TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT

[Bunnykid68]

That piece of paper you get from the state does not make you married, it is just a piece of paper from the state giving each of you certain rights pertaining to the other. I can go to the Church down the road and get married in front of God and family if I wish without the piece of paper, the state is just willing to sell me this legal contract at a very fair price.

Anyone should be able to get this same piece of paper(contract) from the state if they so choose. Me and my brother, me and my sister, me and my mom, anyone.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So the thread devolves into arguing 1/10th of the OP. Okay.

What was the OP about

 

[Expat]

Let me understand this. If black Americans did not gain "societal acceptance", then all their families would still be intact?

More of their families would be intact if the Democrats hadn't unleashed the War on Poverty on them.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

More of their families would be intact if the Democrats hadn't unleashed the War on Poverty on them.

I guess that's something to think about. I'm not that knowledgeable in those kinds of sociological things.

I also would then wonder if the same could be said for the effects of the War on Drugs on those same families?

 

[strokin7.3]

A point of disagreement here. Our government can indeed govern morality, indefinitely. What it can't do is indefinitely prohibit an activity that most people want to do. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, not because it was a moral issue, but that even though most people said it was immoral, too many people drank it anyway.

According to the University of California, ~3.5% are LGBT. So most people aren't gay. The only reason why there's a hubub at all about 3.5% of the population is because pup culture supports it. Kinda like driving a Prius. Because of its political correctness, many people support it publicly because they don't want to be seen not supporting it.

I'm not making a judgement of gayness itself, just saying that it is mass popularity that makes the biggest impact if a law can withstand time or not. If somehow pop culture decided gayness was anathema, same with the Prius, people generally wouldn't care.



Well not in the last decade anyway. I remember a time in the 90s when a lot of American wells were shut down because they cost more to operate than what they produced. But in the last 6 years especially, oil & gas EFTs have treated me pretty well. Exxon didn't make record "obscene" profits because more people were buying gas, but because speculation drove the price really, really, really high.



It's not a matter of validity or not. What makes a marriage valid is that stupid piece of paper the state thinks it needs to issue for marriages. No, this issue is about morality, not validity. A number of people, probably more than half, still believe "gay marriage" is immoral. The pop culture machine is turning to the left though and fewer people are seeing it as immoral.

So why not quit *****ing about such a minute percentage of people and just let them have their rights/liberties/freedoms? You wouldn't have nearly as many gays/lesbians out there making a scene if so many people weren't trying to deny them these things just because they aren't the "norm". It's 3.5% of the population, how on earth can 3.5% of the population being allowed to have a marriage license going to affect your life in any way? And who's morals are we going against here when we allow gay marriage? Sure the hell not mine. Actually I'd say denying somebody a right to get married is immoral, but what do I know? I don't have a book to tell me what wrong and right is.

 

[findingZzero]

I am disappointed that hairy breasts didn't hijack this thread. Their'y're smokin'.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So why not quit *****ing about such a minute percentage of people and just let them have their rights/liberties/freedoms? You wouldn't have nearly as many gays/lesbians out there making a scene if so many people weren't trying to deny them these things just because they aren't the "norm". It's 3.5% of the population, how on earth can 3.5% of the population being allowed to have a marriage license going to affect your life in any way? And who's morals are we going against here when we allow gay marriage? Sure the hell not mine. Actually I'd say denying somebody a right to get married is immoral, but what do I know? I don't have a book to tell me what wrong and right is.

If they get to have this cheap contract then me and my cousin should be able to do the same thing just as cheap if we were so inclined.

 

[strokin7.3]

If they get to have this cheap contract then me and my cousin should be able to do the same thing just as cheap if we were so inclined.

Have at it, once again wouldn't affect me in the least bit.

 

[hornadylnl]

If they get to have this cheap contract then me and my cousin should be able to do the same thing just as cheap if we were so inclined.

We conservatives complain about "social engineering" when it involves letting gays openly serve in the military. Yet we'll defend "social engineering" when it comes to the tax code and what are considered moral families. Do away with the tax incentives.

 

[Bunnykid68]

We conservatives complain about "social engineering" when it involves letting gays openly serve in the military. Yet we'll defend "social engineering" when it comes to the tax code and what are considered moral families. Do away with the tax incentives.

Agreed

 

[lucky4034]

Find me a place in the last thousand years where a union between two men or two women was considered "Marriage." Show me a vital society where the union of two men or two women did anything to advance that society. Please point out the remarkable progress we'll make as a society if we re-define "marriage" from what it has been throughout history, to include homosexuality, or bestiality, or pederasty. Please point out how the war on marriage and the two-parent family has strengthened our nation both morally and fiscally.

Marriage is a word.... nothing more... nothing less. From now on I call myself King Lucky... please show me where you must now recognize my title? If two men CALL THEMSELVES married... why do YOU have to recognize it?

If a man and a woman call themselves MARRIED... please tell me why I or anyone else needs to recognize that self appointed title? Tell me why our government should recognize ANY self appointed titles?

I don't give a **** what people historically have done.... Your bibles rules shouldn't govern me. Nor should its definitions of titles. You can't give me ONE REASON why .gov should recognize the term marriage. If you could...you would shut me up and give me a SINGLE REASON why it is necessary. Don't give me your bibles reasons... don't give me historical reasons. GIVE ME ONE REASON .gov has for entertaining the notion of marriage? One....

 

[tatic05]

The only real "change" is that there are more gay people coming out than any previous time. I would think the amount of gays in terms of a percentage of population hasn't varied much over time, but most of them feared for their lives of telling anybody. On a biological level, I truly believe that gay people were just born that way. To those that disagree I would ask "so you chose to be heterosexual? You were not born heterosexual?" My biggest question is why care so much about gays getting married? It is very unlikely that it'll impact your life in any way.

Famous celebrities are hardly right on any political issue, but I can give most of them credit here. Just because I agree with them on one issue doesn't make them my heroes.

If it were up to me, I would get government out of marriage and leave only one simple rule: "A marriage shall be between two consenting human persons of legal age." No one would force any religious institution to perform a marriage they don't want to administer. Who cares if they can't procreate? If procreation was the end all be all of marriage, then you're missing the point of marriage entirely. Procreation can happen whether or not there is a marriage so it cannot be exclusive to marriage, therefore procreation is irrelevant. It's a very common product of marriage, but not every heterosexual married couple will procreate by choice or health condition. Do you mean to deny marriage to those couples too?

In the end, technically speaking, a marriage is a very nice piece of paper with some government privileges. Why deny this for gay people? We can't give them civil unions, because separate is not equal. The 14th amendment also conflicts with anti-gay marriage laws. So why should we deny them that very nice piece of paper?

I dont believe marriage to be just a piece of paper...thats how the Gov. sees my marriage. Marriage is something of God not the government! Give them a civil union since marriages dont belong to the government and give them all the benefits married couples have. Gays want a title well talk to a church about that, I'm sure I could come up with a cool title too.

 

[IndyGal65]

I'm not sure that the population of gays folks is only 3.5%. Ive heard for years that it was around 10%. I found a recent article that IMO seems to be from a fairly legit source suggesting up to 20%.

What Percent of the Population is Gay? More Than You Think | Smart News | Smithsonian

In any event, I've read some fantastic posts in this thread that don't necessarily support gay marriage, but certainly rebuke why it shouldn't be allowed, and I won't regurgitate them here. I will say that I've been with my partner for almost 24 years. We would love to be able to get married in our home state and not have to travel cross country to do so. We have no desire to force a church to perform our wedding, or have a baker get their panties in a bunch by making us a cake. We would simply prefer gay friendly people for those things. And, just to be clear, we have no desire to marry a relative, our dog, or a fence post. Just each other. And when that day comes (hopefully in Indiana before we croak), I'm sure the world won't come crashing down on our straight married friends, who collectively, have had numerous divorces. Just my .

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I'm not sure that the population of gays folks is only 3.5%. Ive heard for years that it was around 10%. I found a recent article that IMO seems to be from a fairly legit source suggesting up to 20%.

What Percent of the Population is Gay? More Than You Think | Smart News | Smithsonian

In any event, I've read some fantastic posts in this thread that don't necessarily support gay marriage, but certainly rebuke why it shouldn't be allowed, and I won't regurgitate them here. I will say that I've been with my partner for almost 24 years. We would love to be able to get married in our home state and not have to travel cross country to do so. We have no desire to force a church to perform our wedding, or have a baker get their panties in a bunch by making us a cake. We would simply prefer gay friendly people for those things. And, just to be clear, we have no desire to marry a relative, our dog, or a fence post. Just each other. And when that day comes (hopefully in Indiana before we croak), I'm sure the world won't come crashing down on our straight married friends, who collectively, have had numerous divorces. Just my .

Good Luck

 

[IndyGal65]

Thanks Big. We could use a little.

 

[lucky4034]

I will say that I've been with my partner for almost 24 years.

Congratulations to you... 24 years is a long time to dedicate to someone else. It seems that you take the definition of "marriage" a lot more serious than most who oppose you from it.

I've been with my lady for 10 years (we are heterosexual).... we have yet to seek out any God or any .Gov stamp of approval to "validate" the commitment we've already made to one another and to be honest, it would just be unnecessary steps as their approval won't strengthen our level of commitment in any way. Afterall the vows we have made were made between US... and therefore can only be validated with time and trust. .Gov sures the hell isn't going to keep her happy

 

[lucky4034]

I dont believe marriage to be just a piece of paper...thats how the Gov. sees my marriage. Marriage is something of God not the government! Give them a civil union since marriages dont belong to the government and give them all the benefits married couples have. Gays want a title well talk to a church about that, I'm sure I could come up with a cool title too.

Where in the world does it say that Christianity owns a monopoly on the term Marriage?

The word marriage wasn't even invented until the 1200's... Stop making the ridiculous argument that religion somehow gets sole ownership of the title "married". Besides... what is this ridiculous obsession with the word anyway?

"You can't use the word married... you have to call it civil union".... GTFO... who cares what you call it?

 

[IndyGal65]

Thanks Lucky! 24 years is a long commitment! I always say that it "only seems like 5...underwater."

She just loves that!

Congrats to you and your lady, too! I totally get what you are saying about not needing the governments approval. We know exactly how we feel about each other and no piece of paper is needed for validation. It's more of a personal, spiritual (not religious) thing for us.

 

[copperhead-1911]

The only real "change" is that there are more gay people coming out than any previous time. I would think the amount of gays in terms of a percentage of population hasn't varied much over time, but most of them feared for their lives of telling anybody. On a biological level, I truly believe that gay people were just born that way. To those that disagree I would ask "so you chose to be heterosexual? You were not born heterosexual?" My biggest question is why care so much about gays getting married? It is very unlikely that it'll impact your life in any way.

Famous celebrities are hardly right on any political issue, but I can give most of them credit here. Just because I agree with them on one issue doesn't make them my heroes.

If it were up to me, I would get government out of marriage and leave only one simple rule: "A marriage shall be between two consenting human persons of legal age." No one would force any religious institution to perform a marriage they don't want to administer. Who cares if they can't procreate? If procreation was the end all be all of marriage, then you're missing the point of marriage entirely. Procreation can happen whether or not there is a marriage so it cannot be exclusive to marriage, therefore procreation is irrelevant. It's a very common product of marriage, but not every heterosexual married couple will procreate by choice or health condition. Do you mean to deny marriage to those couples too?

In the end, technically speaking, a marriage is a very nice piece of paper with some government privileges. Why deny this for gay people? We can't give them civil unions, because separate is not equal. The 14th amendment also conflicts with anti-gay marriage laws. So why should we deny them that very nice piece of paper?

But why stop at two? If Gay marriage is acceptable what about a man loving two women or a woman loving two men? THat is the problem that happens when you mess with age old definitions. WHo is anyone to say it should just be between two people if its ok to change the typical definition ( and the one myself and many will always keep) that a marriage is aunion of one man and one woman.?

 

[IndyGal65]

But why stop at two? If Gay marriage is acceptable what about a man loving two women or a woman loving two men? THat is the problem that happens when you mess with age old definitions. WHo is anyone to say it should just be between two people if its ok to change the typical definition ( and the one myself and many will always keep) that a marriage is aunion of one man and one woman.?

Sigh. Such a tired argument. Ever hear of Utah?