Originally posted by: -EB- Bluedoctor

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Btw Cheney came out for this before Obama did.

He pretty much had too. Isn't his daughter gay?

She is and he wanted it decided at the state level which is where is should be decided.

discrimination should be a federal matter. if you want to be a state that discriminates against someone's ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness, secede.

States could try to secede but its pretty much impossible to do--unless they get nukes.

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Btw Cheney came out for this before Obama did.

He pretty much had too. Isn't his daughter gay?

She is and he wanted it decided at the state level which is where is should be decided.

discrimination should be a federal matter. if you want to be a state that discriminates against someone's ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness, secede.

Originally posted by: -Swo0p
A 'free' country where not everyone is free. Hooray!

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: -Swo0p
A 'free' country where not everyone is free. Hooray!

People are perfectly free to live together and try (or pretend) to only have sex with each other.

Marriage on the other hand has to be granted with society's voluntary consent. If marriage is granted without society's consent, it not really marriage anymore. Its meaning has been hollowed out. Probably why marriage rates are on the decline in some Europe countries. It not important anymore, but they don't consciously know why.

Originally posted by: Pillbug

Originally posted by: Pixel
discrimination should be a federal matter. if you want to be a state that discriminates against someone's ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness, secede.

You are confusing issues.

Marriage isn't defined in the federal Constitution, so it's a state's issue.


Your issue of discrimination on the other hand... you should be taking that up with the federal government. Marriage definition should be abolished at the federal level.

If the case is made that it's a religious institution, then it should be removed from the states as well and then left to the churches to decide.

There are plenty of churches that would love to and a bunch that do perform same sex marriages.

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Btw Cheney came out for this before Obama did.

He pretty much had too. Isn't his daughter gay?

She is and he wanted it decided at the state level which is where is should be decided.

discrimination should be a federal matter. if you want to be a state that discriminates against someone's ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness, secede.

so blacks committing violence against everyone is a federal matter right?

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Btw Cheney came out for this before Obama did.

He pretty much had too. Isn't his daughter gay?

She is and he wanted it decided at the state level which is where is should be decided.

discrimination should be a federal matter. if you want to be a state that discriminates against someone's ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness, secede.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Pixel

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~

Originally posted by: =>PX<=Major

Originally posted by: ~~Snake~~
Btw Cheney came out for this before Obama did.

He pretty much had too. Isn't his daughter gay?

She is and he wanted it decided at the state level which is where is should be decided.

discrimination should be a federal matter. if you want to be a state that discriminates against someone's ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness, secede.

What's funny about this issue is that at least I feel your heart is in the right place.......primarily because we agree that the government should stay the fuck out of saying who can and can not get married.

With that said, I still don't see why it has to be decided on a Federal level. Lets not forget that States also have Supreme Courts and in California they already did a damn fine job of overturning Proposition 8 due to it's entirely unconstitutional merit.

Separation of Church and state........and those assholes defending prop 8 actually had the audacity to use the word "sanctity" in their arguments......dumb asses.

Let the states work out their own problems IMO.......let them compete and be their own independent experimental labs. Let the Constitution be their guide.....As I'm sure you know by debating with people for several years in here, you can't save all of us so why the hell keep trying?

Let the fundamentalists move to their bastions.......let the hippies have their paradise........let the statists have some state wide Socialism ......and let some libertarians run amok.

Only then can we have the competition and discrepancy needed to prove once and for all what systems have serious advantages and disadvantages over one another.

One sized fits all blanket policies, that fit no one, make everybody pissed off and prove nothing........

Originally posted by: (SF) DirtyRatFink
Why is this such a big issue? How many of you are gay? How many of you currently have friends who are gay and are fighting for the right to marry?

I read a statistic that says that 3.8 percent of the population of the US identifies as gay, bi or transgendered. So assuming all of them are strongly for gay marriage, we have 3.8% of the US for whom this will be a big issue. For everyone who isn't gay, does this affect your life in any way? Probably not so much, right?

Now before everyone jumps on my shit here, I am not saying that they shouldn't be able to get married, not at all.

What I am wondering, is that with the current financial affair of the country, which affects 99% of the population, and the abysmal state of much of the education in the country, and healthcare, and social security (which all of you pay into and I bet most of you will never collect from), and all the other EXTREMLY SIGNIFICANT THINGS that affect most people every day, why are gay marriage, and abortion, and things like teachers strikes, given such importance? Why are these the things that people base their vote on, or argue about on forums for pages and pages?

I wondered the same thing a few weeks ago up here. Teachers were on strike, and I was shocked at the amount of vehemence everyone seems to have. Oh, the poor, poor teachers. They should absolutely be paid more, because they deserve it. Don't you know that they have 30 kids in their class, and when you do the creative math that they would like you to believe that they are only getting paid $2 per hour per child? That's way lower that daycare, right?

Leaving out the bad math and every other dumb "fact", because it is another topic for another thread, why are we, the general population, and most us NOT teachers, so up in arms over this? It's not like the teachers are going to be so vocal in their support of us if we demand more money, right?

The spin doctors have everyone so concerned with the insignificant, the important stuff is never given a second thought

Originally posted by: -Swo0p
A 'free' country where not everyone is free. Hooray!

Who would make this a deciding factor in their vote for president anyway? Does anyone think Obama's statement changes any major support for him or Romney?

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: -Swo0p
A 'free' country where not everyone is free. Hooray!

People are perfectly free to live together and try (or pretend) to only have sex with each other.

Marriage on the other hand has to be granted with society's voluntary consent. If marriage is granted without society's consent, it not really marriage anymore. Its meaning has been hollowed out. Probably why marriage rates are on the decline in some Europe countries. It not important anymore, but they don't consciously know why.

Originally posted by: Pixel

some one size fits all policies do work. like don't discriminate against gays cause they are gay, or women cause they are women.

Originally posted by: Pixel
this also helps in regars to patriot act type stuff. blanket policy - no eavesdropping on americans without a warrant obtained by regular means. ever. period.

those are good man.

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana
Game changer for Obama. Sorry but the majority of the country is religous, including the democrats. Most religous people won't vote for him with this in mind.

Originally posted by: Coba|t


Based on your simple logic, most religious people shouldn't be voting for people who support the death penalty either, but it happens.

Originally posted by: Coba|t

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana
Game changer for Obama. Sorry but the majority of the country is religous, including the democrats. Most religous people won't vote for him with this in mind.

Wasn't there some kind of religious document that stated you shouldn't kill?

And don't many candidates who fancy themselves as religious support the death penalty?

Based on your simple logic, most religious people shouldn't be voting for people who support the death penalty either, but it happens.

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana

Originally posted by: Coba|t

Originally posted by: Stoneymontana
Game changer for Obama. Sorry but the majority of the country is religous, including the democrats. Most religous people won't vote for him with this in mind.

Wasn't there some kind of religious document that stated you shouldn't kill?

And don't many candidates who fancy themselves as religious support the death penalty?

Based on your simple logic, most religious people shouldn't be voting for people who support the death penalty either, but it happens.

Sure it happens, but gay marriage is a completely different ball park imo.

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: -Swo0p
A 'free' country where not everyone is free. Hooray!

People are perfectly free to live together and try (or pretend) to only have sex with each other.

Marriage on the other hand has to be granted with society's voluntary consent. If marriage is granted without society's consent, it not really marriage anymore. Its meaning has been hollowed out. Probably why marriage rates are on the decline in some Europe countries. It not important anymore, but they don't consciously know why.

It's not on its way out because of gays getting married......

It's going out because it's an archaic practice that has lost relevancy with most people these days.

Marriage is going out for many of the same reasons that long term salaried jobs are disappearing. Who the hell would want to put a woman under a "salaried" contract (called marriage), with massive paid benefits, and guaranteed unemployment insurance for life (called alimony), not to mention SSI (called child support), when they don't absolutely have to anymore?

Originally posted by: Nathan Bedford Forrest

Originally posted by: Stryk

Originally posted by: -Swo0p
A 'free' country where not everyone is free. Hooray!

People are perfectly free to live together and try (or pretend) to only have sex with each other.

Marriage on the other hand has to be granted with society's voluntary consent. If marriage is granted without society's consent, it not really marriage anymore. Its meaning has been hollowed out. Probably why marriage rates are on the decline in some Europe countries. It not important anymore, but they don't consciously know why.

Society's consent? REALLY?