Jump to content

Same-sex marriage and politics. What say you?


Do you approve of same-sex marriage?  

189 members have voted

  1. 1. Have your say

    • Yay
      124
    • Nay
      56
    • Undecided
      9


310 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr. Bush exercised his authority yesterday and called for the US Senate to formally define marriage as the union of man and woman. He argued that amending the US Constitution will deny any State or "activist judges" from making their own decisions about this matter.

 

Read more >>

 

Yet again, Mr. Bush managed to get under a lot of people's skin. He's like an itch that wont go away. With all the things that's happening nationally and globally, He and Congress decides to tackle something irrelevant to the majority of Americans. Mr. Bush once again managed to embarrass his country and the Constitution by implying that he stands for discrimination.

 

When I was a student, there was such a thing as Separation of Church and State. I don't know if that still stands, but I don't think Mr. Bush has any respect to constituents and forefathers. If this "thing" passes, I guess we can all say the following:

 

* a {censored} can't marry a honky

* a spic can't marry a wop

* slanted eyes can't marry a turban head

* {censored} can't marry other {censored}

 

You get my point.

 

Political ploy or not, what say you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's each response for? Yay is for Same-Sex marriage, or against? (Yay might be that Politics should decide same sex marriage, nay might be that people should just do whatever they like as long as it doesnt harm someone else)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I ask is that I'm for the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. There should never be a same-sex marriage in this country. Ever. It should never be legal. That and civil unions.

 

I know for a fact that banning same sex marriages is the only thing that will keep me single.

 

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Bush exercised his authority yesterday and called for the US Senate to formally define marriage as the union of man and woman. He argued that amending the US Constitution will deny any State or "activist judges" from making their own decisions about this matter.

 

Read more >>

 

Yet again, Mr. Bush managed to get under a lot of people's skin. He's like an itch that wont go away. With all the things that's happening nationally and globally, He and Congress decides to tackle something relevant to the majority of Americans. Mr. Bush once again managed to embarrass his country and the Constitution by implying that he stands for discrimination.

 

When I was a student, there was such a thing as Separation of Church and State. I don't know if that still stands, but I don't think Mr. Bush has any respect to constituents and forefathers. If this "thing" passes, I guess we can all say the following:

 

* a {censored} can't marry a honky

* a spic can't marry a wet back

* slanted eyes can't marry a turban head

* {censored} can't marry other {censored}

 

You get my point.

 

Political ploy or not, what say you?

You didn't voted.

 

I don't really care, because is not my country but if it was in mine I say yes, of course it is not legal here yet.

 

There is an initiative to be aproved that isn't to legalize save sex marriage but the to have rights as inheritance of a relation of a partner or of a aunt or uncle which is more important than a paper that says "we are married".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no direct issues with same-sex marriages, meaning two people of any gender forming a legal union for life. I CAN understand the things that could possibly happen outside of that circle, yet under the same veil if allowed...like same-sex people getting married soley for business reasons like for immunizing immigrants from departure, reaping the tax and insurance benefits and so on.

 

So, in short, I'm fully behind same sex unions, even though I'm totally straight (and married btw), but it's plausible that Bush MAY have had alterior motives besides discriminating against homosexuals, just unlikely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same sex marriage is totally legal in my country since laste year. I think it's great if people of the same sex wants to live a life toghether and can do it.

 

If it doesn't harm other people and make them happy why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that people are confusing legal marriage and religious marriage. I think we should remove the word marriage from law. Call it something else. If some church wants to call that marriage, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in short, I'm fully behind same sex unions, even though I'm totally straight (and married btw), but it's plausible that Bush MAY have had alterior motives besides discriminating against homosexuals, just unlikely!

I agree and it's very transparent along with other feeble attempt to leave a legacy. It has been said many times that the republicans are in a rut and conservative republicans such as the Church turn out millions of voters. Remember that the Church did help Mr. Bush win the election against Mr. Gore. An example is Florida, with it's many conservative senior citizens. I personally don't think Mr. Bush's campaign will get passed. At least he can't say that he didn't try just to appease his voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree and it's very transparent along with other feeble attempt to leave a legacy. It has been said many times that the republicans are in a rut and conservative republicans such as the Church turn out millions of voters. Remember that the Church did help Mr. Bush win the election against Mr. Gore. An example is Florida, with it's many conservative senior citizens. I personally don't think Mr. Bush's campaign will get passed. At least he can't say that he didn't try just to appease his voters.

 

Please don't associate this with Republicans. A lot of democrats don't like {censored} marriages either. And the majority of us independants don't. I hate republicans because they are a false prophet of what god stands for. God doesn't stand for greed, and oil. Greed is the works of Satan.

 

It clearly states in the Holy Bible that if a man lay with another man like he lay with a woman it is an abomination in God's eyes. It's a good thing God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve or we would of all been in trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't associate this with Republicans. A lot of democrats don't like {censored} marriages either. And the majority of us independants don't. I hate republicans because they are a false prophet of what god stands for. God doesn't stand for greed, and oil. Greed is the works of Satan.

 

It clearly states in the Holy Bible that if a man lay with another man like he lay with a woman it is an abomination in God's eyes. It's a good thing God created Adam and Eve and not Adam and Steve or we would of all been in trouble.

In this type of debate, it's pretty hard not to include left, right, up, and down. Most of us do agree that it is ones right to do what they please so long as it doesn't break the law or harm another person. I do remember in the Bible that one man can marry as many women as they please as long as he can support them. The law states that it is not legal to practice polygamy, so where are the bible people defending that right?

 

I currently have more than one girlfriend and I am loyal to both of them and they know about each other. Does that make me a bad person? Does that make me and people like me less than human? Do we need one man with a "God complex" decide what is good, bad, moral, or immoral? Wait, I forgot, he is "THE DECIDER". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Canadian I was proud when {censored}'s were given the right to marry. It shows we accept the diversity of life and we don't pander to religion to impose their values on are laws. When the new laws were passed it did not bring the end of marriage or the family as religious people said it would. The only thing it did was cause a economical boost to the economy with {censored} couples lining up to be married. Unfortuanly Stephen Harper is working on removing those rights that {censored}'s have fought so hard for but I think he will lose in long run. The courts have already ruled that banning {censored}'s from marriage was unconstitutional but I guess they will have to get yet another ruling to defeat Stephen Harper. I don't see Americans passing laws for {censored}'s to marry for many years to come because religion still has a strong control over the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It clearly states in the Holy Bible that if a man lay with another man... ...abomination in God's eyes...
i've always wondered if the Christians who use "Leviticus 18:22" as a justification for discriminating and repressing homosexuals, avoid the other "abominations" and prohibitions of Leviticus, such as eating shrimp, mixing fabrics etc.

 

wasting vast financial resources, and distracting people from discussion of issues with life and death importance to us all, to specifically add discrimination against one group of people to our Constitution, is the abomination.

 

if marriage is Sacred, outlaw divorce.

 

i clicked "for" {censored} marriage, but am thinking of legal recognition of couple as it relates to property, inheritance, insurance, etc, not white weddings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view marriage as being separate from the law. I don't regard the marriage of anybody (same sex or otherwise) outwith the church to be legitimate as the act of marriage was instituted by God for his people. Vows are made between spouses and in the presence of God who is as much a part of the marriage as the couple.

 

So whether the constitution permits same sex couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couple by signing a marriage certificate in a registry office is not the same thing as marriage in a church.

 

(I voted nay though because i think such an amendment would promote something which i believe the one who has authority over the entire universe condemns.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view marriage as being separate from the law.

So where is the line between Church and Law begin and end? Should it be the court's decision to exercise your free will? What of the thousands, perhaps millions of people that do not believe in your God? Do they fall into the same category as the people with faith or do they have no say in this matter? Then again, do non believers of faith believe in marriage and why should they? Maybe someone can answer that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A religious "marriage" has value in the eyes of the Law... hence fiscal benefits...

 

What if I started another variation of Christianity... one that frowned on heterosexual marriages? Now infringing upon this newfound tradition would be an infringement of religious beliefs. What say you now? In case you have realized it, religion these days is pretty dead. Here in Ca, the divorce rate is 2:1 ... sacred as hell ain't it? I don't see churches doing much about adultery which is extremely common today (among other hypocritical aspects)

 

A marriage in the eyes of the Church, it a religious joining ... be it my newly formed version, Scientology, Catholism, Islam, Buddism, Hindu, or Hebrew... These groups can discriminate upon each other...

 

A marriage in the eyes of the government is simply the recognizing joint pursuit of the very things promised by our Consistution; Life, Liberty, and Happiness. No one here can be discriminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage has already been ruined. It was supposed to be a lifelong total commitment of a man to a woman and vice versa; now most marriages end in divorce. It means 'I love you and I think I'll love you for at least a few years'... so sure, if that's what marriage is gonna be, let 'em do it. It doesn't mean anything anymore anyway....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reference to Leviticus

 

If the Mosaic code was enforced in this country, like 10 people would be left.

Dont mix fabrics, dont work on the sabbath, dont plant two crops next to one another, dont shave your beard or the sides of your head, take no blood into yourself, eat only clean foods (Locust is clean, Pig is not, Crabs are not, Cows are). Then you have the Decalog. Which specifically prevents graven images (1 and 2), prevents the worshiping of things other than god (1), etc. The Mosaic code also endorses marriage. Polygamous marriage. etc and so forth. Leviticus 18:22 isnt the only code you should be enforcing on everyone else. (Start with yourself first)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...