Ahnold for president! who didn't see this coming?

[Trigger_Happy]

[shartley]

Good post.

[1stdeadeye]

Great post Trigger Happy!

[jdev]

Originally posted by shartley

sorry to go OT here. but, if you aren't afraid of what it may do, then why is there an arguement against it? (specifically homosexual marriages.)

back on topic. no, constitution should not be changed to allow arnold to run for president. it was written as a foundation for the customer. when you start chipping away at foundations, the house is bound to collapse sooner or later.

[shartley]

Originally posted by joey d
sorry to go OT here. but, if you aren't afraid of what it may do, then why is there an arguement against it? (specifically homosexual marriages.)

[RoadDawg]

Basically marriage is the joining of two people. Now yes they do say man and wife but it's two people none the less. So Shartley... what is the problem with them being allowed to do it? This reminds me of a previous history event and that was black segregation. It was right to do back then but morally it wasn't. Allow the gays to get married, they aren't diseased and prefer the company of their significant other. Shartley your example of your daughter being called a pro player is totally different. Here is why. They want it to be an OFFICIAL marriage. Not one another title. Let them have the title and it won't change anything. Instead of saying "you may kiss the bride", or whatever they will find something else to say. I'll admit I don't agree with their lifestyle choices but to each their own. That's what individualism is. Let people do what they wanna do.

I'm yet to hear a good "un religious" reason to why they shouldn't be allowed. They walk amongst you everyday and you wouldn't know it til they did something. Even then they could be pretending. Let them rejoin society and treat them as equals. After all it's what the gov't has declared before. Oh wait that's only if your white, rich and religious. My bad.

[Trigger_Happy]

Please note that my post had nothing to do with religion or morality. I only addressed the purpose of marriage law in a society and argued that homosexuals do absolutely nothing that would encourage lawmakers to legislate on their behalf.

It's also not true that changing the marriage laws wouldn't take any skin off society's nose. The law is a school. For better or for worse, it teaches. What principle would the marriage laws teach if they did offer the legal status of 'marriage' to homosexual unions? The principle that marriage and procreation have nothing to do with each other. That is detremental to us as a society.

I argue all this with full knowledge that my views won't win in the nation's courtrooms and legislative sessions. I only wish people were more educated and less sentimental about laws they are trying to edit. It is serious business with serious implications. Gay marriage will lead to other things such as marriage to children as I proposed before. All this is very bad, and adds up to something I wish I didn't have to deal with in my lifetime.

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Sam is right. Gays NEVER HAD THE RIGHT TO MARRY!!! Their lobby is trying to frame the issue that way. If they want the right, get the current laws changed by the legislature. Don't invent law!

actually, that's not true.

A gay man has the perfect legal right to marry a woman. He just doesn't have the right to marry another man, because the DEFINITION across the board in this country(except to the Gays and Lesbians) of MARRIAGE is the union between ONE mand and ONE woman.

Our social definition defines it this way, our "general" morals define marriage this way, and the majority of religions (especially Christianity) define it this way.

Civil unions . . . ok, I guess I can live with that, but when you want to go against religion in that regard, then you shouldn't be allowed a religious ceremony. Why should a gay couple be allowed to marry in a church of their choice if the church says that homosexuality is a sin?

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS term in it's roots, NOT civil. Gays have NO RIGHT to go about messing with it when they refuse to follow the religion which DEFINED it.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Restola

impostal22 is just pw'ing pointless sound-bits.

youuuuuuuuuuu betcha!

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass



actually, that's not true.

A gay man has the perfect legal right to marry a woman. He just doesn't have the right to marry another man, because the DEFINITION across the board in this country(except to the Gays and Lesbians) of MARRIAGE is the union between ONE mand and ONE woman.

Our social definition defines it this way, our "general" morals define marriage this way, and the majority of religions (especially Christianity) define it this way.

Civil unions . . . ok, I guess I can live with that, but when you want to go against religion in that regard, then you shouldn't be allowed a religious ceremony. Why should a gay couple be allowed to marry in a church of their choice if the church says that homosexuality is a sin?

Marriage is a RELIGIOUS term in it's roots, NOT civil. Gays have NO RIGHT to go about messing with it when they refuse to follow the religion which DEFINED it.

you're assuming they want to get married in a church that denounces homosexuality. tsk tsk.

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by impostal22


you're assuming they want to get married in a church that denounces homosexuality. tsk tsk.

name me a church that unilaterally supports or doesn't oppose homosexuality and I will tell you with 100% certainty that the devil is shoveling snow off his front step.

[RoadDawg]

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy
Please note that my post had nothing to do with religion or morality. I only addressed the purpose of marriage law in a society and argued that homosexuals do absolutely nothing that would encourage lawmakers to legislate on their behalf.

It's also not true that changing the marriage laws wouldn't take any skin off society's nose. The law is a school. For better or for worse, it teaches. What principle would the marriage laws teach if they did offer the legal status of 'marriage' to homosexual unions? The principle that marriage and procreation have nothing to do with each other. That is detremental to us as a society.

I argue all this with full knowledge that my views won't win in the nation's courtrooms and legislative sessions. I only wish people were more educated and less sentimental about laws they are trying to edit. It is serious business with serious implications. Gay marriage will lead to other things such as marriage to children as I proposed before. All this is very bad, and adds up to something I wish I didn't have to deal with in my lifetime.

I truely do believe that gay marriages will not have as large of an effect as you think. Homosexuality will not lead to kids being married. Hell the law in some states says (Utah being one) that a teen of 14 can get married but only with parental consent. I say rather then making a whole U.S ban leave it to the states. The gov't really has no rights to say that two grown adults can't marry if they want to. Even if it is a man and a man. Treating these people as outsiders doesn't solve any issues either. Let them marry, it won't change any meaning of marriage. Like I had said earlier the meaning of Marriage is already changing with the divorce rate sky rocketing to 50%. People rush to get married and end up ending it at the drop of a hat. Now in order to protect myself, I'm thinking of having my fiance sign a prenupt. Anyways. Time for me to go to work so I'm done for now.

[Trigger_Happy]

Interesting point, but marriage is controlled by the state, not the church. If you decide to dance around a banana tree as a sign of your marriage, that's fine, but you won't get reconized as married by the state. That said, in Minnesota all you have to do to become a pastor is get "called by your congregation". In other words, if I get a few people together who decide to vote me as their "pastor", I can legally marry them.

It's wierd. We are on the same side of this issue, I just wanted to point out that marriage has definate civil ties.

[Trigger_Happy]

Originally posted by RoadDawg

I truely do believe that gay marriages will not have as large of an effect as you think. Homosexuality will not lead to kids being married. Hell the law in some states says (Utah being one) that a teen of 14 can get married but only with parental consent. I say rather then making a whole U.S ban leave it to the states. The gov't really has no rights to say that two grown adults can't marry if they want to. Even if it is a man and a man. Treating these people as outsiders doesn't solve any issues either. Let them marry, it won't change any meaning of marriage. Like I had said earlier the meaning of Marriage is already changing with the divorce rate sky rocketing to 50%. People rush to get married and end up ending it at the drop of a hat. Now in order to protect myself, I'm thinking of having my fiance sign a prenupt. Anyways. Time for me to go to work so I'm done for now.

I think you oversimplify marriage and marriage law. Marriage is much more than a title. If it were only a peice of paper, I'd print one out for myself and my guitar right now. I mean, I really love that thing, and I do have two nice printers with high-quality ink.

No, I can't do that. Why? Marriage is not that simple both on a personal level and a civil level.

[RoadDawg]

Originally posted by Trigger_Happy


I think you oversimplify marriage and marriage law. Marriage is much more than a title. If it were only a peice of paper, I'd print one out for myself and my guitar right now. I mean, I really love that thing, and I do have two nice printers with high-quality ink.

No, I can't do that. Why? Marriage is not that simple both on a personal level and a civil level.

Believe me I know it's more then a title. It's a union of two people for a lifetime. My fiance wants to get married in her church but me being "non" religious could care less where it is held. I've seen marriages in courts as my older brother was married by a Judge that my mom works for, and my other bro in a Mormon church. So I've seen state and I've seen religious sides. Either way a marriage is only recognized by the state if it is man and woman. I for one think it is wrong. It should be any two couple that have the blessing of families and for each other to be unionized and deemed married. Not handed a certificate that says they are. Plus have it recognized by the state as a "real" marriage. Anyways time for work.