|
Replies: 61
| visibility 1
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
NC Voters- Don't forget to vote Yes on Amendment 1 tomorrow
May 7, 2012, 11:18 PM
|
|
Vote yes for the Marriage Protection Amendment tomorrow, North Carolinians. Turnout is critical, so don't leave it up to somebody else to decide.
|
|
|
|
 |
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: NC Voters- Don't forget to vote Yes on Amendment 1 tomorrow
May 7, 2012, 11:31 PM
|
|
Yes, Gay marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage more so than our nationwide 52% divorce rate for first time marriages, and the state government should be given the power to say who can form a union, and who can not.(insert sarcasm)
Antidisestablishmentarianism is the separation of church and state, and an outlining principle of our constitution. Because one religion finds the practice wrong, policy can not be formed around those ideas, as stated in the second amendment.
Whether you personally, morally, or religiously are opposed, remember we live in a free country and government has no right to interfere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
Respectfully,
May 7, 2012, 11:40 PM
|
|
Marraige is a symbol of the union of Christ to the church, Christ being the groom, the church the bride...
Having said that... Divorce is a slap in the face to this symbol, as Christ is faithful in his grace and mercy even though the church is promiscuous in its sin.
How is gay marriage any better?
Keep in mind, that I'm no better and I don't see myself as any better than the worst sinner, but this is a sacred symbol that I feel needs protecting...
My .02
Go Tigers
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Respectfully,
May 7, 2012, 11:48 PM
|
|
I am neither christian, nor gay, nor do I know any gay couple that wants to get married where I live. What I do know is that principles of Christianity and the principles of our government our not the same, and the 2nd amendment to our constitution agrees with me.
You are welcome as a christian to not recognize gay marriage as a holy union, but as a citizen of the United State of America, you are obliged to recognize the rights of every individual, regardless of your personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
my apologies
May 7, 2012, 11:53 PM
|
|
I meant 1st amendment, which reads as follows.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 492
Joined: 11/13/07
|
Re: my apologies
May 8, 2012, 7:34 AM
|
|
Does not say that a law cannot be based on a religious "moral". If so you could argue to legalize murder because it is in the Ten Commandments. The amendment is stating that a "National Religion", i.e. The Church of England, cannot be established.
I'm not sure how I feel about this amendment in NC, and I don't live there so it doesn't make a difference, But I think you are misunderstanding the statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
Re: Respectfully,
May 8, 2012, 12:02 AM
[ in reply to Re: Respectfully, ] |
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
This is fundamentally where we disagree, as I interpret this portion of the document to mean that the government cannot make any laws that interfere with the way a religion practices, and making a law that marriage must include a homosexual meaning interferes with that religion.
It's a continuing breakdown of the principles of Christianity in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
furthermore...
May 8, 2012, 12:03 AM
|
|
homosexuality is not a religion, so it has no basis in the first amendment...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
it is pretty clear
May 8, 2012, 12:04 AM
[ in reply to Re: Respectfully, ] |
|
The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion
It clearly says that no laws can be made in respect of an established religion, or to dumb it down further, policy can not be formed from the beliefs of an established religion.
Our forefathers and any first year law student would agree, but feel free to interpret however you like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
I'm pretty sure our forefathers were a bit too conservative
May 8, 2012, 12:09 AM
|
|
to think that homosexuality would be protected, so I don't think they would agree,
As far as law students, I can only say that academics are traditionally extremely progressive and lean left almost every time (unless you are a finance professor, funny enough but that is a different discussion for a different post) so I'm not going to argue that they would agree...
I stand by the grounds that marriage is a sacred Christian symbol that the gov cannot impose itself on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5156]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5757
Joined: 5/15/05
|
Marriage is a Christian symbol? Really?
May 8, 2012, 10:49 AM
|
|
Marriage predates both Christianity and Judaism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Should the Government be involved in marriage at all then?***
May 8, 2012, 12:05 AM
[ in reply to Re: Respectfully, ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Should the Government be involved in marriage at all then?***
May 8, 2012, 12:07 AM
|
|
only when you file your taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
this is probably the question SSM advocates are avoiding
May 8, 2012, 12:28 AM
[ in reply to Should the Government be involved in marriage at all then?*** ] |
|
if there isn't anything special about our current (and longstanding) definition of marriage, then what business is it of the government's to be recognizing and regulating marriagte at all? Very few of those who argue that the government should redefine marriage by expanding its recognition to same-sex couples seem able to articulate the reson why the government has been involved in marriage, or why it recognized marriage as what it is in the first place. And without understanding this, they also have difficulty saying why every other kind of loving relationship between adults shouldn't also be recognized as a marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: this is probably the question SSM advocates are avoiding
May 8, 2012, 12:36 AM
|
|
The governments interest in marriage used to be the values that marriage promoted, stability, procreation, strong families, etc..
Being that marriage no longer guarantees this, and at the time women were not allowed to vote, you would have to think that it now only comes down to a moral and religious argument, which is not protected under our constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
Just because there is basically a resistance to conform to
May 8, 2012, 12:50 AM
|
|
the principles of marriage doesn't mean they don't exist... Just because someone doesn't think cocaine is bad, doesn't make it suddenly healthy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5156]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5757
Joined: 5/15/05
|
When government recognition of a union is attendant with
May 8, 2012, 10:18 AM
[ in reply to this is probably the question SSM advocates are avoiding ] |
|
privileges, it seems to become a discriminatory issue, does it not?
You are, by definition, granting institutional advantages to one group over another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
It'll probably pass and that makes me so very sad.***
May 7, 2012, 11:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Oh, and please give me a non-religious argument for it.***
May 7, 2012, 11:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Oh, and please give me a non-religious argument for it.***
May 8, 2012, 12:00 AM
|
|
there is none, being a homosexual is not against the law nor is there any reason not to grant them the same rights as citizens of any other persuasion, religion or Moral belief. As sick as it is, even NAMBLA is protected under our first amendment provided they break no laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
When it comes to marriage and the government, you can.***
May 8, 2012, 12:08 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: You cannot discuss marriage and not include religion...
May 8, 2012, 12:11 AM
|
|
and last I checked, peeled shrimp are the bomb, and an atheist shrimp boat captain can perform a marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
Point...
May 8, 2012, 12:13 AM
|
|
I try to make it out shrimping at least once during the season....
Being a chucktown native has some amazing perks
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Point...
May 8, 2012, 12:17 AM
|
|
will be heading out there myself to visit my sister in a month, can not wait to hit up Shem Creek.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
LEW-TINUT DAYUN!!!!
May 8, 2012, 12:20 AM
|
|
ICE CREEYIM!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: I don't remember that part of the movie...
May 8, 2012, 12:20 AM
[ in reply to I don't remember that part of the movie... ] |
|
you did not see the part where Bubba and Captain Dan got married on the boat by Forrest lol?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I smell spin-off!
May 8, 2012, 12:21 AM
|
|
RIP Bubba.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
sure you can
May 8, 2012, 12:23 AM
[ in reply to You cannot discuss marriage and not include religion... ] |
|
the government wouldn't bother recognizing marriage if it didn't find a compelling state's interest in it. While it may be true that religious arguments inform public arguments about marriage, they aren't the only ones.
If you've been on this board for a significant amount of time and have followed our debates about marriage, you've seen a number of non- religious arguments for why our current definition of marriage is important. I won't rehash those, since you can find them in a number of places (NOM, in Robert George and Sherif Girgis's essays, and from nearly any conservative outlet), but suffice it to say these are the arguments being made in court, not (or, at least, not only) the explicitly religious ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: sure you can
May 8, 2012, 12:29 AM
|
|
So basically you are saying you have been here longer, had this discussion many times already on a chat board, and are the authority of the matter, needing to provide no examples because of such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
I think he instead said that you have the capacity to
May 8, 2012, 12:30 AM
|
|
find said arguments and then rebuttle
Your turn, sir 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I've had these arguments with Cam, and trust me...
May 8, 2012, 12:35 AM
|
|
None of his arguments have been compelling ones. If he's read those essays, and they provide a compelling argument he hasn't, then he could save us time and tell them here.
His arguments have ranged from "slippery slope" to "state best interest" neither of which are good ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
I never agreed or disagreed with the validity of his
May 8, 2012, 12:39 AM
|
|
ammunition in this argument.
Heck, I've stated and restated my point in this argument, and I already know the fundamental difference is the interpretation of the first amendment...
I just like acting smarter than I am in situations like this, lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
Also, having taken a few classes in elementary philosophy...
May 8, 2012, 12:45 AM
[ in reply to I've had these arguments with Cam, and trust me... ] |
|
I understand that "slippery slope" is a philosophical fallacy... but I think that there is some truth to the potentiality of slippery slope, maybe not in the extreme that it is usually presented in, but there is often truth found in the middle ground.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
In this case, the slippery slope begins with hetero marriage
May 8, 2012, 12:51 AM
|
|
and is a good argument for not allowing the Government to be involved in marriage at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
Honestly, if we want to uphold the values of the 1st
May 8, 2012, 12:57 AM
|
|
amendment, the ONLY thing government would have to do with marriage is taxes... It would be up to the public to view a marriage as real or otherwise...
Which means in a progressive society that is quickly becoming the case in America, for better or worse, people may just view ssm as legit...
Which would make you question why I'm even trying to argue this in the first place, which to that I answer because marriage is a sacred symbol to the christian faith...
Back to square one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
it's not a slippery slope...
May 8, 2012, 2:13 AM
[ in reply to Also, having taken a few classes in elementary philosophy... ] |
|
just as SSM advocates have argued, if the law does not already expressly prohibit the recognition of certain relationships as marriages, then what just criteria are there for determining what should be and what shouldn't be a marriage? If limits aren't established in law for what marriage is, then wouldn't it actually be unjust to deny other types of relationships than loving ones the name "marriage?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5156]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5757
Joined: 5/15/05
|
Hard to argue that logically,
May 8, 2012, 10:40 AM
|
|
if the "consenting, loving adults" bit is a rationale for SSM, then polygamy should be as well.
I don't like it one bit, but that is a rational terminus for that thinking.
I do think, obviously, that there is a threshold at which such unions could be demonstrably proven to be unhealthy for children, and maybe that is the "out."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
to you, perhaps...
May 8, 2012, 12:50 AM
[ in reply to I've had these arguments with Cam, and trust me... ] |
|
to others, including to some judges, they are convincing.
And, to the contrary, what I've found is that those who favor SSM simply don't bother making arguments for why they think marriage is discriminatory. They simply gloss over any difficulties about why a particular model of marriage was recognized in the first place, or why that definition of marriage is the one we've always called marriage. In fact, they cannot articulate what it is about marriage that was important enough for the government to be involved in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Some judges also think corporations are people, sooo....
May 8, 2012, 1:02 AM
|
|
The definition of who can get married has changed (miscegenation laws). And again, the state wishes for a strong family unit. No one denies that. That is what the modern interpretation of state sponsored marriage says, and I agree with. My argument is, how does gay marriage disrupt that interpretation? Those against SSM don't seem to have very good arguments against that question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
anti-miscegenation laws have little to do with this...
May 8, 2012, 1:56 AM
|
|
although, you could argue that treating same-sex relationships as marriages has something to do with prohibiting people of different races from marrying because it similarly inserts a criterion other than the one recognized in the common-law understanding of marriage (that is, the one that pre-dates the Constitution and stands as the definition in absence of supervening and superseding law). That is, anti-miscegenation supporters have more to do with same-sex marriage advocates than they do with its opponents, because they rely on the coercion of the state to achieve a certain end. Men and women in nature, independent of the state, come together to procreate. But same-sex couples must rely on the state to detach the parental rights of whoever provided them with the means to a pregnancy.
There are any number of reasons why we should not change the common law definition of marriage (which required sexual complementarity, and which was at the basis of the Loving decision, since it had to be acknowledged that anti-miscegenation laws were trying to prevent marriages that were very possibly independent of the state). Ross Douthat gives a few of them here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/opinion/04douthat.html.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Key quote:
May 8, 2012, 2:19 AM
|
|
"they rely on the coercion of the state to achieve a certain end"
Kinda like an amendment? (I agree both sides want the state to coerce to their POV. Maybe that's an argument for detaching government and marriage?)
Maybe Ross will have a different argument.
(Just read it-he doesn't.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
W/O looking those essays up.
May 8, 2012, 12:32 AM
[ in reply to sure you can ] |
|
Is it the argument that the state is in favor of strong families and that 2 parent (male/female) couplings are in their best interest?
Because without statistics bearing that out (I doubt there is enough reliable information on it) then I don't buy that argument either.
A loving couple, hetero or ####, is the best for a child and that's what state should be in support of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
In that case...
May 8, 2012, 12:39 AM
|
|
perhaps two good friends who wished to adopt a child to "give them a better home" should also be recognized as married, if they so wished. But the government has no interest in recognizing the love between just any two people, only those whose sexual relationship is oriented towards procreation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: In that case...
May 8, 2012, 12:43 AM
|
|
only one person, or married couple can legally adopt a child. Two individuals can not legally take ownership over an adoption, so one would not be legally obliged to stick around.
Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
How is that the same thing?
May 8, 2012, 12:49 AM
[ in reply to In that case... ] |
|
Wanting to adopt is not necessary to marry, just as having kids is not a definitional part of being married. It is an expression of a union for life between two people who are in love.
And again, when you phrase it as, "the government has no interest in recognizing the love between just any two people, only those whose sexual relationship is oriented towards procreation."
How does that not sound like backward, Dark ages logic to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [112332]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 74041
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: How is that the same thing?
May 8, 2012, 12:53 AM
|
|
that was the case in 1950, before women were allowed to vote, it was legal to beat your children, and prayer was mandatory in public schools. I think a few other things have changed since then as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
it is a kind of logic...
May 8, 2012, 1:12 AM
[ in reply to How is that the same thing? ] |
|
call it "dark ages" or whatever you like, but at the very least it provides a plausible and important rationale for the government's involvement in sexual relationships. Simply noting that marriage is an institution for regulating sex between people whose sex may result in children is not to say a couple must have children to be married. It is only to say that there is very little reason why we would find marriage in every society, and why governments would recognize it as an institution, if procreation had nothing do with its definition and it was merely "a union for life between two people who are in love." Society has no interest in whether you are in love, and who you are in love with, but it certainly does have an interest in the reproduction of generations and in those new generations being raised in the most stable environments possible. Only male-female couples are the kind of couples who reproduce through their sexual relations. Therefore, the only "marriage" that has existed throughout history and in all cultures, and the only marriage government have recognized up until the last few years, has been between a man and a woman.
This seems to me to be much more valid, and much more true, than the claim that "unions for life between two people who are in love" are important to society. But, for those who are committed to the "equal rights" narrative about marriage (as if marriage existed to confer or deny a special dignity on a relationship), the only thing that is important is that all relationships are treated the same, even if they are of a demonstrably different kind that would require a completely new, and strained, rationale for why marriage is important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30165
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Follow this logic:
May 8, 2012, 1:31 AM
|
|
Society has an interest in strong families.
Homosexuals can have as strong of a family dynamic as heterosexuals. (If not as strong as biological families, then they share the same as hetero adoptive parents)
=Society should allow for homosexual families/starting with marriage.
Rebuttals of your argument:
Government's involvement is on strong families, not sexual relationships.
I believe governments got involved in marriage because it has been a way to distribute land, goods, power and of course taxes. I'm sure strong family support is also a reason.
Homosexual intolerance (burning at the stake, imprisoning, executed) may play a part in why marriage has been 'traditional' so far. (Also, interracial marriage is a good blueprint for all of this.)
People having sex and reproducing is going to happen without the governments involvement, so the role of government is to provide for the strongest family dynamic. Homosexual couples do not disrupt this dynamic.
Are you saying marriage doesn't confer a special dignity to a relationship?
As much parsing and narrow minded logic you are applying to this situation, it seems you might be the one straining the rationale for marriage's "importance."
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1065]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 914
Joined: 12/1/09
|
And on that note I'm out...
May 8, 2012, 12:58 AM
|
|
Summary:
Marriage is being tampered with by the gov
Cutigr62 doesn't like it.
Go Tigers
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5156]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5757
Joined: 5/15/05
|
Marriage was "tampered with" by the government a long time
May 8, 2012, 10:47 AM
|
|
ago.
Governments have had some sort of interest in marriage for a long, long time.
What you're upset about is not "government interference" (if you're being intellectually honest).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2394]
TigerPulse: 83%
Posts: 5533
Joined: 11/16/06
|
I hope this doesn't happen. Next thing you know we will have
May 8, 2012, 9:51 AM
|
|
humans marrying cats or men marrying children, or as Brian Kilmeade from Fox News pointed out, we could have white people marrying a different species, like black people. We can't have that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enthusiast [125]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 83
Joined: 6/10/09
|
Re: NC Voters- Don't forget to vote Yes on Amendment 1 tomor
May 8, 2012, 10:09 AM
|
|
Regardless of what one's opinion is on gay marriage, gay marriage is only a very small part of this amendment. Once you realize what you're actually for (when it comes to rights of children in domestic violence cases etc., not just gay marriage) you'll realize how awful of a proposal it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1669]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 2314
Joined: 1/20/03
|
Then they need to separate it***
May 8, 2012, 10:15 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83263]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80210
Joined: 11/29/99
|
LOL, yea, critical or crucial or life threatening even, the
May 8, 2012, 10:43 AM
|
|
end is near!!!
Just messin' with ya'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fan [75]
TigerPulse: 73%
Posts: 300
Joined: 9/25/06
|
Re: NC Voters- Don't forget to vote Yes on Amendment 1 tomorrow
May 8, 2012, 10:58 AM
|
|
The wife and I have already voted "yes".
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11963]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12224
Joined: 11/9/04
|
Because if it doesn't pass, gay people can get married asap
May 8, 2012, 12:43 PM
|
|
right? oh wait.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
It will be an unfortuante occurrence if it passes,
May 8, 2012, 12:47 PM
|
|
but not surprising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2455]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 5725
Joined: 12/27/05
|
As a southerner, I am ashamed of our ignorance
May 9, 2012, 1:36 PM
|
|
As has been said many times so far, the government concept of marriage, and the christian church's definition of marriage is different. Furthermore, America is home to many more religions than Christianity. I can go get married in a courthouse and not involve the church at all. No Christianity required.
Speaking as a Christian, I don't think the government has any business determining whether gays can marry or not. We have got more important things to worry about than banning gays from marrying.
Let them marry, and let's get back to the important stuff like getting the economy in better shape, and kicking these morons out of congress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 61
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
