As long as they are not forcing others to believe the same way then I could care less. My only worry is when churches are forced to do marriages by law.
Kind of hard to call it freadom of religion if you force them to do something they dont want to. Now before everyone starts I am sure there are plenty of churches that will perform the same sex marriages.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Political stunt is what it is, comming from this clown. He is panhadling for votes. Last pole I saw on this said the opinion was split %50-%50. So he must think he has nothing to loose by swooping up the gay union votes. Nevermind the fact that not to long ago he suported traditional marriage,.......maybe somebody should have asked him what that meant

My thoughts exactly the minute he said it. Coincidence he says this right after kicking off his re election campaign...I think not ? He knows he need every voter segment he can grab. The day he started, he went right to the college kids promising them the moon. They cant even get summer jobs for the most part. Now his going after the gays where there is a LOT of money and influence. Wonder what flavor he goes for next week. Lets get the scoring in line....illegals, check.....college, check....gays, check.............

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I have no doubt that this was motivated by political expediency. BUT here are just some of the groups that have experienced discrimination in the US: Native Americans Women Catholics Mormons Italians Jews Poles Blacks Latinos Irish Asians I'm certain I've missed others. When exactly does that "all men are created equal" thing kick in?

it has as long as your not a white male, you're really screwed if your irish..
my last phone interview for a 2nd part time job, untill wife finds work.. they where all set to hire me untill they found out I'm a white male.. the manager said H/R said they can't hire any more white males untill they hire 3 women and a few minorities.. WTF.. it's not about "best for the job" it's fill a man date..

quote Originally posted by ls3mach: I'm not sure how someone else being married affects you or anyone.

Differences in the American family I would say affect nearly everything in the country down the line in many ways, some easily seen, some not.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 05-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: My thoughts exactly the minute he said it. Coincidence he says this right after kicking off his re election campaign...I think not ? He knows he need every voter segment he can grab. The day he started, he went right to the college kids promising them the moon. They cant even get summer jobs for the most part. Now his going after the gays where there is a LOT of money and influence. Wonder what flavor he goes for next week. Lets get the scoring in line....illegals, check.....college, check....gays, check.............

he needed to say this to get hollywood to start cutting checks... as there are a ton of gays in the entertainment world, and those that are not gay, side with them , or they may never find work again.. this was nothing more than a stunt to get hollywood to open their checkbooks..

quote Originally posted by tbone42: .. let the zealots and fundamentalists have "marriage", at that point it is just a word.

That may be the point.
A word that means nothing, commitment that means nothing.

Just separate the religious aspect of marriage from the legal aspect.
Marriage should be a religious right, like christening or baptism and has no legal meaning outside the church.
Define a legal domestic union for benefits and rights under the law. You get the independent of the other - get your marriage and legal union, or just get married and not have any legal benefits. Or get only a legal union and not have a union recognized by any church.

I cannot believe that the Supreme Court allows some Americans to vote to deny rights to other Americans.
The same rights that they themselves enjoy.
If they had allowed this kind of thing 50 years ago, we would still have seperate white and colored schools.
Seperate white and colored drinking fountains.
You get the idea.
The governmet has no business in this anyway.
A government marriage contract should be a contract between two adults.
A church marriage should be whatever the members of that church decide they like.
Remember, kids:
Before there was a US constitution, and before there was a bill of rights, there was a very important founding document-The very reason we are not English subjects today.
The Declaration of Independence.
The first sentence of the second paragraph says:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...."
I guess in some states, they've penciled in "Unless we don't like you."

Don't they teach American history in Redneckistan?

------------------

Drive safely!

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: I cannot believe that the Supreme Court allows some Americans to vote to deny rights to other Americans.

That's what happens in a Democracy.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: I cannot believe that the Supreme Court allows some Americans to vote to deny rights to other Americans. The same rights that they themselves enjoy. If they had allowed this kind of thing 50 years ago, we would still have seperate white and colored schools. Seperate white and colored drinking fountains. You get the idea. The governmet has no business in this anyway. A government marriage contract should be a contract between two adults. A church marriage should be whatever the members of that church decide they like. Remember, kids: Before there was a US constitution, and before there was a bill of rights, there was a very important founding document-The very reason we are not English subjects today. The Declaration of Independence. The first sentence of the second paragraph says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...." I guess in some states, they've penciled in "Unless we don't like you." Don't they teach American history in Redneckistan?

All men?
Endowed by their creator?
I suppose we can interpret that as we will.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That's what happens in a Democracy.

The USA isn't a democracy.
Never has been.
Its a REPUBLIC.
That was designed to cut down on the 'mob rule' that a true democracy is.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: The USA isn't a democracy. Never has been. Its a REPUBLIC. That was designed to cut down on the 'mob rule' that a true democracy is.

That's correct. The problem is we've been governing more like a Democracy and less like a Republic.
Look at states like CA that can modify their state constitution solely by popular vote. They entire basis for their body of laws is determined strictly by democratic vote - mob rule at the ballot box. The only way a Republic survives is if the majority protects the rights of the minority.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Don't they teach American history in Redneckistan?

how about the FACT that the people that settled the 13 colonies left their homes for RELIGOUS FREEDOM..
the govenment SOULD NOT be banning gay marriage not passing laws ok'n it..
it's not THEIR right.. seperation of church and state..
why this is a BIG fight.. is the same people that want crosses, or anything that might be a sign of a religion removed from government buildings and schools..
want that same government to DICKTATE what the meaning of marriage is.. it's not their place to even comment on it.. Obama is again thrashing the founding fathers and the base of why this country was formed. with commenting on it as the leader of the free world.. a comment that is 180* for the one he made in 2008..
no matter.. the government should not be getting involved at all.. just give civil unions the same rights under the law as the spouse has in a marriage.. end of story..
the government doesn't want to do that. or they would already have.. they want to make it religions fault that they have no rights to worldly things when one dies, or they end the union..

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: [quote]"..... want that same government to DICKTATE what the meaning of marriage is.. it's not their place to even comment on it.. .

Calm down.

So we agree that the government should stay out of this, then.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Calm down. So we agree that the government should stay out of this, then.

That didn't sound like your stance, maybe more clarification on your stance would be handy.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Calm down. So we agree that the government should stay out of this, then.

yes agreed, oh and I'm carm.. lol

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: I have no doubt that this was motivated by political expediency. BUT here are just some of the groups that have experienced discrimination in the US: Native Americans Women Catholics Mormons Italians Jews Poles Blacks Latinos Irish Asians I'm certain I've missed others. When exactly does that "all men are created equal" thing kick in?

There is no difference between a man of race X and a man of race Y. There is a difference between men and women.

"All men are created equal" does not mean any group can manufacture new rights out of thin air and redefine a fundamental building block of society.

I would like to know what the specific criteria is that the same sex marriage advocates use to justify their stance. What is your definition of a "marriage". Also, what would qualify or disqualify a relationship from being called a "marriage".

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Is it legal up there?

Sorry I must have missed this. Yes it's legal and was legalized with little contraversy, in my Province anyways. Has been since 2004.

quote Originally posted by newf: Sorry I must have missed this. Yes it's legal and was legalized with little contraversy, in my Province anyways. Has been since 2004.

"On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.

On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a motion to examine the matter again." -wikipedia

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: he needed to say this to get hollywood to start cutting checks... as there are a ton of gays in the entertainment world, and those that are not gay, side with them , or they may never find work again.. this was nothing more than a stunt to get hollywood to open their checkbooks..

It didnt take long either. I just heard last nite on the news that George Clooney is now hosting a dinner party to raise money for him. They expect to get at least 15 million dollars. I didnt hear how much a plate theyre charging.

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: There he just kissed a 2nd term good bye so now you all can shut the hell up about him... I mean seriousley...

You are assuming there will be a fair election.

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: There he just kissed a 2nd term good bye so now you all can shut the hell up about him... I mean seriousley...

heh.. I think you got a lot to learn friend. This did not clinch it for Romney at all, polls are pretty telling and even if it did energize the evangelicals, they were probably gonna vote for Romney or not at all. So its not as powerful a detractor as you would think.

The other thing you got to learn is no matter what kind of "guaranteed outcome" there is because of this action, nobody here is gonna "shut the hell up about him..." for years to come, whether he gets reelected or not.

quote Originally posted by E.Furgal: it's not THEIR right.. seperation of church and state..

I agree the government shouldn't sanction or ban types of marriage, but that said, where does the term "separation of church and state" come from?
A lot of people use it to explain why certain religious things (prayer, 10 Commandments, etc.) should not be in government buildings or meetings, etc. Would it surprise you to find that term is mentioned nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution?

quote Originally posted by 2.5: "On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world and the first country in the Americas to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition. Court decisions, starting in 2003, each already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada's population. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999. On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a motion to examine the matter again." -wikipedia

Thanks for confirming my statement.

quote Originally posted by newf: Thanks for confirming my statement.

Just posting some details. I'm sure it will eventually happen similarly in the U.S.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Just posting some details. I'm sure it will eventually happen similarly in the U.S.

No problem whatsoever.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I agree the government shouldn't sanction or ban types of marriage, but that said, where does the term "separation of church and state" come from? A lot of people use it to explain why certain religious things (prayer, 10 Commandments, etc.) should not be in government buildings or meetings, etc. Would it surprise you to find that term is mentioned nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution?

http://www.freerepublic.com...us/news/987191/posts

"On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."
"His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government. The government would interfere with a religious activity was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere)."

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 05-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: It didnt take long either. I just heard last nite on the news that George Clooney is now hosting a dinner party to raise money for him. They expect to get at least 15 million dollars. I didnt hear how much a plate theyre charging.

just pennies........$40K

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: Calm down. So we agree that the government should stay out of this, then.

Careful Neptune, your thoughts are bringing you over to the Dark Side otherwise known as the GOP. lol

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: When exactly does that "all men are created equal" thing kick in?

What do you mean? Being "created equal" does not mean equal potential, or equal talent, or equal opportunity. The reality is that being created equal is NO guarantee of equal results because of that simple intangible called willpower. Some will take what they have and run with it and others will sit on their asses. Those who make the most of their gifts deserve more. Period. That is fair. That is life.

As for how this relates to gay marriage I am even MORE confused. Ever see a girl in the Boy Scouts? No? Gee must be sexism

The institution of marriage is the cornerstone of civilization. The family unit is based on procreation. If a couple of guys can't procreate...which, no matter how hard they try, they can't....then their "union" is not marriage, by definition.

NO ONE here is saying these two guys can't do what ever they want to do. Ya see? THAT is equal "RIGHTS"

What we are saying is you can't force ME or anyone else with an edict to call their relationship a "marriage". It isn't. Its different. And if it is different, then it is not an issue of equality.

BTW, I didn't have a best man at my wedding. I had a best person...a dear friend who is lesbian. Sorry to head you off at the "You obviously just hate gays" pass.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: What do you mean? Being "created equal" does not mean equal potential, or equal talent, or equal opportunity. The reality is that being created equal is NO guarantee of equal results because of that simple intangible called willpower. Some will take what they have and run with it and others will sit on their asses. Those who make the most of their gifts deserve more. Period. That is fair. That is life. As for how this relates to gay marriage I am even MORE confused. Ever see a girl in the Boy Scouts? No? Gee must be sexism The institution of marriage is the cornerstone of civilization. The family unit is based on procreation. If a couple of guys can't procreate...which, no matter how hard they try, they can't....then their "union" is not marriage, by definition. NO ONE here is saying these two guys can't do what ever they want to do. Ya see? THAT is equal "RIGHTS" What we are saying is you can't force ME or anyone else with an edict to call their relationship a "marriage". It isn't. Its different. And if it is different, then it is not an issue of equality. BTW, I didn't have a best man at my wedding. I had a best person...a dear friend who is lesbian. Sorry to head you off at the "You obviously just hate gays" pass.

x2

quote Originally posted by Jake_Dragon: As long as they are not forcing others to believe the same way then I could care less. My only worry is when churches are forced to do marriages by law. Kind of hard to call it freadom of religion if you force them to do something they dont want to. Now before everyone starts I am sure there are plenty of churches that will perform the same sex marriages.

Vegas and court house would be the only ones i think..

quote Originally posted by Toddster: What do you mean? Being "created equal" does not mean equal potential, or equal talent, or equal opportunity. The reality is that being created equal is NO guarantee of equal results because of that simple intangible called willpower. Some will take what they have and run with it and others will sit on their asses. Those who make the most of their gifts deserve more. Period. That is fair. That is life. As for how this relates to gay marriage I am even MORE confused. Ever see a girl in the Boy Scouts? No? Gee must be sexism The institution of marriage is the cornerstone of civilization. The family unit is based on procreation. If a couple of guys can't procreate...which, no matter how hard they try, they can't....then their "union" is not marriage, by definition. NO ONE here is saying these two guys can't do what ever they want to do. Ya see? THAT is equal "RIGHTS" What we are saying is you can't force ME or anyone else with an edict to call their relationship a "marriage". It isn't. Its different. And if it is different, then it is not an issue of equality. BTW, I didn't have a best man at my wedding. I had a best person...a dear friend who is lesbian. Sorry to head you off at the "You obviously just hate gays" pass.

No one here may be saying it but I'm not aware of anyone here in the position to propose legislation on the state or federal level to prohibit it either. BTW, there was a period in our nation's history wherein the "created equal" clause most certainly did not apply on any tangible level. Please "google" the Three-Fifths Compromise when you get a minute.

The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1865), the three-fifths clause was rendered moot. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It specifically states that "Representatives shall be apportioned ...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed..."

I'm not quite sure how your screed in the 1st paragraph relates to the issue at hand but I'm certain you can or will clear that up for me posthaste.

As far as me saying "You obviously just hate gays" in my response to your post, such would be less than I would employ in a debate. That's far too pedestrian a retort and I can certainly do better than that.

I look forward to your next post with great anticipation.

[This message has been edited by Doni Hagan (edited 05-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Please "google" the Three-Fifths Compromise when you get a minute. The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. Following the Civil War and the abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1865), the three-fifths clause was rendered moot. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868) later superseded Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. It specifically states that "Representatives shall be apportioned ...counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed..."

Are you saying gays are like slaves?

quote Originally posted by pontiackid86: Vegas and court house would be the only ones i think..

There are plenty of Churches that will perform the ceremonies. There are chapels that do only marriages and are businesses. But if a Church and its congregation decide that they do not want to perform these ceremonies then they should be able to do that.

The platform that keeps being brought up is the rights and benefits they will get under a marriage. If that is the only reason then they shouldn't have any issues going to one of these institutions. If on the other hand they want to force their belief on a group of people just to prove a point then why are they right and the group wrong.

Boobs

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Are you saying gays are like slaves?

Why do people always ask "Are you saying?" It's usually a means by which one can attempt to comprehend or articulate a statement in a manner that will allow them to either object or expand upon their own given premise. I encourage you to read the statement in the context of the discussion if you wish to grasp my meaning.

NO, what I'm doing is pointing out to Todd (since that's who I was addressing) that the concept of "all men are created equal" was not universally applied on an historical level and offered him one such example to expand on that.....Also, that his comments regarding "willpower" and the like are irrelevant to the conversation at hand.

THAT'S what "I'm saying."

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Why do people always ask "Are you saying?" It's usually a means by which one can attempt to comprehend or articulate a statement in a manner that will allow them to either object or expand upon their own given premise. I encourage you to read the statement in the context of the discussion if you wish to grasp my meaning. NO, what I'm doing is pointing out to Todd (since that's who I was addressing) that the concept of "all men are created equal" was not universally applied on an historical level and offered him one such example to expand on that.....Also, that his comments regarding "willpower" and the like are irrelevant to the conversation at hand. THAT'S what "I'm saying."

Why?
Usually because what you are saying does not seem to be relevant, or is not undetsood, same reason you don't understand what Todd wrote I guess. I've been following this thread in its entirety and it seems maybe context is what we all have differing.
The only way I can see you applying your point which is still not clear, it that gays are like slaves.

edit to add*
Maybe its me taking into account your previous posts in this thread which seem to point that this is a good and natural progression, like certain minonrities getting rights in the past.
Thats not a context i see this argument in.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 05-10-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Doni Hagan: Why do people always ask "Are you saying?" It's usually a means by which one can attempt to comprehend or articulate a statement in a manner that will allow them to either object or expand upon their own given premise. I encourage you to read the statement in the context of the discussion if you wish to grasp my meaning. NO, what I'm doing is pointing out to Todd (since that's who I was addressing) that the concept of "all men are created equal" was not universally applied on an historical level and offered him one such example to expand on that.....Also, that his comments regarding "willpower" and the like are irrelevant to the conversation at hand. THAT'S what "I'm saying."

All men are created equal in the eyes of our maker
Us mortals not so much.
God didn't make man equal, but he gave us the mind and spirit to know the difference. Some of us just don't listen. (Us in a general human sense of the phrase)