By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Florida has banned gay marriage

mesoteto said:
^i think that is wrong, this country is not a religious based one and should not deny legal rights based on such

but i think civil unions should also get some of the baggage that comes with marriage


if a couple ends a civil union do they have to do the whole divorce thing?

Then why not just call it marriage?  If you think the sancitity of your marriage is effected because gay people can marry, then I genuinely feel sorry for you.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network

thats not what i said and i am sorry if that seemed to be implied

my marriage is safe the general sanctity of my my religions view of marriage if what is being threatened

that is what i am fighting for my faiths ideals of marriage


what is gained by the word of marriage being taken from one group that has fought to make it into something grand and given to another

there is nothing gained by the word only loss

what is so wrong with being given same legal rights but not the name?

"Then why not just call it marriage"

 

b/c it is not marriage  to me or my faith, marriage is and should stay a uniting of a man and a woman"

 



 

Yes, separate but equal. Have you guys not heard of Plessy V. Ferguson? Even the Supreme Court endorses the concept.



mesoteto said:

thats not what i said and i am sorry if that seemed to be implied

my marriage is safe the general sanctity of my my religions view of marriage if what is being threatened

that is what i am fighting for my faiths ideals of marriage


what is gained by the word of marriage being taken from one group that has fought to make it into something grand and given to another

there is nothing gained by the word only loss

what is so wrong with being given same legal rights but not the name?

"Then why not just call it marriage"

 

b/c it is not marriage  to me or my faith, marriage is and should stay a uniting of a man and a woman"

 

Once again (we are going in circles here), why should your faith affect government legislation?  Its not like the government is taking away your right to marry.  You are losing a perceived "right", that somehow preventing other people from marrying makes your life better.

But once again, the preservation of that right is less valuable than the cost to other people.  Why should a substantive right be taken away from other people just because it makes you happier?  Should black people have to wear green and orange socks because it makes me happier?  What you are losing is not a right.  You can still worship your religion and no substantive right of yours has been taken away.  You may feel that way, but that is just your perception.

And what about Aztecs?  If we had an Aztec cult in American and a fundamental part of their religion is human sacrifice, aren't we infringing upon their rights to not let them sacrifice people?  By your logic, they should be able to do it.  By my logic they shouldn't because they are infringing upon someone else's right, and the government has a higher interest in protecting infringement upon natural rights before it concerns itself with infringing upon religious "rights".

 

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

@mesoteto : Your home analogy doesn't work because in order for the "new group" to use the home, the old owners have to move out. So they lose their home.

With marriage, having gays being able to wed removes NOTHING from heterosexual couples.



Signature goes here!

Around the Network
mesoteto said:
... this country is not a religious based one ...

 

I'm sorry. What?



Veggie said:
mesoteto said:
... this country is not a religious based one ...

 

I'm sorry. What?

its true despite having been present at the fondation the seperation of church and state trump it and prevent it from being our basis

we are now and for ever will be (save a coup) a country based on being indipendent

 

 



 

mesoteto said:
Veggie said:
mesoteto said:
... this country is not a religious based one ...

 

I'm sorry. What?

its true despite having been present at the fondation the seperation of church and state trump it and prevent it from being our basis

we are now and for ever will be (save a coup) a country based on being indipendent

 

 

So why should your faith affect legislation then when you are not losing any rights because of that legislation?

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

America is one of the most religious countries in the world.



TruckOSaurus said:
HappySqurriel said:

The "Traditional" definition of marriage more or less relates to a man and a woman entering into a partnership in order to raise children with legitimate paternity. This is the predominant view of marriage throughout the world, and has been the predominant view of marriage throughout history, and a relationship that can not generate children does not make sense under this definition ... A man declaring he is menstrating makes as much sense as two men declaring they're married under this definition.

So a guy married to a barren woman should divorce her because his marriage makes no sense if you use the "traditional" definition of marriage?

 

Are you really unaware of the fact that that used to happen? I think you need to read more history, I think you should start by reading about Henry VIII of England.