Same-Sex Marriage

[Ruyashie]

Ruyashie

Lord Bitememan

Ruyashie

Lord Bitememan

You and Mouse have that agreement. I never took shots at Wiki.

What do mean by shots?

I mean I never attacked the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. That was you and Mouse.

Do you have a problem with states voting by themselves about this issue?

 

[Lord Bitememan]

Ruyashie

Ruyashie

Lord Bitememan

Ruyashie

Lord Bitememan

You and Mouse have that agreement. I never took shots at Wiki.

What do mean by shots?

I mean I never attacked the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. That was you and Mouse.

Do you have a problem with states voting by themselves about this issue?

I wouldn't phrase it that way. I have no problem with legislatures deciding the issue, state or federal. I have a HUGE problem with courts deciding the issue, state or federal. That said, one state should not decide policy for the whole country.

 

[evaneether]

RenFlower

Now for Ren's Rambles, why I'm pro-same sex marriage heart :

1. They're going to have sex anyways, why not do it holy.

2. Why should people who happen to be attracted to people of the same gender be denied the rights straight people have?

3. Their attractions to each other are biologically and chemically the same as straight people's attractions.

4. Just because their hormone's, or feelings are different doesn't mean they aren't as good as the rest of us.

5. The classic Love is Love, regardless of gender.

EXACTLY!!!  

[valkery cain]

i dont care if the same sex are together but i dont want them in any church  

[Lord Bitememan]

nightowl of breezeclan

i dont care if the same sex are together but i dont want them in any church

In any church? What if they make one of their own? Or how about if other established churches invite them, like the Episcopal Church and ELCA have done? Maybe you mean "I don't want them in my church?" We can discuss the theology of that later.  

[Ruyashie]

Lord Bitememan

Ruyashie

Ruyashie

Lord Bitememan

Ruyashie

Lord Bitememan

You and Mouse have that agreement. I never took shots at Wiki.

What do mean by shots?

I mean I never attacked the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. That was you and Mouse.

Do you have a problem with states voting by themselves about this issue?

I wouldn't phrase it that way. I have no problem with legislatures deciding the issue, state or federal. I have a HUGE problem with courts deciding the issue, state or federal. That said, one state should not decide policy for the whole country.

I ment that if NC wanted to stay straight then they stay straight but if New York wants to allow Gay Marriage then OK.

 

[Lord Bitememan]

Ruyashie

Lord Bitememan

Ruyashie

Lord Bitememan

Ruyashie

Lord Bitememan

You and Mouse have that agreement. I never took shots at Wiki.

What do mean by shots?

I mean I never attacked the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. That was you and Mouse.

Do you have a problem with states voting by themselves about this issue?

I wouldn't phrase it that way. I have no problem with legislatures deciding the issue, state or federal. I have a HUGE problem with courts deciding the issue, state or federal. That said, one state should not decide policy for the whole country.

I ment that if NC wanted to stay straight then they stay straight but if New York wants to allow Gay Marriage then OK.

I know what you meant, I have a different view of it than you. I don't believe undemocratic bodies such as the courts should have broad latitude in dictating the policies of this nation in spite of the will of the people. But I also believe that public will should be binding on the nation, and if the matter is taken up federally, than the entire nation should comply. The sentiment you are articulating hearkens back to 1964 when states thought they could buck the federal will on the segregation issue. I wouldn't allow North Carolina to practice segregation if that was the will of that state, if federal policy allowed marriage equality I wouldn't allow North Carolina to buck that either.

Now, what you really mean is do I think it should be an exclusively state-decided matter. So long as there is a lack of broad social consensus, then yes. However, if public will begins to turn on the matter, and it will, then the issue should be taken up by congress and decided federally.  

[Enoine]

I say make it legal for one reason. It would get rid of a conflict (topic, if anyone prefers that word) that seems tiny in comparison to other current events. If I had the power to do something about it, I would make it legal in specific places only. I think that would be an easily reached and decent halfway point for people to meet on the subject. I see this like Voltaire did when he said "I do not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it." (or something like that, anyway :p).  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

So, it should be something like we did with slavery, just make it legal in some places even though a category of people are being discriminated against based on sexual orientation?  

[goodshot911SNK]

lol slaves really ? lol Owell see my only problem is them calling it a marriage that is a religious event and shall not be tainted by evil so call it something else and I'm fine call it a union or something . I don't like it I strongly think that it is wrong on every level but its not my life this is america and that means they should be aloud to be two in one a some what like legal marriage should be allowed  

[Lord Bitememan]

And once again we come back to the perfect solution that will make everyone happy. . . or no one depending on how you view it. Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Government would no longer recognize any institution called "marriage." Governments would recognize only "civil unions" which would be available to everyone and confer the same rights to everyone. "Marriage" would be a religious function. So, if you don't like gay marriage, join a church that doesn't perform them. If you like them, join a church that permits them. But, in neither case will "marriage" be a function of the state.  

[Enoine]

Rainbowfied Mouse

So, it should be something like we did with slavery, just make it legal in some places even though a category of people are being discriminated against based on sexual orientation?

Pretty much, except the big difference is no one is keeping them in one place, they can easily leave an area if they want to.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Enoine

Rainbowfied Mouse

So, it should be something like we did with slavery, just make it legal in some places even though a category of people are being discriminated against based on sexual orientation?

Pretty much, except the big difference is no one is keeping them in one place, they can easily leave an area if they want to.

It still allows the unjust discrimination of a people, when it's liberty and justice for all, not just those that live in X, and if you live in Y, then you're screwed, so we'll ask you to move to X if you want to be an equal citizen.  

[goodshot911SNK]

Lord Bitememan

And once again we come back to the perfect solution that will make everyone happy. . . or no one depending on how you view it. Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Government would no longer recognize any institution called "marriage." Governments would recognize only "civil unions" which would be available to everyone and confer the same rights to everyone. "Marriage" would be a religious function. So, if you don't like gay marriage, join a church that doesn't perform them. If you like them, join a church that permits them. But, in neither case will "marriage" be a function of the state.

thank you its all put together now Its fare and its freedom things are so much better when the government gets out of it

oh and rainbowfiedmouse I don't know what you where saying could you explain it again in another way for me  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

goodshot911SNK

oh and rainbowfiedmouse I don't know what you where saying could you explain it again in another way for me

Well referring to Enoines "compromise" would exhibit dividing the US to pro-gay and anti-gay sides. So, it's compared to slavery (north and south)... what I'm stating is how is it any better for the government to now enforce laws based on where you are

If you live in Michigan you can be an equal citizen, but if you live in Ohio then you cannot, unless you move to Michigan, so it sucks that you were born/raised/live here. So, if you want to be equal, leave everything behind and get your freedom elsewhere.