America is a Democracy so maybe you should hold off!?

clock
I like the clock on the microwave oven. I can zap up dinner in two minutes. With modern technology speeding up my kitchen duties, I might have to spend more time in the bedroom to fulfill my noble and benign office as a wife.

0 Replies

Good point . . . you better get busy right now . . .

Of course, i was hopin' to get a rise out of you, but you took it in the right spirit, and it's more fun when somebody comes right back at ya . . .

0 Replies

The majority of the black community is adament that segregation by race and differences in sexual orientation are not the same thing and many object very much to having marriage redefined to mean something other than it now means.

I stand by my original opinion. I have no problem with any people legally forming themselves into family groups in order to obtain the benefits that gays say they want. I think they should have them.

But those of you who are unwilling to compromise in any way; those who insist that the 'let's keep marriage defined the way it is' group must completely capitulate in order for you to have your way in the matter, in my view are the unreasonable ones.

Can anyone tell me how giving gays the right to marry and not offering the same option to straight same-sex people would not make the system inequitable?

0 Replies

what are you talking about?

Foxfyre wrote:

Can anyone tell me how giving gays the right to marry and not offering the same option to straight same-sex people would not make the system inequitable?

What are you talking about? You simply replace "man and woman" in the state definition of marriage with "two persons" and you have all your constitutional bases covered.

Marriage, defined: Marriage is a personal relationship arising out of contract between two persons wherein the consent of the parties is essential.

If two "straight" same-sex persons consent to enter a personal relationship arising out of contract, the law would not prevent them from doing so, the law would be equitable and constitutional. You have already pointed out that neither love nor sexual attraction is a requirement for a marriage. Married people are not required to have sex with each other.

(People like to interfere in other people's private matters, don't they? Perhaps there are some people here who may want to contact their state representatives and petition them to pass a law requiring married people to have sex in accordance with the national average. If your spouse isn't interested in sex--threaten them with jail time--that ought to make things a whole lot better under the sheets. Smile

)

I doubt that two "straight" same-sex persons would have much motivation to enter a marriage contract. Nevertheless, to each their own--it's none of my business what two other people want to do with their private lives--it's none of your business either.

0 Replies

so, much interests in little old me?

Quote:

But I hope you DO understand the underlying message: what the majority rules, is not always the correct thing to do.

[/QUOTE

First there are too many posts to respond each and every one. So, I will try to respond to as many as my time will allow.

So, Rick d' Israil you don't always agree with the majority? It's true that in the past men have looked down at women, whites have done the same to blacks and over time the wrongs have been smoothed over though some are not satisfied entirely.

I agree that people have made mistakes but if you pay close attention to my first post I was wondering why Homosexuals are rocking the boat when (and from most of your replys) they don't receive horrific treatment. Being Gay is for the most part a state of mind no one hast to know if you don't want them to. Our little dilemma seems to be of a moral nature what is right what is wrong and does anyone care?

0 Replies

In other words you are suggesting that those who believe marriage as a lovingt union between a man and a woman does have value as an institution and is the best scenario for raising children should just shrug as the institution of marriage is dissolved and something else is put in its place.

I say that a substantial majority of Americans would object to that, not because they have any wish to deny gay people anything, but because they believe that would be harmful to us as a people and society.

So, if all but the most bigoted, prejudiced, militant, and rigid on both sides would be willing to compromise. Let marriage continue as a union between a man and woman as it has always been, and create a new system by which others can also form themselves into family units.

The gays get what they want, the system is not made inequitable, and all there has to be is for the anti-gay marriage folks to be tolerant and the others will simply pick their own, equally satisfying word.

If the word marriage is meaningless to most of you, what could it hurt to let the majority keep it so long as the majority gives in on everything else?

Is there no room on the left to compromise at all? Or must it be all or nothing? Must everyting be polarized or is there no room to consider everybody's sensibilities and come up with a working solution that everybody can comfortably live with?

0 Replies

All of us posting on this thread care about right and wrong, very passionately. Even the ones I disagree with. You are skipping over the heart of the matter by not addressing a homosexual's plea to be allowed to marry the same sex. They do not have the right to do so now, even though it is to their best interest to do so. If they are good citizens in every other way, why can't they marry whom they choose?

0 Replies

Re: so, much interests in little old me?

disenter512 wrote:

I was wondering why Homosexuals are rocking the boat when (and from most of your replys) they don't receive horrific treatment. Being Gay is for the most part a state of mind no one hast to know if you don't want them to. Our little dilemma seems to be of a moral nature what is right what is wrong and does anyone care?

"Ah, thank ya masta, you treats me so good...them slave quarters are mighty fine...."

As for your second observation, I can also see that the Gays cut their own damn throats when they came outta the closet. You got us there.

ROFL

0 Replies

You guys can try to make this different than what's there all you want to, but the facts don't change.

I strongly support some new provision being made in the law so that any people can legally form themselves into family units with all the benefits that implies. I simply ask one tiny compromise: find another word for that other than marriage.

To refuse to do that suggests an agenda that is much different than simply providing a legal structure for gays to have benefits they need.

0 Replies

I am talking about what I feel like?

Quote:

What are you talking about? You simply replace "man and woman" in the state definition of marriage with "two persons" and you have all your constitutional bases covered.
Quote:

Well Deb, nicely done you have taken over my topic and have made it into something unrecognizable. This is about democracy and Gay and now you are actively trying to turn over a norm that has been in existence for thousands of years. You had a good point about the Republic very good I did some research and your Right! But, we don't really follow the exact form today nope. It almost seems that when the Left wants something to work out their way they switch stuff around the majority wants abortion they are fine with that, now the majority don't want Gays. Whoa hold on no no no we are a Republic, that is what you pulled person.

Now marriage is a long term relationship between a man and a woman. Not two men or two women or a dog cat bird poll with a man and peach! Got it no of course not you want to make new stuff ok here we go.

you can call marriage between two guy ummm lets see there is a word ok got it

SIN there you go knew I would think of it!!!!!! End

0 Replies

secret agenda

Foxfyre wrote:

I simply ask one tiny compromise: find another word for that other than marriage.

To refuse to do that suggests an agenda that is much different than simply providing a legal structure for gays to have benefits they need.

What secret agenda are you talking about?

If a gay person wants to marry the person of his choice, how does that destroy what YOU have with your spouse in any way?

You're the one who has a secret agenda by your demands for compromise. It's homophobia.

Get over it and keep your nose out of other people's business. Attend to your own business and your own wonderful marriage.

0 Replies

Where in any place did I say 'secret'? This agenda is about as unsecret as they come. And why are you so unwilling to compromise in any way so that most Americans can feel good about a realistic solution? Or are you one of the all or nothing camp?

0 Replies

deb do you live on A2K cause I get the feeling you have a lot of time on your hands.

Ok Mrs. Law why the passion and protection don't you read history?

Do you know that it has a tendency to repeat itself?

Take Rome for example: the first empire a strong military. The Seeds of disinagration started (and some people say it was St. Augustine and Christianity) when Homosexuality was allowed and it spun out of control the people didn't take pride in their military and everyone just sat around will the barbarinans sacked Rome. I don't know if it is true but toward the end most of the emperors could have been Gay like Nero. Any way America is headed toward moral, no we are in a trasitional period and sooner or later you will see I am right.

0 Replies

At least your homophobia is fully in the open now, disenter. No more pussyfooting about how gays have the same rights we all do.

0 Replies

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would be bothered by two people getting married, simply because they are of the same sex! So damn what if they love eachother and want to get married! It doesn't hurt anyone! A few of you here really need to find some enjoyment in your lives and get out of other peoples lives for christ sakes!!!

Jeeez!!! This world would be a much better place if some people would just mind their own business and stop caring so much about what others are doing, when it has absolutely no effect on their lives!

0 Replies

And I can't for the life of me see why those who want a solution to the problem aren't willing to compromise so that everybody but the bonafide idiots and nuts can get what is important to them.

0 Replies

I am not scared of gays. Truly and honesty. Fox I like that fact you don't agree with me and not with the rest of the people. You Go

but I think i'm on the right track

0 Replies

Everybody that is different than you, foxfire, is an idiot or nut or hate-filled liberal. Very sad.

0 Replies

I'll give you a chance to back up that Edgar. I think you'll have a very difficult time doing so however.

0 Replies

Just quoting you.

0 Replies

America is a Democracy so maybe you should hold off!?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know