Obama says same-sex couples should be able to marry

[ghettodub]

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

[airborneranger]

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

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

[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]

[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.