(08-07-2010 08:09 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same-sex. Duh.

If you don't like that marriage is between a man and a woman, tough. Duh.

(08-07-2010 08:09 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:29 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:12 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Minding your own business has lots of advantages.

That's just not the Republican way.

Black Democrats were, by and large, one of the largest blocs that supported Prop 8.

You were saying again, cupcake?

I seem to recall reading nearly the SAME arguments about interracial marriages what? 50 years ago, if that? And btw, up until a few short years ago, most states had sodomy laws, by which I could spend a portion of my life in prison for doing something with a person I love.

AS FOR THE DEEPWATER HORIZON COMMENT.... I had a GAY friend who was on that rig, and you need to STFU about it.

And the courts are there to PROTECT the minority...

When the Majority votes on minority rights, they always ALWAYS limit the minority.

I don't throw my sexuality in people's faces, but I don't whine when I see two str8's(I chose not to use another word... u might get offended) holding hands or showing affection in public. If I did that... well, Heaven FORBID I show my love and adoration for the person I want to spend eternity with.

If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same-sex. Duh.

I keep hearing the interracial marriage being illegal 50 years ago analogy being used as an argument for the legalization of gay "marriage". But this is not a valid comparison. Modern science has shown us that race is largely a social construct and that there is little, if any biological difference between what people refer to as races.

Equality, despite what many liberals have come to believe, is only a positive concept when the two or more items being discussed are in fact equal. I do not support socialism/equal wages for all because the jobs people are asked to do and the talents/skills they bring to those jobs are NOT equal. I have a similar view on same sex relationships.

Sex and gender are not social constructs but are physical realities determined by biology. The differences between a man and a woman go well beyond reproductive organs to physical traits, hormones, average life spans, etc. To put forth the concept that such differences do not exist is just willful ignorance. If we agree that these differences are a reality, then we can also agree that differences between opposite and same-sex relationships are also a reality, which they are. Same sex unions are NOT capable of producing offspring and continuing the human species and therefore are NOT the same as nor equal to opposite sex unions.

I believe that people are free to do as they please, and earlier in this thread I outlined my personal opposition to government involvement in marriage and support for civil unions only for all(look it up, i am not going to re-type all of it) But that being said, if the only choices given to me are marriages only for same opposite couples and "marriages" for both same and opposite sex couples, then I will fight tooth and nail to preserve the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

(08-07-2010 08:09 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:29 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:12 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 07:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Minding your own business has lots of advantages.

That's just not the Republican way.

Black Democrats were, by and large, one of the largest blocs that supported Prop 8.

You were saying again, cupcake?

I seem to recall reading nearly the SAME arguments about interracial marriages what? 50 years ago, if that? And btw, up until a few short years ago, most states had sodomy laws, by which I could spend a portion of my life in prison for doing something with a person I love.

AS FOR THE DEEPWATER HORIZON COMMENT.... I had a GAY friend who was on that rig, and you need to STFU about it.

And the courts are there to PROTECT the minority...

When the Majority votes on minority rights, they always ALWAYS limit the minority.

I don't throw my sexuality in people's faces, but I don't whine when I see two str8's(I chose not to use another word... u might get offended) holding hands or showing affection in public. If I did that... well, Heaven FORBID I show my love and adoration for the person I want to spend eternity with.

If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same-sex. Duh.

Like someone put very well, same sex marriage law suits are a ploy to force acceptance of a life style by everyone including churches. Same sex marriage law suits really don't fit an equal protection since marriage is open to one man and one woman that are not currently married. Civil unions provides the same LEGAL status without encroaching on religious freedo, but that's not good enough for gays. Like it or not marriage was defined by religion long before the US gubment got in the business of sanctioning and defining marriage. I think it may be time for the gubment to step out of the marriage business.

(08-08-2010 04:34 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Like someone put very well, same sex marriage law suits are a ploy to force acceptance of a life style by everyone including churches. Same sex marriage law suits really don't fit an equal protection since marriage is open to one man and one woman that are not currently married. Civil unions provides the same LEGAL status without encroaching on religious freedo, but that's not good enough for gays. Like it or not marriage was defined by religion long before the US gubment got in the business of sanctioning and defining marriage. I think it may be time for the gubment to step out of the marriage business.

A church doesn't need to perform a marriage ceremony if they don't want to, straight or otherwise. I mean, I think there are some churches that will avoid marrying a straight couple if they are shacking up together pre-marriage.

Ironically, my interpretation of giving gays the right to marry is your last sentence, in that government is getting out of the marriage business.

(08-08-2010 05:24 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-08-2010 04:34 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Like someone put very well, same sex marriage law suits are a ploy to force acceptance of a life style by everyone including churches. Same sex marriage law suits really don't fit an equal protection since marriage is open to one man and one woman that are not currently married. Civil unions provides the same LEGAL status without encroaching on religious freedo, but that's not good enough for gays. Like it or not marriage was defined by religion long before the US gubment got in the business of sanctioning and defining marriage. I think it may be time for the gubment to step out of the marriage business.

A church doesn't need to perform a marriage ceremony if they don't want to, straight or otherwise. I mean, I think there are some churches that will avoid marrying a straight couple if they are shacking up together pre-marriage.

Ironically, my interpretation of giving gays the right to marry is your last sentence, in that government is getting out of the marriage business.

Nope, it is actually just the start. This goes well beyond the marriage ceremony to recognition of the "marriage" and the complications that result from it. In Massachusetts, the state forced the Church to close down its adoption agencies because the Church refused to allow "married" same-sex couples to adopt from them. In the District of Columbia, the Church was forced to end its foster care program and stop offering spousal benefits to all its employees because of a gay marriage law.

(08-08-2010 05:24 PM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(08-08-2010 04:34 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Like someone put very well, same sex marriage law suits are a ploy to force acceptance of a life style by everyone including churches. Same sex marriage law suits really don't fit an equal protection since marriage is open to one man and one woman that are not currently married. Civil unions provides the same LEGAL status without encroaching on religious freedo, but that's not good enough for gays. Like it or not marriage was defined by religion long before the US gubment got in the business of sanctioning and defining marriage. I think it may be time for the gubment to step out of the marriage business.

A church doesn't need to perform a marriage ceremony if they don't want to, straight or otherwise. I mean, I think there are some churches that will avoid marrying a straight couple if they are shacking up together pre-marriage.

Ironically, my interpretation of giving gays the right to marry is your last sentence, in that government is getting out of the marriage business.

There is a court case, I believe in Vermont where a gay couple is suing a church for failing to allow a gay marriage in the Church despite the Churches objection for religious reasons. Gays are trying to wear churches down financially. Every lawsuit drains financial resources away from the church.

(08-07-2010 08:09 PM)CountryRedHawk Wrote:  And the courts are there to PROTECT the minority...

Protect the minority? Is that a slip up or a sense of entitlement?

(08-09-2010 05:52 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  There is a court case, I believe in Vermont where a gay couple is suing a church for failing to allow a gay marriage in the Church despite the Churches objection for religious reasons. Gays are trying to wear churches down financially. Every lawsuit drains financial resources away from the church.

I'd like to see that gay couple try getting married in a mosque. Think of the PC crisis the left would face when the Muslims behead the gays. What side would they take?

(08-09-2010 09:24 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(08-09-2010 05:52 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  There is a court case, I believe in Vermont where a gay couple is suing a church for failing to allow a gay marriage in the Church despite the Churches objection for religious reasons. Gays are trying to wear churches down financially. Every lawsuit drains financial resources away from the church.

I'd like to see that gay couple try getting married in a mosque. Think of the PC crisis the left would face when the Muslims behead the gays. What side would they take?

Obviously it would be the fault of Conservatives for inciting the Mohammedans and demonizing the gays.

Robert,

To me this is a States Rights issue. I see nothing wrong with gay marriage. What if Prop 8 passed in Georgia and a Religious Fed Judge decided that it was unconstitutional somehow. And banned the right's for gay marriage in the state of Georgia, going against what the people voted for. I'm pretty sure you would be outraged by the decision.

No longer "of the people, by the people, for the people"...now its"of the people, overruled by the judges, stuffed down the people's throat"

What's the point of voting any more?

(08-12-2010 06:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  What's the point of voting any more?

Not that I agree with the ruling, but Judge Walker based his ruling on previous rulings from the Supreme Court that marriage is a "fundamental constitutional right" and that “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”


With that said, gay marriage will be legal in this country eventually. I don't agree with courts getting involved, but public opinion has moved too much over the past 20 years and will continue to trend in its favor over the next generation. It might be 5 years, or 10 years, or 20 years, but it will happen.

(08-12-2010 06:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  What's the point of voting any more?

What has ever been the point of voting?....Being able to select a master does not make one any less a slave. Sorry...I just love that quote.

(08-12-2010 09:44 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 06:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  What's the point of voting any more?

Not that I agree with the ruling, but Judge Walker based his ruling on previous rulings from the Supreme Court that marriage is a "fundamental constitutional right" and that “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
With that said, gay marriage will be legal in this country eventually. I don't agree with courts getting involved, but public opinion has moved too much over the past 20 years and will continue to trend in its favor over the next generation. It might be 5 years, or 10 years, or 20 years, but it will happen.

Agree.

(08-12-2010 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 09:44 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 06:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  What's the point of voting any more?

Not that I agree with the ruling, but Judge Walker based his ruling on previous rulings from the Supreme Court that marriage is a "fundamental constitutional right" and that “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
With that said, gay marriage will be legal in this country eventually. I don't agree with courts getting involved, but public opinion has moved too much over the past 20 years and will continue to trend in its favor over the next generation. It might be 5 years, or 10 years, or 20 years, but it will happen.

Agree.

Ditto...I go on record as saying I love the gays. I have had numerous business and personal relationships with both gay men and women over the past 30 years or so...and I have never been treated but with the utmost respect and cordial friendship by any of them. I can not say the same from my encounters in the straight world. I see them as individuals, not as some collective with an agenda.

I'm glad he withdrew the stay, not that it helps me in SC much...
49-51 is the split now, and for those whining about voting... I wonder if it had FAILED how you'd be talking. You'd be the ones trying to toss it back on the ballot as often as possible. Just remember, YOU have an AGENDA too. :)
The courts rule on CONSTITUTIONAL LAW... that Constitution PROTECTS minorities. And, as for beheading gays... I truly hope you aren't advocating murdering and beating someone for being gay. Also, if you want to run this through the bible, how many of you drive, or work on the Sabbath? Have gotten divorced? Can I buy your daughters as slaves? Can I murder in the name of God?

(08-12-2010 10:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 09:44 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 06:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  What's the point of voting any more?

Not that I agree with the ruling, but Judge Walker based his ruling on previous rulings from the Supreme Court that marriage is a "fundamental constitutional right" and that “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
With that said, gay marriage will be legal in this country eventually. I don't agree with courts getting involved, but public opinion has moved too much over the past 20 years and will continue to trend in its favor over the next generation. It might be 5 years, or 10 years, or 20 years, but it will happen.

Agree.

Ditto...I go on record as saying I love the gays. I have had numerous business and personal relationships with both gay men and women over the past 30 years or so...and I have never been treated but with the utmost respect and cordial friendship by any of them. I can not say the same from my encounters in the straight world. I see them as individuals, not as some collective with an agenda.

I count gays and lesbians as some of my closest friends. My professional mentor is a gay man who has lived in a long term relationship with his partner for a decade. They are raising 2 wonderful kids who were abandoned by their drug addict mother. Those who see LGBTs as just the flamboyant guys in leather chaps and boas at gay pride parades just don't know any gays or lesbians....or at least don't know them very well.

With that said, the courts should stay out of the gay marriage issue. Let the people come to the conclusion organically.

(08-12-2010 10:15 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 10:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 09:53 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 09:44 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-12-2010 06:21 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  What's the point of voting any more?

Not that I agree with the ruling, but Judge Walker based his ruling on previous rulings from the Supreme Court that marriage is a "fundamental constitutional right" and that “That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”
With that said, gay marriage will be legal in this country eventually. I don't agree with courts getting involved, but public opinion has moved too much over the past 20 years and will continue to trend in its favor over the next generation. It might be 5 years, or 10 years, or 20 years, but it will happen.

Agree.

Ditto...I go on record as saying I love the gays. I have had numerous business and personal relationships with both gay men and women over the past 30 years or so...and I have never been treated but with the utmost respect and cordial friendship by any of them. I can not say the same from my encounters in the straight world. I see them as individuals, not as some collective with an agenda.

I count gays and lesbians as some of my closest friends. My professional mentor is a gay man who has lived in a long term relationship with his partner for a decade. They are raising 2 wonderful kids who were abandoned by their drug addict mother. Those who see LGBTs as just the flamboyant guys in leather chaps and boas at gay pride parades just don't know any gays or lesbians....or at least don't know them very well.

With that said, the courts should stay out of the gay marriage issue. Let the people come to the conclusion organically.

Yes...in addition....flamboyant gays are viewed negatively by the vast majority of the gay community...just as guys wearing wife beater shirts and sporting mullets are viewed negatively in the straight world.

Somethings just do not need to be seen in public!