Washington D.C. has a new Gay Marriage Proposal

[KittenKoder]

I can see it, soon they will outlaw all religious materials except those from Scientology. Next, they will start saying people can't get baptized unless their parents were christian to, by law. Oh, and no one can hang crosses on their door because the law won't let them ... unless they stop allowing the law to control marriage as a whole, this is where we are headed. Banning gay marriage will only serve to give the government more power over religious beliefs, period.

 

[Setarcos]

I agree god is quite clear on what he wants for his world, and us.

If we choose to disobey him, that is on us

But it has always been between one man one woman, and should remain as such

Table Set for DC Gay Marriage Debate | NBC Washington

The language in the bill states that a marriage is a union between 2 people, regardless of their sex.

What say you?

There is no need to change the definition of "marriage".

I don't know what god you're referring too, but the god of the bible commands polygyny.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

gay marriage: minority

poligamist: minority

both demanding marriage be redifined.

thats the similarities.

I dont think it makes sense to change the definition of marriage for 7% of the population, and furthermore if we do, we will have to allow poligamists, because their is no good reason to deny them their rights as well

Marriage should have one definition/meaning not three

do i need to explain how totally not even in the same area gay marriage is to polygamy?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

seperation of church and state as i understand it means the official church wont run the government, not individual people with a conscience cant serve.

I agree god is quite clear on what he wants for his world, and us.

If we choose to disobey him, that is on us

But it has always been between one man one woman, and should remain as such

What about the separation of church and state and equality under the law for all citizens...? The government should be able to declare certain citizens less worthy of being socially secure?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

what about allowing each state to decide for itself?

im not sure a federal law or mandate is a good idea

I can see it, soon they will outlaw all religious materials except those from Scientology. Next, they will start saying people can't get baptized unless their parents were christian to, by law. Oh, and no one can hang crosses on their door because the law won't let them ... unless they stop allowing the law to control marriage as a whole, this is where we are headed. Banning gay marriage will only serve to give the government more power over religious beliefs, period.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

whats wrong with letting the people, not government decide what they want the definition of marriage to be?.

or other social issues

on a state by state bases

just a thought

 

[Setarcos]

There has to be a federal law, since taxation occurs at the federal level and is effected by recognition of marriage.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

whats wrong with letting the people, not government decide what they want the definition of marriage to be?.

or other social issues

on a state by state bases

just a thought

Thats my opinion too.

I live in a state where it is legal for Gays to marry. But we didn't get to vote to decide the legislature and judicial made the decision for us instead of letting us vote.

I think that is wrong, they should let each state decide in a public vote.

 

[Setarcos]

Since when are civil rights up for a majority vote?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Since when are civil rights up for a majority vote?

Behavior and Race are not the same thing

 

[Qball]

Since when are civil rights up for a majority vote?

Since when was "any two people" empirically recognized as a civil right?

 

[KittenKoder]

Since when are civil rights up for a majority vote?

Since when was "any two people" empirically recognized as a civil right?

In all other business contracts it is.

 

[REVxERIK]

gay marriage: minority

poligamist: minority

both demanding marriage be redifined.

thats the similarities.

I dont think it makes sense to change the definition of marriage for 7% of the population, and furthermore if we do, we will have to allow poligamists, because their is no good reason to deny them their rights as well

Marriage should have one definition/meaning not three

do i need to explain how totally not even in the same area gay marriage is to polygamy?

you clearly misunderstood. how the HELL is marring more than one person in the same area as marring someone you're attracted to of either gender?

 

[Barb]

Since when are civil rights up for a majority vote?

Behavior and Race are not the same thing

Since when are civil rights predicated on race?

 

[JD_2B]

Table Set for DC Gay Marriage Debate | NBC Washington

The language in the bill states that a marriage is a union between 2 people, regardless of their sex.

What say you?

Why should someone's biologically and genetically predisposed gender hold any issue in concern with which gender they choose to love, make a commitment to, and spend the rest of their lives with?

In all states, people who have had a sex change operation are considered to be a different gender.. So if THEY marry someone who is the same sex that they USED to be ( a transgender male, who was formerly a female, lets say, turns into a man and can marry a female that way, in every state) in spite of their true gender by virtue of their chromosomal content (XX).......

How is that any different than gay marriage in the first place?

I am all for gay marriage. Who gives a rats behind if they want to make the ultimate commitment to someone who happens to be of the same gender they are?

And I do not see this as being something that should be voted for- This is a matter of equal rights and constitutional protections. Gay people commonly die, and are not allowed by the state to leave their property to their partners, and their partners children simply because that state does not want to recognize gay relationships. Thats arbitrary and as wrong as forcing blacks to use a separate restaurant, or bathroom from whites, yet still saying "they are equal to us- just because they have to use separate facilities does not change that!!" That was ridiculous then, and this is ridiculous now.

 

[Qball]

Since when are civil rights up for a majority vote?

Since when was "any two people" empirically recognized as a civil right?

In all other business contracts it is.

I was referring to the "business" of marriage.

 

[JD_2B]

Since when was "any two people" empirically recognized as a civil right?

In all other business contracts it is.

I was referring to the "business" of marriage.

In Virginia, the law states very clearly that gay contracts of ANY kind are not recognized, not just marriage and civil union, but even the ones that exist between any two people of the same sex in a committed relationship, if the contract is with each other.

This is a big problem for Gays because Virginia is the only state that has such specific laws that do not recognize gay contracts between couples, and they NEED those contracts to be recognized in order to pass on property, funds, etc.. when they die. So, they choose to do a lot of their rallying in the Virginia area (DC), as it helps to spread their awareness to two groups that NEED to be aware of their plight. (state and federal)

 

[Qball]

Not trying to be glib, but what does this have to do with what I was talking about? It's not an accepted conclusion that same-sex marriage is a civil right. Most states don't believe it, and neither does the federal government. Yet, people keep asserting it as if it's empirically true.

 

[Setarcos]

Not trying to be glib, but what does this have to do with what I was talking about? It's not an accepted conclusion that same-sex marriage is a civil right. Most states don't believe it, and neither does the federal government. Yet, people keep asserting it as if it's empirically true.

If there is no civil right to enter into legal contract with another consenting adult as you please, then wtf was Loving V. Virginia about?

 

[Setarcos]

wait... Virginia... the same state I now hear allegedly refuses to recognize any legal contract two gays enter if they happen to be partners. Also a KKK stronghold, if I recall.

Coincidence?