Bush is trying to ban gay marriages nation-wide.... wow.

[Titan]

Originally posted by Living-In-Clip
I would be interested in see\'ing your stats on this for a few reasons.

(1) Offical gay marriages are new. It would be difficult to compare it to overall Hetrosexual marriages.

(2) There is a low number of gay marriages as opposed to the massive numbers of hetrosexual marriages. Therefor, if there are quite a few gay "divorces", then it looks worse than the hetrosexual numbers.

(3) It is fair to answer a question with a question !

(4) The homosexual\'s had it made. See, if they was smart, they would of just exchanged vows verbally and never done it through the legal system. Doing this avoids any divorces and having to split half your posessions with your ex-signifcant other. Now, they want to get married, which means they want to suffer through something every man tries to avoid...a divorce.  I\'m sorry, but do you know how many guy\'s wish marriages was illegal, just for the simple fact they lost most of everything with their first divorce?!?!?  Hell, I\'m hetrosexual and I would love to avoid marriage, due to the fact I don\'t want to lose most my stuff or take a chance of it... See, they had it made and they had to go screw it up.

I see your point. Two teachers in my school did a debate after school one day on this. I don\'t have any sources for this, just what I heard from them. Supposedly, New Zealand has gay marriages so I assume thats where the statistics came from. For the record, I don\'t support nor oppose gay marriages. I\'m very apathetic towards the matter. If they get that right, cool, if they don\'t, I don\'t give a damn. Its not going to affect me.

Originally posted by Ace
It is not fair to answer a question with a question.

Or is it?

Yeah, I just don\'t see a point in saying that we are not gauranteed the right to marry.  I know it\'s the truth, but in all reality if the government felt like it, we could end up with no rights.  It\'s not a matter of right to marry, but more of equal opportunity.  Keep the view of the masses but protect the minority.  I hope I made myself a little bit clearer.

Originally posted by Ace
Can anyone tell me where it says we have a right to get married?

I don\'t see how you could claim to have a free country.

I don\'t think it\'s a matter of having a free country. There are many things we can\'t do because of laws.

This is the way I see it. Call it a Civil Union, call it whatever you like but don\'t call it it marriage.

I think we should let the people vote on this and put the whole thing to rest.

Marriage has historically been the union between a man and a woman - gays can have their civil unions - I don\'t care, but as Ace said, don\'t call it marriage.  Marriage is a heterosexual tradition.  

The other problem I have with this is that the SF mayor is breaking the law.  He is giving out marriage certificates because he feels he is above the law and doesn\'t have to answer to it.  If he feels so passionately about it then take it to court - don\'t take the "shoot first and ask questions later" approach.  To me he has behaved very irresponsibly regarding this whole issue and it seems more like an activists publicity stunt than a man who truley has a moral issue with gay marriage being illegal.

Laws are put in place to protect us.  What harm is coming to you if John and Mark get married?

So are gays considered any less American than straight people?  If not then why do they have less rights and aren\'t allowed the benefits of being legally married (tax breaks..etc).

I was once on the other side of the fence on this, but i\'ve come around to feel that everyone has a right to marry whoever they want, as long as they don\'t infringe on others rights or way of life.  Sure this could open the floodgates to other alternative lifestyles (pyligamy...etc), but the laws in place prevent that from being legal.

I believe this is a state issue.  Maybe that has to do with me being a libertarian.  

Originally posted by Bozco
Laws are put in place to protect us.  What harm is coming to you if John and Mark get married?

What do you not understand about how the mayor of SF is breaking the law by issuing gays marriage certificates?  It is California law he is breaking or to be more precise it is law he is interpreting which is even more dangerous IN MY OPINION.  The mayor of SF has no right what so ever to interpret laws - take it to the courts and let the court decide.

He completely bypassed the system of checks and balances which is the foundation of our government.  If you think a law is wrong challenge it in court - just like they did in MA.  Old Gavin has taken it upon himself to be the Legislature, Judge and Jury.  Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Californians voted to recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman he decided that was wrong.  Nothing like an liberal activist dictator...   And you all say conservatives are bad...

:rolleyes:

The great thing about this is we will finally have a constitutional amendment that declares marriage as being between a man and a woman.  If two gays want to be partners - fine - have a civil union.

[SirMystiq]

It\'s sad when it comes to a time where the Constitution will be amended not to protect the liberties of the residents of this country, but to restrict the liberties that any person has. If the Constitution is amended it will not be a sign of the superiority and morality of the people who favor that proposal, it will only show a sign that this country\'s values are becoming more obscure when it comes to acceptance of change.

To me it\'s not a matter of being "liberal", it\'s a matter of understanding that we CAN\'T control the feelings of others. We can\'t prohibit others to show the maximum show of affection through marriage.

You got it wrong, that\'s why conservatives are bad in the first place. What\'s next? A black man can\'t marry a white woman?

Originally posted by GigaShadow
What do you not understand about how the mayor of SF is breaking the law by issuing gays marriage certificates?  It is California law he is breaking or to be more precise it is law he is interpreting which is even more dangerous IN MY OPINION.  The mayor of SF has no right what so ever to interpret laws - take it to the courts and let the court decide.

He completely bypassed the system of checks and balances which is the foundation of our government.  If you think a law is wrong challenge it in court - just like they did in MA.  Old Gavin has taken it upon himself to be the Legislature, Judge and Jury.  Despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Californians voted to recognize marriage as the union of a man and a woman he decided that was wrong.  Nothing like an liberal activist dictator...   And you all say conservatives are bad...

:rolleyes:

The great thing about this is we will finally have a constitutional amendment that declares marriage as being between a man and a woman.  If two gays want to be partners - fine - have a civil union.

Ok, let me make it a little more clear for you.  I\'m not talking about what the mayor of SF is doing.  I\'m simply commenting on how it might become an ammendment.  How does it hurt you when two gay guys get married?

Should we have any limits?

Amending the constitution is overkill.....

I forgot that gays aren\'t human beings, silly me.

Now who said that?

[SirMystiq]

It\'s implied...

"They..."
"Marriage" is something "normal" people do and homosexuality is "out of the normal"...remember...