Stance on Gay Rights/ Marriage

[Mr. Shaman]

I think it's a fuckin' disease, but to each their own and who the **** am I to get in the way of that.

It'd make you voluntarily ill-informed (i.e. ignorant).

​

 

[JoeB131]

LOL...that's quite a stretch. Blacks were prohibited from marrying whites. They never had that right so it wasn't "taken away" post slavery, it was prohibited from the "get go". Those darn activist SCOTUS judges went against the will of the people to over turn anti-miscegenation laws.

We don't vote on civil rights, period.

Civil rights are won in the court of law (when you look at history). The fact that Mississippi would vote to overturn anti miscegenation laws RIGHT NOW if it went to the ballot box is just one of the reasons.

Well, if MS actually tried that, they'd find a lot of companies would move out, a lot of tourist dollars would be lost, etc. So even if you found a poll that said that, it probably wouldn't be true.

It wasn't a stretch at all. The 14th Amendment made it legal for blacks to marry whites, because it made them citizens. Passing laws against interracial marriage was a violation of the 14th Amendment- therefore unconstitutional.

There is really nothing in the constitution about letting people of the same gender marry. A gay can get married to any person of the opposite sex who will have them, therefore, they have the SAME rights as straight people.

Now, if you want to change the law, change the law at the ballot box or in the legislature. That's what they are there for.

But if you are going to trust your fortunes to judges, you are opening a very serious can of nasty worms. That isn't democracy.

Somehow, I don't think you were one of the people who were cheering when the courts decided Gore vs. Bush in Bush's favor.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

No, I don't respect them for their queerness, but I have met a couple in my trade that I respected their work. As long as it isn't in my house I simply don't care what they do.

So...you're saying you respect people like me as long as our "queerness" isn't in front of you?

Just in my own castle, that's all I can control, and I've been blessed that it hasn't infected my family, yet.

Yeah......you really sound like the kind of parent a Gay-child would prefer.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I want three wives (now don't ask me why).

If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.

HAHA you have obviously never been married before if you are asking for 3 wives.

But the question still stands - where do you draw a line??

We need standards and slippery slopes are more common than not... Isn't the whole point of progressive ideology a slippery slope??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I am tired of the " in your face" activities of gays in General.

Except for Marde Gra care to name a place that has a sexual parade with naked men and women fornicating and sexually grab assing?

I do NOT want to see sexual kissing be it a man and a woman or 2 people of the same sex. I do not want to see sexual grab ass by anyone either. It is unacceptable behavior in public spaces. As is nudity and sex in parks.

Yeah......

.....everyone understands.

​

 

[Seawytch]

LOL...that's quite a stretch. Blacks were prohibited from marrying whites. They never had that right so it wasn't "taken away" post slavery, it was prohibited from the "get go". Those darn activist SCOTUS judges went against the will of the people to over turn anti-miscegenation laws.

We don't vote on civil rights, period.

Civil rights are won in the court of law (when you look at history). The fact that Mississippi would vote to overturn anti miscegenation laws RIGHT NOW if it went to the ballot box is just one of the reasons.

Well, if MS actually tried that, they'd find a lot of companies would move out, a lot of tourist dollars would be lost, etc. So even if you found a poll that said that, it probably wouldn't be true.

It wasn't a stretch at all. The 14th Amendment made it legal for blacks to marry whites, because it made them citizens. Passing laws against interracial marriage was a violation of the 14th Amendment- therefore unconstitutional.

There is really nothing in the constitution about letting people of the same gender marry. A gay can get married to any person of the opposite sex who will have them, therefore, they have the SAME rights as straight people.

Now, if you want to change the law, change the law at the ballot box or in the legislature. That's what they are there for.

But if you are going to trust your fortunes to judges, you are opening a very serious can of nasty worms. That isn't democracy.

Somehow, I don't think you were one of the people who were cheering when the courts decided Gore vs. Bush in Bush's favor.

Judges are there to interpret the Constitution. Laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage violate the same 14th Amendment that was used to decide Loving v Virginia. There is no difference in the two issues in regards to judicial oversight.

Civil rights aren't voted on and there is a reason for that...

A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.​

46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

Gay marriage will be won in the courts, just like interracial marriage was. It's the way it is supposed to work when states pass laws that go against the Constitution.

 

[Mr.Nick]

LOL...that's quite a stretch. Blacks were prohibited from marrying whites. They never had that right so it wasn't "taken away" post slavery, it was prohibited from the "get go". Those darn activist SCOTUS judges went against the will of the people to over turn anti-miscegenation laws.

We don't vote on civil rights, period.

Civil rights are won in the court of law (when you look at history). The fact that Mississippi would vote to overturn anti miscegenation laws RIGHT NOW if it went to the ballot box is just one of the reasons.

Well, if MS actually tried that, they'd find a lot of companies would move out, a lot of tourist dollars would be lost, etc. So even if you found a poll that said that, it probably wouldn't be true.

It wasn't a stretch at all. The 14th Amendment made it legal for blacks to marry whites, because it made them citizens. Passing laws against interracial marriage was a violation of the 14th Amendment- therefore unconstitutional.

There is really nothing in the constitution about letting people of the same gender marry. A gay can get married to any person of the opposite sex who will have them, therefore, they have the SAME rights as straight people.

Now, if you want to change the law, change the law at the ballot box or in the legislature. That's what they are there for.

But if you are going to trust your fortunes to judges, you are opening a very serious can of nasty worms. That isn't democracy.

Somehow, I don't think you were one of the people who were cheering when the courts decided Gore vs. Bush in Bush's favor.

Judges are there to interpret the Constitution. Laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage violate the same 14th Amendment that was used to decide Loving v Virginia. There is no difference in the two issues in regards to judicial oversight.

Civil rights aren't voted on and there is a reason for that...

A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.​

46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

Gay marriage will be won in the courts, just like interracial marriage was. It's the way it is supposed to work when states pass laws that go against the Constitution.

Who the **** are the 9 fools to decide whats best for a state of 13 million??

This isn't even a federal issue to begin with................

 

[Seawytch]

I want three wives (now don't ask me why).

If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.

HAHA you have obviously never been married before if you are asking for 3 wives.

But the question still stands - where do you draw a line??

We need standards and slippery slopes are more common than not... Isn't the whole point of progressive ideology a slippery slope??

There is a reason it is called a slippery slope fallacy. If you happen to jaywalk, should we assume that you will also commit murder?

You draw the line where there is an overriding harm. I see no overriding harm in allowing a man to marry more than one woman (as long as they are all consenting adults), do you? We place no limit on the number of children a person can have, why should we place limits on the number of spouses? If you can support more than one wife, more power to you.

 

[Seawytch]

Well, if MS actually tried that, they'd find a lot of companies would move out, a lot of tourist dollars would be lost, etc. So even if you found a poll that said that, it probably wouldn't be true.

It wasn't a stretch at all. The 14th Amendment made it legal for blacks to marry whites, because it made them citizens. Passing laws against interracial marriage was a violation of the 14th Amendment- therefore unconstitutional.

There is really nothing in the constitution about letting people of the same gender marry. A gay can get married to any person of the opposite sex who will have them, therefore, they have the SAME rights as straight people.

Now, if you want to change the law, change the law at the ballot box or in the legislature. That's what they are there for.

But if you are going to trust your fortunes to judges, you are opening a very serious can of nasty worms. That isn't democracy.

Somehow, I don't think you were one of the people who were cheering when the courts decided Gore vs. Bush in Bush's favor.

Judges are there to interpret the Constitution. Laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage violate the same 14th Amendment that was used to decide Loving v Virginia. There is no difference in the two issues in regards to judicial oversight.

Civil rights aren't voted on and there is a reason for that...

A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.​

46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

Gay marriage will be won in the courts, just like interracial marriage was. It's the way it is supposed to work when states pass laws that go against the Constitution.

Who the **** are the 9 fools to decide whats best for a state of 13 million??

This isn't even a federal issue to begin with................

Why isn't it a Federal issue? Do you believe that the SCOTUS should not have ruled on Loving v Virginia and that it was "judicial activism" that they did? The Supreme Court has ruled on no less than three occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right. If the fundamental rights of gays and lesbians are being denied in a number of states, how is that not a "federal issue"? How is it not a "federal issue" that your marriage license entitles you to federal tax breaks and other benefits, but mine does not?

 

[DaGoose]

Judges are there to interpret the Constitution. Laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage violate the same 14th Amendment that was used to decide Loving v Virginia. There is no difference in the two issues in regards to judicial oversight.

Civil rights aren't voted on and there is a reason for that...

A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.​

46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

Gay marriage will be won in the courts, just like interracial marriage was. It's the way it is supposed to work when states pass laws that go against the Constitution.

Who the **** are the 9 fools to decide whats best for a state of 13 million??

This isn't even a federal issue to begin with................

Why isn't it a Federal issue? Do you believe that the SCOTUS should not have ruled on Loving v Virginia and that it was "judicial activism" that they did? The Supreme Court has ruled on no less than three occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right. If the fundamental rights of gays and lesbians are being denied in a number of states, how is that not a "federal issue"? How is it not a "federal issue" that your marriage license entitles you to federal tax breaks and other benefits, but mine does not?

How in the hell do things like this BECOME Federal issues? It's gotta start someplace.

Someone files a lawsuit in their hometown and claims it a Constitutional issue. It will then climb its way through the Appeals process until the Supreme Court decides whether or not to take it on.

 

[Mr.Nick]

HAHA you have obviously never been married before if you are asking for 3 wives.

But the question still stands - where do you draw a line??

We need standards and slippery slopes are more common than not... Isn't the whole point of progressive ideology a slippery slope??

There is a reason it is called a slippery slope fallacy. If you happen to jaywalk, should we assume that you will also commit murder?

You draw the line where there is an overriding harm. I see no overriding harm in allowing a man to marry more than one woman (as long as they are all consenting adults), do you? We place no limit on the number of children a person can have, why should we place limits on the number of spouses? If you can support more than one wife, more power to you.

It's not a fallacy...

Using that logic the word precedence wouldn't exist...

 

[High_Gravity]

I want three wives (now don't ask me why).

If two guys can marry...then legalize my right to marry three women at the same time.

HAHA you have obviously never been married before if you are asking for 3 wives.

But the question still stands - where do you draw a line??

We need standards and slippery slopes are more common than not... Isn't the whole point of progressive ideology a slippery slope??

If someone wants to marry more than 1 woman I'm fine with it I guess, besides you can already have more than 1 wife anyways, if you only register one with the courts you can have as many women living as your wives in your house and nobody can stop you legally. I'm just saying having 1 wife is enough work as it is, I couldn't imagine having more than 1.

 

[Seawytch]

But the question still stands - where do you draw a line??

We need standards and slippery slopes are more common than not... Isn't the whole point of progressive ideology a slippery slope??

There is a reason it is called a slippery slope fallacy. If you happen to jaywalk, should we assume that you will also commit murder?

You draw the line where there is an overriding harm. I see no overriding harm in allowing a man to marry more than one woman (as long as they are all consenting adults), do you? We place no limit on the number of children a person can have, why should we place limits on the number of spouses? If you can support more than one wife, more power to you.

It's not a fallacy...

Using that logic the word precedence wouldn't exist...

Using your logic, if you speed we should arrest you for murder, right?

Guess what...when gay marriage is legal across the country in a few years, nobody is going to be able to marry their toaster (or sheep or a dead person or a child, etc.)

 

[Mr.Nick]

Judges are there to interpret the Constitution. Laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from legal, civil marriage violate the same 14th Amendment that was used to decide Loving v Virginia. There is no difference in the two issues in regards to judicial oversight.

Civil rights aren't voted on and there is a reason for that...

A whopping 46 percent of likely GOP primary voters said they think interracial marriage should be illegal, while only 40 percent said they think it should be allowed. Another 14 percent said they were unsure.​

46 Percent of Mississippi Republicans Want Interracial Marriage Banned

Gay marriage will be won in the courts, just like interracial marriage was. It's the way it is supposed to work when states pass laws that go against the Constitution.

Who the **** are the 9 fools to decide whats best for a state of 13 million??

This isn't even a federal issue to begin with................

Why isn't it a Federal issue? Do you believe that the SCOTUS should not have ruled on Loving v Virginia and that it was "judicial activism" that they did? The Supreme Court has ruled on no less than three occasions, that marriage is a fundamental right. If the fundamental rights of gays and lesbians are being denied in a number of states, how is that not a "federal issue"? How is it not a "federal issue" that your marriage license entitles you to federal tax breaks and other benefits, but mine does not?

Oh so 9 fools should decide whats best for the other 299,999,991 million people??

Honestly, I have nothing against the idea of a supreme court but "activists" are a problem and progressives are way more biased than conservative judges..

Then of course we have these idiots using and believing in language like "wall of separation."

These ******* apes went to ivy league schools and find it difficult to interpret the bill of rights???

Oh not to mention the simple fact congress writes all these laws, and they should know where the ******* line is...

 

[Mr.Nick]

There is a reason it is called a slippery slope fallacy. If you happen to jaywalk, should we assume that you will also commit murder?

You draw the line where there is an overriding harm. I see no overriding harm in allowing a man to marry more than one woman (as long as they are all consenting adults), do you? We place no limit on the number of children a person can have, why should we place limits on the number of spouses? If you can support more than one wife, more power to you.

It's not a fallacy...

Using that logic the word precedence wouldn't exist...

Using your logic, if you speed we should arrest you for murder, right?

Guess what...when gay marriage is legal across the country in a few years, nobody is going to be able to marry their toaster (or sheep or a dead person or a child, etc.)

Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...

 

[Seawytch]

It's not a fallacy...

Using that logic the word precedence wouldn't exist...

Using your logic, if you speed we should arrest you for murder, right?

Guess what...when gay marriage is legal across the country in a few years, nobody is going to be able to marry their toaster (or sheep or a dead person or a child, etc.)

Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of the United States on no less than THREE occasions:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

That's precedence, my friend.

 

[hortysir]

I am just curious as to where you guys stand when it comes to this argument...

I am so glad you asked this question!


Because you could have never done a Search of "gay marriage" and found dozens of threads with a hundred different members' stance on the issue.

But, anyway.....


Lazy-Ass

 

[Mr.Nick]

HAHA you have obviously never been married before if you are asking for 3 wives.

But the question still stands - where do you draw a line??

We need standards and slippery slopes are more common than not... Isn't the whole point of progressive ideology a slippery slope??

If someone wants to marry more than 1 woman I'm fine with it I guess, besides you can already have more than 1 wife anyways, if you only register one with the courts you can have as many women living as your wives in your house and nobody can stop you legally. I'm just saying having 1 wife is enough work as it is, I couldn't imagine having more than 1.

I totally understand and understood your point, however there are all sorts of weirdo's out there that want to marry pets or inanimate objects and if you let gays marry then they would be discriminated against.

Proposition 8 showed us, even in progressive states even gay civil unions are not accepted by the majority therefore if only .0001% of the population is crazy enough to marry their pet and they were denied from doing such then that would have to be discrimination too, even if you or I find marrying a pet illogical...

I just believe we need to draw the line somewhere......

Besides marriage is a religious theme and civil unions are nothing more than contract..

 

[High_Gravity]

But the question still stands - where do you draw a line??

We need standards and slippery slopes are more common than not... Isn't the whole point of progressive ideology a slippery slope??

If someone wants to marry more than 1 woman I'm fine with it I guess, besides you can already have more than 1 wife anyways, if you only register one with the courts you can have as many women living as your wives in your house and nobody can stop you legally. I'm just saying having 1 wife is enough work as it is, I couldn't imagine having more than 1.

I totally understand and understood your point, however there are all sorts of weirdo's out there that want to marry pets or inanimate objects and if you let gays marry then they would be discriminated against.

Proposition 8 showed us, even in progressive states even gay civil unions are not accepted by the majority therefore if only .0001% of the population is crazy enough to marry their pet and they were denied from doing such then that would have to be discrimination too, even if you or I find marrying a pet illogical...

I just believe we need to draw the line somewhere......

Besides marriage is a religious theme and civil unions are nothing more than contract..

Theres a difference between 2 women getting married and someone who wants to marry a horse or a chair, the 2 women can give their consent as adults, the horse or chair cannot give consent or sign any legal documents.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Using your logic, if you speed we should arrest you for murder, right?

Guess what...when gay marriage is legal across the country in a few years, nobody is going to be able to marry their toaster (or sheep or a dead person or a child, etc.)

Marriage isn't even a RIGHT..

Using your logic it would be discrimination if a state didn't grant a blind man a drivers license...

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of the United States on no less than THREE occasions:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987)

That's precedence, my friend.

Marriage is not a right it's a choice...

Not to mention "marriage" is - at least to me - 99.99% based on religion, however our government treats "it" like a contract.

Honestly, civicly I have absolutely no problem with civil unions.... However gays aren't the humblest bunch....

I've unfortunately ran into the Chicago gay pride parade one time and there were dudes grabbing other dudes dongs, people so drunk puking everywhere and overall disrespect for society and gays find that pride??

Quite frankly I find gays to be disrespectful belligerent assholes ....