilpinGuy]

Sounds like you should read the Constitution several more times then. One of the very first things that it says is that it is not an exclusive list of rights. I read the Constitution to say that anything that is not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. Therefore, everything is a right, unless it is specifically stated to not be a right. Right?

The "not an exclusive list of rights" phrase was meant to mean (in my opinion, and others) that the list can be expanded by amendments, and, therefore, it's not exclusive. It's does not mean "yeah guys, anything else ya'll want in this silly thing we're writing is totally cool too". Why even put that phrase in there in the first place if it didn't have any specific meaning?

I think we're real close on all of this so I don't want to bait you or anything. It just steams me when folks talk about my "right" to do this or that. Some things just aren't "rights". So they shouldn't pretend they are.

If folks want gay marriage to be a "right" under the US Constitution, get it ratified by the States. That's my point.

Do I have a right to marry my dog? It's not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. So why not?

[Jumpstart]

And then treat it like shit.

So now since children are abused in the world ( your inference being exclusively by straight couples) we should allow homosexuals set aside priviledges? News flash: Homosexuals rape children,murder children, exploit children, steal, lie, assault, slander etc. as well.

[tmleadr03]

The "not an exclusive list of rights" phrase was meant to mean (in my opinion, and others) that the list can be expanded by amendments, and, therefore, it's not exclusive. It's does not mean "yeah guys, anything else ya'll want in this silly thing we're writing is totally cool too". Why even put that phrase in there in the first place if it didn't have any specific meaning?

I think we're real close on all of this so I don't want to bait you or anything. It just steams me when folks talk about my "right" to do this or that. Some things just aren't "rights". So they shouldn't pretend they are.

If folks want gay marriage to be a "right" under the US Constitution, get it ratified by the States. That's my point.

Do I have a right to marry my dog? It's not specifically deemed illegal, and does not infringe on the rights of others. So why not?

Your argument is flawed. Beastiality is against the law in I believe all the states.

[BPTactical]

Your argument is flawed. Beastiality is against the law in I believe all the states.

You ever see a Nebraska cheerleader???

[n8tive97]

Just another slap in the face of conservatives... he is the worst president ever!

[Ridge]

So now since children are abused in the world ( your inference being exclusively by straight couples) we should allow homosexuals set aside priviledges? News flash: Homosexuals rape children,murder children, exploit children, steal, lie, assault, slander etc. as well.

Please, tell me. Would you rather children only allowed to live in a family with one mother and one father, in which they are treated like shit, or do you think they should have the opportunity to live with a gay couple that will treat them nicely?

All your argument is saying is that gays are a lot like straight people. Doesn't really help your case that they should be treated differently.

Gun owners do all that shit, too. Should they be denied the right to raise children?

[Rucker61]

Gay couples are already living together, having sex and raising kids already. Nothing will change that. Allowing them to marry just gives them rights and protections enjoyed by couples who marry, under the law.

[n8tive97]

Please, tell me. Would you rather children only allowed to live in a family with one mother and one father, in which they are treated like shit, or do you think they should have the opportunity to live with a gay couple that will treat them nicely?

All your argument is saying is that gays are a lot like straight people. Doesn't really help your case that they should be treated differently.

Gun owners do all that shit, too. Should they be denied the right to raise children?

So all gay couples are loving parents? There are no gay couples raising kids that treat their kids like shit?

[Ridge]

So all gay couples are loving parents? There are no gay couples raising kids that treat their kids like shit?

What about straight couples?

The argument was never that gay couples are better than straight couples. The argument is that they aren't any worse.

[ghettodub]

Friend just posted this on facebook, and thought it had some funny relating points to this discussion.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7243/7170893134_4e0c084ffa.jpg

[airborneranger]

Friend just posted this on facebook, and thought it had some funny relating points to this discussion.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7243/7170893134_4e0c084ffa.jpg

I will have to reshare this one on some other sites.

[TFOGGER]

I'm a true libertarian. How people structure their relationships, based on their sexual preference, is not my business, nor the government's. If homosexuals desire to be legally married, they should be allowed to, under the EXACT same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. Sure, apply all rules of inheritance, medical power of attorney, etc., but also binding common law marriage, divorce, child support, etc. With rights come responsibilities.

[TFOGGER]

You ever see a Nebraska cheerleader???

Suspended for grazing on the field at halftime...

[BigBear]

I don't care for it. To me, it's immoral, unnatural and not conducive to the longevity/well being of our species. But, get the government out of our lives and let people do what they want. Just remind them of their responsibilities of their choice.

Yes, I have gay friends and they know where I stand. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I won't respond, this thread is just a pissing contest like so many before the crash.

[68Charger]

I can tell you as a fact that mammal offspring can be created by from only females.

umm, no... only females AND A LAB (not a Labrador retriever, some place where they splice cells)


I believe (strongly) that these "certain rights" were the ones specifically outlined by the founders and further amendments. Nothing else, ever, unless ratified by the States as a new Right through the proper process (not judicial activism) is a right.



None of these things is a right, including the "right to marry whoever you want". The words "marry" or "marriage" are never once mentioned in the US Constitution. Marriage to whoever you want is simply not a "right" granted by the US Constitution.

Again, if I'm off here, someone please correct my Crown and Diet Pepsi basted brain. (yeah, I know...gotta lay off the diet pepsi...)

The fundamental flaw in your logic here is that the constitution should NOT be used to restrict the rights of citizens- unless they infringe upon others. It is intended to restrict the power of Gov't.

and yes, that diet Pepsi is much worse for you than the Crown [Pepsi]

[Zundfolge]

I don't care for it. To me, it's immoral, unnatural and not conducive to the longevity/well being of our species. But, get the government out of our lives and let people do what they want. Just remind them of their responsibilities of their choice.

Yes, I have gay friends and they know where I stand. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I won't respond, this thread is just a pissing contest like so many before the crash.

That pretty much sums up all angles here. So I guess +3?

[DeusExMachina]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/561235_10100137353953776_40502115_41346141_8138203 65_n.jpg

[reno316]

Furthermore plenty of single parents have raised children successfully.

Yeah, I don't buy the idea that it takes a man and a woman to raise a child either.

Nor would my single mother.

Can it be a better scenario? Yes, given the right set of circumstances: Two parents that are respectful of each other, hold each other as equals, work together to maintain a consistent set of expectations, etc.

But nobody... NOBODY... is going to convince me that I would have been better off if my mother had stayed with the physically abusive alcoholic womanizing piece of mule dung that was my biological sperm donor.

[68Charger]

After reading this thread, What would happen if instead of the gov't specifically allowing/banning marriage under certain circumstances, It was stricken from having anything to do with it. What would the ramifications of that be? cousins getting married? Polygamy?
The purpose of the marriage certificate from the gov't point of view is to ALLOW/DISALLOW you from getting one based on their rules. (i.e. preventing you from taking a 2nd wife, etc)

But that'll never happen- Gov't is not about to reduce it's own power.
Problem is, as soon as the license is used to "allow" something, then it's endorsing it.

One of the things that bothers me about the status quo is that some entities (companies, for example) have SPECIAL rules for "Domestic Partners" and the level of proof required is very different, because of Gov't rules. I have to submit a gov't document to "prove" I'm married, but they can just submit an affidavit with no proof.

[CO Hugh]

He'll come out of the closet soon.

Agreed.

[Ronin13]

We have seen historically that a large amount of children that commit serious crimes come from dysfunctional families.

Bert, I'm not arguing with you here, but while this is true it's a non-exclusive issue too- look at John Hinkley, Jr.... He did not come from a dysfunctional family.

My stance- let them do what they want to do, they want to pay joint taxes as a married couple- great. Bill's husband ends up on his death bed and he wants rights to be in the hospital room with him for his final hours, let him. Susan wants to be able to order the doc to remove the feeding tube from her wife, why stop her. Sanctity of marriage? I like that picture ghettodub posted- See: Britney Spears' 55-hour-joke-of-a-marriage. [Shake]

Freedom is a 2 way street folks- you want your freedom, someone else wants theirs... just like you can't pick and choose the rights on a case by case basis, what I mean is you want the freedom to say "We're all equal and deserve to be free," but you can't restrict someone from saying "Blacks should be treated as second class citizens." So you want to be able to marry Mary Jane Rottencrotch, you shouldn't be able to tell Gary he can't meet Ace at the alter and make their partnership official.

[CO Hugh]

I am so very torn on this subject.
1- I am all for personal freedoms, if that is the life that one wishes then so be it. Just don't expect me to accept it as "normal" and don't you dare think you deserve anything exceptional or "protected class" status.
2-Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
3-Adoption-Bullshit. It takes a man and a woman to make a child and it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. I sincerely feel that a child in a gay marriage is set up to fail. The additional stresses it places on a child must be tremendous.
We have seen historically that a large amount of children that commit serious crimes come from dysfunctional families. Seriously, how much more dysfunctional than wife and wife or husband and husband can you get?

What is the worst part is the clear indicator that this is a further degradation of the very fiber of our society, morals.
Without morals there is no right or wrong.

I think this is by design, one way to weaken a strong county and society is to destroy the basis of said society.
Destroy the traditional family, destroy the morals of society and you have a society that is very easily influenced and manipulated.
Perfect Marxist strategy.


I generally agree with BP. BHO's stance is not so groundbreaking: Cheny was in support of it, http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/06/01/cheney_comes_out_for_gay_marri.html.

As a starting point: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299401/conservatives-and-gays-where-do-we-stand-dennis-prager

As to why the government is involved, one big reason has to do with divorce law and the welfare state. If you get divorced with children the government is concerned that the children wind up on welfare so they stick you with the bill to support them.

Like many things government intervention starts because people engage in self indulgent behavior without any thoughts to the consequences, say if something goes wrong. Then when they realize the error of their ways they want the government involved.

Also wait, soon there will be anti discrimination laws and punishment for those that disagree with same sex marriage or refuse to conduct marriages. The left claims people disagreeing with them are haters.

You already cannot discriminate agaisnt some man wearing a dress in employment or housing no matter how sincere your convictions that it is wrong.

[DeusExMachina]

I don't think it's fair to call a gay marriage "dysfunctional" by nature, or that it is somehow immoral.

I believe it is more immoral to condemn two people who want the same freedoms as others.

[CO Hugh]

Here's my problem with the gay marriage movement.

Most of the activists are liberal. If they hadn't spent the last 100-ish years working so hard to centralize as much power as possible in the government, they would have the right to marry whoever they wanted. The way I see it, as long as you're not infringing on anybody else's rights, you should be able to do whatever you want. However, liberals disagree. They want the government to do everything for them, and then when they want something like gay marriage, they bitch about not having the right to do it.

You cannot separate rights from responsibility. You want the government to be responsible for everything? Well now you don't have the right to do what you want. You want the right marry whoever you want? Well then you need to take responsibility for your own life and quit relying on the government to provide you with everything you think you want/need.


Here is food for thought or a discussion point: the bill of rights arose to ensure that the government did not infringe on rights we all have as a result of living as free men, they are inalienable. Thus, the right to bear arms is a right all free people have; the second amendment did not give us the right.

Liberals complain that the constitution is negative and does not protect positive rights, such as housing, wealth redistribution.

So if the government does not create rights, only God does, then why does the right to marry have to come from the government?

Remember a government that creates rights will also take them.

[BPTactical]

Also wait, soon there will be anti discrimination laws and punishment for those that disagree with same sex marriage or refuse to conduct marriages. The left claims people disagreeing with them are haters.

And yet another dimension of Pandora's box opens.............

[JM Ver. 2.0]

I am so very torn on this subject.
1- I am all for personal freedoms, if that is the life that one wishes then so be it. Just don't expect me to accept it as "normal" and don't you dare think you deserve anything exceptional or "protected class" status.
2-Marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman.
3-Adoption-Bullshit. It takes a man and a woman to make a child and it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. I sincerely feel that a child in a gay marriage is set up to fail. The additional stresses it places on a child must be tremendous.
We have seen historically that a large amount of children that commit serious crimes come from dysfunctional families. Seriously, how much more dysfunctional than wife and wife or husband and husband can you get?

What is the worst part is the clear indicator that this is a further degradation of the very fiber of our society, morals.
Without morals there is no right or wrong.

I think this is by design, one way to weaken a strong county and society is to destroy the basis of said society.
Destroy the traditional family, destroy the morals of society and you have a society that is very easily influenced and manipulated.
Perfect Marxist strategy.


So, are you saying that because I was raised by a single parent I'm somehow different from any other child out there? And, You can get A LOT more dysfuctional..

I'm willing to bet that if you studied it, a child raised in a happy gay household would come out BETTER than one raised by a married but unhappy male and female.

Maybe a civil union between two gay individuals is immoral to you... That's fine. That's your view... Being "anti-gay" is immoral to me... Your immoral action are destroying blah blah blah... See how it works?

Morals, like ethics, are a personal thing...



I normally agree with just about everything you say and you're a pretty good guy... But your comment on children being more likely to commit a serious crime because of a "dysfuctional family" is utter bullshit and it kind of pisses me off... I've never commited a serious crime in my life and I don't plan it... And I came from one of those "dysfunctional" single parents families you say are the cause for all of America's problems...

[tmckay2]

The government shouldn't even be involved in marriages. I don't agree with homosexuality I think it is a sin and some are unfortunately tempted with it just as we all are tempted with other sins but I think they should not be withheld rights the rest of us enjoy. To say they should is a very dangerous road to go down and could come back to bite you in the ass when they take rights from you because they don't agree with you ethically or morally. Just my opinion and I certainly don't judge or hate on people who disagree. It really shouldn't be such a polarizing topic if you ask me

[tmleadr03]

The relative morality in this thread is based on Judeo-Christian theology. I find it fascinating that people who are so strongly for personal liberties when it comes to firearms are do opposed to it when it comes to sexuality.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

I say let's allow gay marriage but bring back the death penalty when it used to be a quick process. A little give and take...

[JM Ver. 2.0]

The relative morality in this thread is based on Judeo-Christian theology. I find it fascinating that people who are so strongly for personal liberties when it comes to firearms are do opposed to it when it comes to sexuality.

I have a crisp $1 bill that says at some point after this someone will make reference to the costitution and the second amendment...


I say let's allow gay marriage but bring back the death penalty when it used to be a quick process. A little give and take...


How quick are we talking... "Guilty! Death Penalty!" *bang* Or are we talking something a bit slower?

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

Depends how conclusive the evidence is...

[HBARleatherneck]

I have a crisp $1 bill that says at some point after this someone will make reference to the costitution and the second amendment...




How quick are we talking... "Guilty! Death Penalty!" *bang* Or are we talking something a bit slower?

yes, you should start looking for a new job....that quick.

[ghettodub]

I find it fascinating that people who are so strongly for personal liberties when it comes to firearms are do opposed to it when it comes to sexuality.

Agreed, and always wondered that myself...

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Depends how conclusive the evidence is...


There's a guy in my jail... The cop saw him do it, about 20 other people saw him do it, and he admitted to doing it...

He shot a guy in the face with a shotgun...

Do you think he should be in the express lane?

I do.

[Zundfolge]

The relative morality in this thread is based on Judeo-Christian theology. I find it fascinating that people who are so strongly for personal liberties when it comes to firearms are do opposed to it when it comes to sexuality.
So every other culture in human history EXCEPT Judaism and Christianity allowed gay marriage? Really?

I would submit that this is the first time in human history that gay marriage was even CONSIDERED, let alone allowing gays to be openly gay.

The idea that marriage is only between only a man and a woman (or a man and several women, but otherwise a heterosexual convention) has been the defacto standard since LONG before Abraham was born (the first Jew) and even longer before Christ.

Furthermore, virtually every major world religion condemns homosexuality as some sort of aberration, sin or otherwise "bad juju". So it's not just Christian Republicans.


One can make the case that it's "fair" to allow gay marriage, even that it's appropriate for a free society like America. But the idea that opposition to gay marriage is some sort of theocratic Judeo-Christian bigotry is just asinine and shows a total lack of awareness of human history.

[Ridge]

So every other culture in human history EXCEPT Judaism and Christianity allowed gay marriage? Really?

I would submit that this is the first time in human history that gay marriage was even CONSIDERED, let alone allowing gays to be openly gay.

I seem to remember a few stories in the Bible involving gays who weren't immediately turned to salt...

[Irving]

I think that no one of the same sex should be allowed to engage in ANY type of legally binding contract. Sorry business partners, co-signers, property owners, employees and employers, loan seekers, lenders, and anyone interested in any type of commerce. That would be immoral.

[Ah Pook]

We go to the Marriage License office. We affirm that we are at least one cousin removed from each other. We pay the marriage license tax. We get a marriage license. We are now married in the eyes of the state of Colorado.

What does that mean?



We can get auto/health insurance together an a married couple.
We can make decisions in emergency situations for each other.
We can have powers of attorney, will and other legal documents.
We can file taxes jointly.
We get full rights and benefits for being a married couple in the eyes of the state.


Not sure why this right/privilege is limited to a man and woman relationship. I don't care what adult people do with their lives. If a couple (gay or straight) wants to make a commitment to each other, more power to them.

[tmleadr03]

So every other culture in human history EXCEPT Judaism and Christianity allowed gay marriage? Really?

I would submit that this is the first time in human history that gay marriage was even CONSIDERED, let alone allowing gays to be openly gay.

The idea that marriage is only between only a man and a woman (or a man and several women, but otherwise a heterosexual convention) has been the defacto standard since LONG before Abraham was born (the first Jew) and even longer before Christ.

Furthermore, virtually every major world religion condemns homosexuality as some sort of aberration, sin or otherwise "bad juju". So it's not just Christian Republicans.


One can make the case that it's "fair" to allow gay marriage, even that it's appropriate for a free society like America. But the idea that opposition to gay marriage is some sort of theocratic Judeo-Christian bigotry is just asinine and shows a total lack of awareness of human history.

You should read up a bit more on the subject.

But just to take your logic, while ignoring facts, and run with it. Would you be happy if we stuck to the marriage practices that have been in place for most of human history?

[sniper7]

screw it, I say let them. then we they get pissed off and get divorces like about 50% of those between men and women.

I guess I need to become a divorce lawyer cause I can see some $$$ in my future.

I work with plenty of gays, most of them are fine to work with, do their job and do it safely, the flamboyant ones I would hate whether they were gay or straight so it doesn't really matter much what they are. that is their choice.

As long as they aren't bothering me or pushing their issues on my I really could care less.

I don't know about the parenting issue. I am a new parent myself. I don't know what I would do without my wife. She is amazing with our son. Kids are challenging no matter what. So if two men or two women think they can take it on, and they pass all the crazy background checks and get selected to be adoption parents, I don't see how they can be much worse that some of the parents out there...people post about those very parents on here relatively often.

[Irving]

There should be no same sex power of attornies either, or any same sex legal representation.

[Ridge]

You should read up a bit more on the subject.

But just to take your logic, while ignoring facts, and run with it. Would you be happy if we stuck to the marriage practices that have been in place for most of human history?

That chick looks hot. I'm going to go boop her on the head with a baseball bat and take her home.

[reno316]

So every other culture in human history EXCEPT Judaism and Christianity allowed gay marriage? Really?

Not sure where you got that from this: "The relative morality in this thread is based on Judeo-Christian theology. I find it fascinating that people who are so strongly for personal liberties when it comes to firearms are do opposed to it when it comes to sexuality."

The point he was making, I think, is that you can no more force your Judeo-Christian morality on me than I can force my Flying Spaghetti Monster-Combat Manatee morality on you (yes, I pray to a Tactical Manatee anda bowl of pasta... what of it?)


I would submit that this is the first time in human history that gay marriage was even CONSIDERED, let alone allowing gays to be openly gay.

I submit, Sir, that you need to read more history.


The idea that marriage is only between only a man and a woman (or a man and several women, but otherwise a heterosexual convention) has been the defacto standard since LONG before Abraham was born (the first Jew) and even longer before Christ.

If that's your argument... because we've always done it that way... then please log off and get rid of your computer, return to a black powder musket (better yet, a bow and arrow and a spear), get rid of any clothing that isn't made from animal skin, quit driving your car, do your math on an abacus instead of a calculator, ditch your eyeglasses, forget watching TV, no radio...

... Blacks can't get married, children can be sold into slavery, nobody gets modern medical care, you only eat what you grow or kill...

"Because it's always been that way" is a horrible excuse to limit humans from having equal rights.


Furthermore, virtually every major world religion condemns homosexuality as some sort of aberration, sin or otherwise "bad juju". So it's not just Christian Republicans.

It has NOTHING to do with religion. It's about equal rights and protection under the law. Why is this so difficult to understand for some people?


One can make the case that it's "fair" to allow gay marriage, even that it's appropriate for a free society like America. But the idea that opposition to gay marriage is some sort of theocratic Judeo-Christian bigotry is just asinine and shows a total lack of awareness of human history.

Funny, then, how it's always the so-called "Christians" that are the loudest and most vocal opponents of gay marriage.

[68Charger]

Here is food for thought or a discussion point: the bill of rights arose to ensure that the government did not infringe on rights we all have as a result of living as free men, they are inalienable. Thus, the right to bear arms is a right all free people have; the second amendment did not give us the right.

Liberals complain that the constitution is negative and does not protect positive rights, such as housing, wealth redistribution.

So if the government does not create rights, only God does, then why does the right to marry have to come from the government?

Remember a government that creates rights will also take them.

^^^ This, the 2nd amendment doesn't grant us the right to bear arms, it EXPRESSLY forbids the government from creating laws that infringe upon that right which citizens already have.


I seem to remember a few stories in the Bible involving gays who weren't immediately turned to salt...

Just because it's in the bible, doesn't mean it's endorsed. The destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah for example...


Not sure where you got that from this: "The relative morality in this thread is based on Judeo-Christian theology. I find it fascinating that people who are so strongly for personal liberties when it comes to firearms are do opposed to it when it comes to sexuality."
<snip>
It has NOTHING to do with religion. It's about equal rights and protection under the law. Why is this so difficult to understand for some people?

Funny, then, how it's always the so-called "Christians" that are the loudest and most vocal opponents of gay marriage.

Because there aren't any gays in Iran? Islam certainly speaks out against homosexuality- you just don't hear much arguing where the punishment for coming out of the closet is DEATH

This is one double-standard of Political Correctness... there are many people that are offended by homosexuality, but those that are offended are attacked... but refer to illegals in certain ways, offending someone, and the offender will be attacked. Basically, you're not PC if you don't agree with "them"

welcome to the double standard- both sides do it, it's human nature. There are usually 3 sides to every story- side A's argument, side B's argument, and the truth.

Don't let the Westboro money-grubbers (because that's what their gigs are about) lead you to judge all Christians.

[Zundfolge]

If that's your argument... because we've always done it that way... then please log off and get rid of your computer, return to a black powder musket (better yet, a bow and arrow and a spear), get rid of any clothing that isn't made from animal skin, quit driving your car, do your math on an abacus instead of a calculator, ditch your eyeglasses, forget watching TV, no radio...
You missed the entire point of my post.

I'm not defending or attacking gay marriage (I happen to support a wall of separation between marriage and state ... it offends me that I had to pay the state for the privileged of marrying my wife).

My point is only that 1) opposition to gay marriage is NOT the imposition of "Judeo-Christian values" since opposition to homosexuality pre-dates both religions (and is part of most of the worlds religions, past and present). and 2) this is the first time in history that gay marriage is being seriously considered, so its not like those that oppose it are some odd outliers that are rejecting something that has always been considered a common right (like the right to arms for instance).

[tmleadr03]

You missed the entire point of my post.

I'm not defending or attacking gay marriage (I happen to support a wall of separation between marriage and state ... it offends me that I had to pay the state for the privileged of marrying my wife).

My point is only that 1) opposition to gay marriage is NOT the imposition of "Judeo-Christian values" since opposition to homosexuality pre-dates both religions (and is part of most of the worlds religions, past and present). and 2) this is the first time in history that gay marriage is being seriously considered, so its not like those that oppose it are some odd outliers that are rejecting something that has always been considered a common right (like the right to arms for instance).

And again, you are not correct about that "first time" part.

[Jumpstart]

Based on some of the responses here, I am starting wonder. Did the site change to Gay Colorado AR -15 Shooters when it was offline?

[Zundfolge]

And again, you are not correct about that "first time" part.
Ok, you're going to have to site some sources here. Show me this list of civilizations that had gay marriage before the latter 20th century.

[Ridge]

Based on some of the responses here, I am starting wonder. Did the site change to Gay Colorado AR -15 Shooters when it was offline?

I was kinda wondering if the site had changed to Colorado Self Righteous AR-15 Shooters, myself.

[tmleadr03]

Ok, you're going to have to site some sources here. Show me this list of civilizations that had gay marriage before the latter 20th century.

Roman Emperor Nero married a man or two. Off the top of my head.

[tmleadr03]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Gay_marriage

The link shows that it was happening, though not to the same cheers as the slaughter of Christens in the arena.

[CO Hugh]

based On Some Of The Responses Here, I Am Starting Wonder. Did The Site Change To Gay Colorado Ar -15 Shooters When It Was Offline?

[rofl2]

Can't we all just get along? Where are the ponies?

[tmleadr03]

[rofl2]

Can't we all just get along? Where are the ponies?

http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m23kec2PK61rs2u39o1_500.jpg

[DeusExMachina]

I was kinda wondering if the site had changed to Colorado Self Righteous AR-15 Shooters, myself.

It's been that for a very long time.

[Rucker61]

Roman Emperor Nero married a man or two. Off the top of my head.

Did you wear a hat?

[tmleadr03]

Did you wear a hat?

Not often. Usually it is off the top of my head...

[XC700116]

Based on some of the responses here, I am starting wonder. Did the site change to Gay Colorado AR -15 Shooters when it was offline?

I find this accusation amazingly funny, cause you know, somehow by not thinking all black people should be locked in the bonds of slavery still, that makes me a black person right???

As in using your logic that a person that thinks gay people should not be denied something by the government that the government has no charter in the constitution to control to begin with, that would make that person gay.

Cause that's an amazingly well thought out and expressed line of logic right there. Typical antic of those that can't back up their line of reasoning with logic and fact, they resort to name calling. Just like the hardcore lefty's do on a daily basis.

[Jumpstart]

I find this accusation amazingly funny, cause you know, somehow by not thinking all black people should be locked in the bonds of slavery still, that makes me a black person right???

As in using your logic that a person that thinks gay people should not be denied something by the government that the government has no charter in the constitution to control to begin with, that would make that person gay.

Cause that's an amazingly well thought out and expressed line of logic right there. Typical antic of those that can't back up their line of reasoning with logic and fact, they resort to name calling. Just like the hardcore lefty's do on a daily basis.

So what exactly are gay people being denied?

[Ridge]

So what exactly are gay people being denied?

Power of attorney
Equal insurance protection
Equal legal protection
Medical visitation rights

[XC700116]

So what exactly are gay people being denied?

Marriage, Where have you been through this whole conversation??

Point being that the government has NO CHARTER in the constitution to govern it, and thereby shouldn't be to begin with weather it be straight, gay, multiple, or whatever.

[Jumpstart]

Marriage, Where have you been through this whole conversation??

Point being that the government has NO CHARTER in the constitution to govern it, and thereby shouldn't be to begin with weather it be straight, gay, multiple, or whatever.
I,m right here. Gays can marry. They have every right, like every other person to get married. They are not being denied anything else that anyone else, is not also being denied.

[Ridge]

I,m right here. Gays can marry. They have every right, like every other person to get married. They are not being denied anything else that anyone else, is not also being denied.

You may not know this, but gays legally CANNOT marry in this state.

[Jumpstart]

You may not know this, but gays legally CANNOT marry in this state.
Yes they can.

[sniper7]

Yes they can.

evidence please

[Jumpstart]

evidence please

Really? Can't figure it out?

[sniper7]

Really? Can't figure it out?

you're the one with the claim...the least you can do is back it up

[Jumpstart]

you're the one with the claim...the least you can do is back it up
Still can't figure it out?

[sniper7]

You may not know this, but gays legally CANNOT marry in this state.


Yes they can.

Here you go Jumpstart. proof you are absolutely dead wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Colorado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_same-sex_marriage_legal_in_Colorado

oh, and:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Colorado+Same+Sex+marriage+law

[Irving]

Jumpstart is making the point that gays can marry, just not same sex partners. Even though Jumpstart is straight, he has no more right to marry another man than a gay man has. Therefore, gays have the same rights as he does considering marriage. He is correct on that point.

[DeusExMachina]

A gay woman can certainly marry Jumpstart if she wants.

[Jumpstart]

Here you go Jumpstart. proof you are absolutely dead wrong:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Colorado

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_in_the_United_States

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_same-sex_marriage_legal_in_Colorado

oh, and:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Colorado+Same+Sex+marriage+law

Wow, you really did your homework on gay marriage. The sexual orientation of legal adults is not a barrier to getting married in any state in the union.

[Jumpstart]

A gay woman can certainly marry Jumpstart if she wants.

No, she couldn't.
I would be denied my right to the pursuit of happiness by being denied the "right" to marrying more than one women.

[Flatline]

Any of them ever been human? We are a bit different than, say, platypuses (are they even mammals?).

No, think dolly... and we really aren't that different from a biological standpoint, things only change significantly north of the midbrain.


umm, no... only females AND A LAB (not a Labrador retriever, some place where they splice cells)

I'm sorry, are labs male? Can females run a lab? I don't think that we make female biologists illegal, maybe I should check that again though.

I was not alluding to female asexual reproduction, if things reproduce asexually there isn't a true male or female is there?

Oh and FYI lab is short for laboratory, not "some place where they splice cells."

[sniper7]

Wow, you really did your homework on gay marriage. The sexual orientation of legal adults is not a barrier to getting married in any state in the union.

maybe so, but that isn't the argument.

gay and same-sex marriage is synonymous when it comes to gay marriage.


So why do you have a problem with two men or two women marrying each other? Will it impact your life? Will it make you feel like your marriage (if you are married or when/if you get married) is less meaningful because someone or something you don't agree with has the same right? Will it take away from the pool of single women or men you seek?

[XC700116]

I,m right here. Gays can marry. They have every right, like every other person to get married. They are not being denied anything else that anyone else, is not also being denied.

No they can't in the legal sense in which allows for joint tax returns, shared health insurance benefits, and so on WITH THE PARTNER OF THEIR CHOICE.

[reno316]

Based on some of the responses here, I am starting wonder. Did the site change to Gay Colorado AR -15 Shooters when it was offline?

Nope. Just "Tolerant Colorado AR-15 Shooters".

[reno316]

Wow, you really did your homework on gay marriage. The sexual orientation of legal adults is not a barrier to getting married in any state in the union.

Seriously, dude? THAT'S your argument? That gay men have as much right to marry women as heterosexual men do?

[Ridge]

Jumpstart is a damn good troll, I'll give him that. He's kept us going for two days, now.

[JM Ver. 2.0]

Jumpstart is making the point that gays can marry, just not same sex partners. Even though Jumpstart is straight, he has no more right to marry another man than a gay man has. Therefore, gays have the same rights as he does considering marriage. He is correct on that point.
Thank you for clearing that up... I was confused.

Jumpstart is a damn good troll, I'll give him that. He's kept us going for two days, now.
Indeed...

[Ronin13]

So jumpstart is saying that gays can marry, just not someone of the same sex...
http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/small/0912/implied-facepalm-implied-facepalm-demotivational-poster-1259858393.jpg

[Irving]

He is making the point that gays currently have equal rights concerning marriage as everyone else, and he is correct.

[Ronin13]

He is making the point that gays currently have equal rights concerning marriage as everyone else, and he is correct.

Yes, but DUH! Of course a gay man can get married, that's not what's at issue, the issue is that said gay man cannot marry his fellow man. Currently, under state law, the state of Colorado does not recognize two dudes (or two chicks) as a legal married couple, thus they don't have the "legal" rights (as listed before) that "normal" married couples enjoy... so saying that gay people can get married is just stupid, sure they can, just not to who they want. [Bang]

[Mobat555]

Power of attorney
Medical visitation rights

I personally think I should give anyone I choose this right without a marriage of any kind. Never understood why people couldn't. To that matter why the heck does it matter to anyone who gets married, it shouldn't make a difference in taxes etc.

[Sharpienads]

I personally think I should give anyone I choose this right without a marriage of any kind. Never understood why people couldn't. To that matter why the heck does it matter to anyone who gets married, it shouldn't make a difference in taxes etc.

It's just the man trying to keep us down.

[Irving]

Of course the argument is only to trip people up on the semantics of saying they are arguing for equal rights, because technically they already have equal rights. It is easily defeated.

[Jumpstart]

Men marry men? Women marrying women? Absurd.

[Ronin13]

Men marry men? Women marrying women? Absurd.

"Dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!" -Sorry your comment reminded me of Ghostbusters, the best Bill Murray lines come from that movie. [Beer]

[CO Hugh]

Time for a history lesson, the real issue here is not whether marriage can be devolved, but rather the federal government can force that policy on the states, which is nationalism not federalism.

National review is a good place to search and read articles on both sides, that are well thought out, not the denver post. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299533/devolution-marriage-editors

The issue for "freedom" or a "right" is that under the Constitution and Originalism, the analysis is how was that right understood by founding fathers at the time of adoption of the Constitution in 1789. Thus, if marriage was understood to be same sex then, it may be today. Contrary to progressive assertions the racial cases, such as Dred Scott are not examples of originalism but judicial activism. The other critical calculation here is whether Obama and federal judges can find a federal right to such a thing. Same sex marriage has failed everywhere it has been on the ballot.

Also the Constitution and its progeny were designed to prevent the government from infringing on our inalianeble rights: the right to bear arms is inalienable to everyone by their being. So if this right was being exercised before why do there need to be laws to create the "right"? Rights are those things you are born with such as liberty and freedom; not housing and a job that the government will give you.

Mr. Gutsy move failed to metamorphize before the North Carolina vote. States can and will decide whether to modify the definition of marriage, but it should be based on elected officials doing it or the voters, not judges.

As has been stated earlier, these are the same people that want your guns. It is really an issue between a national government finding rights and federalism. The regime is distracting everyone from the economy and real issue, like gun control and fast and furious to entice the masses with shiny objects and rhetoric that has nothing to do with Presidential duties, because he thinks you are all ignorant stupid bitter clingers. He needs more marriages/relationships to result in no children because that is the only way to get the unemployment rate down.

[spittoon]

Let them loose half their stuff too.
funk yea

[DD977GM2]

Im curious if people really are that up in arms over this?
If your st8, does it really matter to you if people you have no connection with
what so ever get legally married?
Im not a bible believing person, so Im guessing that those that are religious will chime
in about it being against religious beliefs etc. I honestly dont give a damn
about religious beliefs being pertinant to something that has no bearing on a heterosexual's life and their day to day lives.

One thing if it boils down to health insurance, meaning if your gay and get married your spuse will have your insurance,
that is another moot point. In the wonderful state of California, you can add your GIRLFRIEND or BOYFRIEND if you live together. So this negates that arguement.

I say give them that but not at the expense of creating a special class of citizen that they are wanting.

Discuss and lets keep it civil folks.

[DD977GM2]

An amendment isnt something Id be for also. It creates a special class of citizen IMHO.

2 people who love each other and want to share their lives with one another
is just that, 2 people regardless of gender and wanting to share their lives together and be happy.
Just because I dont putt fromt he rough doesnt mean I should tell others how to live their lives and prevent
it from being legal for them to do so.

[GilpinGuy]

I'm basically in agreement with you here. Gay marriage doesn't "seem" right to me, but I'm very straight - maybe gays feel my lifestyle doens't "seem" right to them. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. I don't thnk I'll get all up in arms about it. How many couples are we really talking here anyway? Maybe 5% of the population. Not a big issue for me as long as they don't attempt to be considered a "special" class. They're not. Thay're just gay.

ETA: this should be a State issue as well, not a Federal one IMHO.

[reno316]

Im curious if people really are that up in arms over this?
If your st8, does it really matter to you if people you have no connection with
what so ever get legally married?

I was in a wreck some years ago in my ambulance. Drunk driver blew the red light, slammed into the ambo, caused us to roll. Busted up pretty good.

Another paramedic on duty that night was the first ambulance on scene. Took damn good care of me. I probably would have survived anyway, but maybe not. Who knows, right?

That paramedic is gay. We struck up a friendship after that -- sadly, I never really got to know him before this event. Big ambulance service, lots of EMTs, see him in passing -- "Hey, Jeff"... "Hey, Richard" -- and remain friends to this day.

I'll be getting married in 4 weeks and a day. After 40 years, I finally managed to find a woman that said yes. And I'm just as happy as a pig in shit about it. I can't imagine how I got through life without this level of pure, total, complete joy.

And I can't imagine how absolutely, totally, completely frustrating it must be to be told, by a government, "Sorry, but you're not permitted to have that level of happiness in your life, because we don't think it's right."

YMMV.

[RCCrawler]

I don't think the government should have anything to do with people getting married, gay or straight.

[DavieD55]

Time for a history lesson, the real issue here is not whether marriage can be devolved, but rather the federal government can force that policy on the states, which is nationalism not federalism.

National review is a good place to search and read articles on both sides, that are well thought out, not the denver post. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/299533/devolution-marriage-editors

The issue for "freedom" or a "right" is that under the Constitution and Originalism, the analysis is how was that right understood by founding fathers at the time of adoption of the Constitution in 1789. Thus, if marriage was understood to be same sex then, it may be today. Contrary to progressive assertions the racial cases, such as Dred Scott are not examples of originalism but judicial activism. The other critical calculation here is whether Obama and federal judges can find a federal right to such a thing. Same sex marriage has failed everywhere it has been on the ballot.

Also the Constitution and its progeny were designed to prevent the government from infringing on our inalianeble rights: the right to bear arms is inalienable to everyone by their being. So if this right was being exercised before why do there need to be laws to create the "right"? Rights are those things you are born with such as liberty and freedom; not housing and a job that the government will give you.

Mr. Gutsy move failed to metamorphize before the North Carolina vote. States can and will decide whether to modify the definition of marriage, but it should be based on elected officials doing it or the voters, not judges.

As has been stated earlier, these are the same people that want your guns. It is really an issue between a national government finding rights and federalism. The regime is distracting everyone from the economy and real issue, like gun control and fast and furious to entice the masses with shiny objects and rhetoric that has nothing to do with Presidential duties, because he thinks you are all ignorant stupid bitter clingers. He needs more marriages/relationships to result in no children because that is the only way to get the unemployment rate down.


There is alot of truth in this statement.

[airborneranger]

I have no issues with gay folks getting married, however it is a very heated debate that folks take personally.

[reno316]

One thing if it boils down to health insurance, meaning if your gay and get married your spuse will have your insurance,
that is another moot point. In the wonderful state of California, you can add your GIRLFRIEND or BOYFRIEND if you live together. So this negates that arguement.

It's FAR more than just health insurance. And not all states have the same situation as California.

[roberth]

I was talking about this at work today.

The government has no business in marriage.

Homosexual people are not any different from heterosexual people. They are just people and thinking they are different based on their sexual preference is the same as thinking a black person is different just because he is black.

A white man didn't choose to be white and the homosexual didn't choose to be homosexual. They just are.

I wish people would get over it and do what Dr King said, judge people on the content of their character.

[cstone]

I don't think the government should have anything to do with people getting married, gay or straight.

This issue is complicated for many reasons. Marriage is both a civil (legal) contract, and for many it is a spiritual covenant.

The government defines marriage. The government issues marriage licenses. The government legislates when a marriage begins and when a marriage ends.

If the state government regulates what constitutes a marriage, then government can regulate who and how people can become contractually married.

It seems to me, the issue is who will We the People of the individual states elect to create laws that we desire to live by. Which officials will appoint judges We the People can respect when they make decisions regarding the laws created by our representatives.

We the People do not have static opinions about what we believe or desire for society. Our opinions are in flux and there is no clear opinion about this, among many other issues our society is confronted with.

Debate is part of our democracy. Because something was legal in 1859, does not make it legal in 2012. Because something is legal in 2012, doesn't indicate what will happen in 2020, or beyond.

Be safe.

[jreifsch80]

While I don't agree with the gay lifestyle, I also don't agree with the the gov limiting our freedom, though I also don't agree with them giving anyone "special" rights. We are turning more and more from having them tell us what we CAN'T do to having a politburo tell us what we CAN do. That's just my opinion though.

[Rucker61]

As has been stated earlier, these are the same people that want your guns.

So all the folks on this thread who are neutral or pro-gay marriage want your guns? All folks everywhere who want to allow gays to marry each other want your guns? Do you mean all of us here want to take all the guns away, or just want the anti's to fork over your guns to us. Cause, we'll take them sure, but I'll need a bigger gun safe.

[2hot2handle]

I think it's a bit narrow minded to say that all gays want your guns revoked. However it can't be denied that this is usually a group that isn't in support of gun rights.

Though in one case I believe that particular special interest group helped to get concealed carry onto college campuses for fear of their lifes...good with the bad my friends.

[RMAC757]

I was talking about this at work today.

The government has no business in marriage.

Homosexual people are not any different from heterosexual people. They are just people and thinking they are different based on their sexual preference is the same as thinking a black person is different just because he is black.

A white man didn't choose to be white and the homosexual didn't choose to be homosexual. They just are.

I wish people would get over it and do what Dr King said, judge people on the content of their character.

Well said