Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
What I find funny is the same people demanding the govt stay out of the bedrooms of gays and allow them to marry,seem to have no problem with the govt invading the beliefs of a religious group and forcing them to outlaw polygamy.

And dont give me that crap about how the state of Utah had to do it to join the union,they were still forced to by the federal govt.

Why arent any of you upset by that?
Why arent any of you upset by the fact that the federal govt is telling some people that they cant marry more then one person?

That seems hypocritical to me.

g'day, mystery. has this come up here yet ? good question anyway.

dunno about the others, but i don't have a problem with an agreed to, polygamous (sic?) marriage. as long as everyone involved is cool with it, who am i to say ? it doesn't effect me or the state of my marriage.

I 100% agree.
But,why is it wrong for the feds or the state to interfere in someones private life by banning gay marriage,but not wrong to interfere in someones private life by banning polygamy?

Either both are wrong,or both are right.
It cant be both ways.

0 Replies

I don't have a problem with polygamy. It doesn't affect me. However, there are arguments against polygamy that do not apply to marriage between two people. Polygamy is in no way the equivalent of two person marriage.

mysteryman's argument is a textboook strawman one and invalid.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

I don't have a problem with polygamy. It doesn't affect me. However, there are arguments against polygamy that do not apply to marriage between two people. Polygamy is in no way the equivalent of two person marriage.

mysteryman's argument is a textboook strawman one and invalid.

Ok,what are those arguments?

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

I don't have a problem with polygamy. It doesn't affect me. However, there are arguments against polygamy that do not apply to marriage between two people. Polygamy is in no way the equivalent of two person marriage.

mysteryman's argument is a textboook strawman one and invalid.

disagree with ya on this one chrissee. if we are supposed to have an open mind about gay marriage, shouldn't we use the same standard with other non-mainstream forms of marriage ?

your statement echoes those of the anti-gay marriage people, except you say polygamy in place of gay marriage.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

It is more then a matter of love when it comes to marriage there is also the consideration of sex. I could careless who people are having sex with that isn’t my concern. What happens in the bedroom is none of my concern. If Joe, Bob and Sally all want to live together and have sex all day long I could careless but the state shouldn’t have to recognize their relationship as equal to mine with my wife.

I'm bewildered by your contradictory statements:

1. There is more to marriage than the matter of love.

2. Marriage includes the consideration of sex.

3. Sex is none of our concern.

If sex is a consideration in marriage but it is none of our concern, then we are back to the fact that marriage is a matter of love. But, you say that there is more to marriage than the matter of love . . . there is the consideration of sex.

You are talking out of both sides of your face--we call that two-faced (or hypocritical).

You could care less if Joe and Bob have sex all day long.

I could care less if Baldimo and Sally have sex all day long.

If we are unconcerned about sex, then what matters most is who loves whom and who one wants to be their life partner.

If Joe and Bob love each other as much as Baldimo and Sally love each other . . . why may Baldimo and Sally get married, but Joe and Bob cannot get married?

Why shouldn't the state consider Joe's and Bob's relationship equal to Baldimo's and Sally's relationship?

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

If Joe and Bob love each other as much as Baldimo and Sally love each other . . . why may Baldimo and Sally get married, but Joe and Bob cannot get married?

Why shouldn't the state consider Joe's and Bob's relationship equal to Baldimo's and Sally's relationship?

my ggggaaawwwddd, debra ! 'cuz they're GAY!! it doesn't hurt anybody else, but it's WRONG,WRONG, WRONG!!

that seems to be the bottom line of the anti's argument. they "just don't like it".

not a very good reason.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
why should the government recognize your marriage either ?

Heterosexual relationships have been a cornerstone for society since the beginning of time. It provides security for society as a whole that has allowed society to flourish. It is good for the country as a whole to have stable heterosexual marriages and the govt knows this and encourages this. Studies have shown that marriage is ideal for children to be raised in and the presence of a man and a woman in the house benefits children.

Your opening premise is false.

Heterosexual relationships are not the cornerstone of society.

Families (regardless of their composition) are the cornerstone of society. Family structures are forever changing. The "traditional marriages or families" that dominated in our country's early history are fading out of existence, but our changing society still flourishes.

It is good for our country to have stable families (regardless of whether the partners who form those familes are heterosexual or homosexual). If it is in the best interests of the children to be raised in stable, governmentally-recognized family units -- then why PUNISH the vast number of children who are raised in homes with gay parents?

So long as children have good role models as parental figures, why does their sexual orientation have to matter at all? But for the slings and arrows of disapproving hypocrits who think they're morally superior to others based on sexual orientation (or race), it doesn't matter.

Baldimo, if you (and others like you) quit shooting your slings and arrows, the families in our flourishing society would be accepted and wouldn't have to feel the ugly sting of your insults.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Chrissee wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
why should the government recognize your marriage either ?

Heterosexual relationships have been a cornerstone for society since the beginning of time.

WTF? I am sure you can provide a citation to back up that sweeping claim.

Can homosexual people have children on their own? No they can't but a heterosexual couple can. Without this there would be no babies and society would have died off long ago. How is that for proof?

Where is the "natural procreation through heterosexual sex" requirement in state marriage laws? I've searched the laws, but can't find the requirement. Additionally, homosexual couples may have children of their own--through adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy, etc.

Therefore, we are back to where we started and you have failed to answer the question: "Why should the government recognize your marriage."

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
Comparing the prohibitions against same-sex marriage to the prohibitions against polygamy is pure nonsense.

They are both gratuitous infringements of the freedom of contract. Why is it nonsense to compare two such infringements?

The government places many restrictions on liberty. Each law that is enacted and placed in our extensive library of laws serves different underlying policies. It makes no sense to compare the government prohibition to same-sex marriages to the government prohibition of polygamy. Each governmentally-imposed prohibition--an infringement on liberty--is justified by its own policy decisions. Each prohibition must pass or fail constitutional scrutiny on its own merits.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

What I find funny is the same people demanding the govt stay out of the bedrooms of gays and allow them to marry,seem to have no problem with the govt invading the beliefs of a religious group and forcing them to outlaw polygamy.

And dont give me that crap about how the state of Utah had to do it to join the union,they were still forced to by the federal govt.

Why arent any of you upset by that?
Why arent any of you upset by the fact that the federal govt is telling some people that they cant marry more then one person?

That seems hypocritical to me.

Actually, MM, my concerns wtih polygamy have nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage but with the premise that a man should take more than one wife in order to be the master of his domain. Within the religious group you mention women are not allowed to have multiple husbands, women are not considered equal partners within the marriage (polygomous or monogomous) and women are subservient to men in most, if not all, aspects of their relationships.

If you come to me with an example where the government has outlawed an equal partership between consenting adults, where neither party is subservient to the other and there is no abuse or harm, then I will jump on their bandwagon as well.

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
If Joe and Bob love each other as much as Baldimo and Sally love each other . . . why may Baldimo and Sally get married, but Joe and Bob cannot get married?

Why shouldn't the state consider Joe's and Bob's relationship equal to Baldimo's and Sally's relationship?

my ggggaaawwwddd, debra ! 'cuz they're GAY!! it doesn't hurt anybody else, but it's WRONG,WRONG, WRONG!!

that seems to be the bottom line of the anti's argument. they "just don't like it".

not a very good reason.

It has nothing to do with them being gay. I wouldn't approve of 2 men marrying if they were straight and the same goes for 2 straight. It is about what marriage is and should be. That is one woman and one man. Nothing more and nothing less.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Debra_Law wrote:
If Joe and Bob love each other as much as Baldimo and Sally love each other . . . why may Baldimo and Sally get married, but Joe and Bob cannot get married?

Why shouldn't the state consider Joe's and Bob's relationship equal to Baldimo's and Sally's relationship?

my ggggaaawwwddd, debra ! 'cuz they're GAY!! it doesn't hurt anybody else, but it's WRONG,WRONG, WRONG!!

that seems to be the bottom line of the anti's argument. they "just don't like it".

not a very good reason.

It has nothing to do with them being gay. I wouldn't approve of 2 men marrying if they were straight and the same goes for 2 straight. It is about what marriage is and should be. That is one woman and one man. Nothing more and nothing less.

Notice how Baldie is fixated on men?

0 Replies

Notice how Chrissee is fixated on her belief that Baldie is fixated on men? Smile

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

Notice how Chrissee is fixated on her belief that Baldie is fixated on men?

Notice how Coastal Rat is fixated on the fact that Chrissee knows why men oppose gay marriage especially when they reveal their true selves with their words.

0 Replies

Do you not understand the word fixated? That was my only post on the subject of your repeated posts about Baldie. So saying I am fixated is a bit absurd. On the other hand, you repeatedly have brought up the fact that you believe Baldie is fixated on gay men rather than address the arguments Baldimo is making.

Of course, explaining this to you is pointless I know, but I am a brute for punishment.

0 Replies

Baldimo is fixated on men marrying. Do you not understand the word fixated? To say that Baldimo is not fixated on men marrying absurd. Do a search.

0 Replies

And what would you have him discuss in threads about gay marriage? Seems to me two men (or 2 women) marrying is the point of the thread, so I would totally expect him to make reference to 2 men marrying.

Now, if he were posting to a thread about John Roberts and brought up 2 men marrying, then maybe I would agree he was fixated on men wanting to marry. But I have not yet found anything along that line from him.

You on the otherhand seem fixated with slurring him in an underhanded way by continuing to say what you do about him. Why don't you try just sticking to discussing the points the two of you bring up and back away from making claims about his character which are pointless and only make others think less of you and your views? Would that be too difficult?

0 Replies

Quote:

It has nothing to do with them being gay. I wouldn't approve of 2 men marrying if they were straight and the same goes for 2 straight. It is about what marriage is and should be. That is one woman and one man. Nothing more and nothing less.

Really?

What empirical, non-opinion based evidence do you base such an opinion on?

Surely it has nothing to do with procreation; many marriages produce no children.

Surely it has nothing to do with religion; no one religious belief is more valid than any other, or any secular belief.

Surely it doesn't have to do with divorce; Mass. allows gay marriage and has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

What does it have to do with, then? homophobia.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What is a society?

3 a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

What is a marriage?

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

I believe that this nation, was in part formed to create a society of common traditions. these traditions are helpful in identifying this particuliar society as unique and purposeful.

By tradition, this society has defined marriage as a union between 1 man and one woman. Some, like Utah, had to change their traditions in order to join this society.

Most people today feel like this tradition need not be changed. Not because the lifestyle is wrong, but because they feel that this is a valuable tradition that is not necessary to change in order to accomodate a few who would want it to change.

Many of these same poeple also feel that this minority should not be discriminated against by law as a result of thie lifestyle. They should have the benefit of the same rights as married couple.

So some of you paint with a broad bruch and for the lack of having the ability to make a convincing argument, you label these people homophobic.

In reality, it has nothing to do with homophobia. These people, like you, have the right to disagree with your position and keep the traditions of this nation as they have always been. Marriage between one man and one women.

The problem is the minority has been unable to make a convincing argument to sway the majority to their point of view.

Courts should not legislate this, only the voice of the poeple can change tradition.

Try to convince me otherwise without the name calling.

0 Replies

Quote:

Most people today feel like this tradition need not be changed. Not because the lifestyle is wrong, but because they feel that this is a valuable tradition that is not necessary to change in order to accomodate a few who would want it to change.

Explain to me why the tradition is valuable and it is not neccessary to change the tradition; especially given that nothing will be changed for those who still wish to practice the traditional marriage of man/woman. Do so clearly, please.

Also, seeing as we are a society of inclusion, explain to me the damage done by allowing others to practice a different tradition. Clearly, please.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Lying Gutless Governator to Veto Same Sex Marriage Bill

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know