Who shouldn't have the right to vote

[Mike]

Sounds like women definitely got the short end of the stick in the history of marriage.

In the brief googling and wiki answers search I've done in the last 20 minutes, it seems marriage never had any sanctity

One might htink feminists and women in general would be trying to tear down this oppressive marriage thing. But, women have children as a result of their men, and a marriage "contract" helps ensure some stability for the current and future generations

I guess that's why I was not pro gay marriage. I feel marriage is about children. I'm fine with gay couples having kids(whether adopted, in vitro fertilization,cloned,whatever) and feel gay couples with kids absolutely should have a legal contract. You want to call that marriage, fine with me

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

As long as they give the majority the say-so, then the minority is gunna have to do as they say. These aren't special rights for gays, so I don't know why it's constitutional to keep them from marrying (by just simply voting in majority against them.)

because you can't give civil rights to some members-by allowing marriage, naming someone as your legal rep, etc-but not allowing other adults those same rights, because they're 'different'.
the constitution is to keep the often-times voiceless minority from losing their rights, regardless of majority thoughts.

[2Hot4TV]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh...separate but equal? now...where have i heard that before????

No, just different.

1 Man and 1 Woman is call marriage.

A gay couple is something different and you can call it anything you want except Marriage.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

No, just different.

1 Man and 1 Woman is call marriage.

A gay couple is something different and you can call it anything you want except Marriage.

That's one opinion

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

wow..im even shocked .. that means im a libral....argggggg

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

wow..im even shocked .. that means im a libral....argggggg

Breath deeply Matt..it's ok

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

[Nascar1966]

If you cant read or write English or need the help of an interpreter you shouldn't be able to vote. Im sure this would apply to half of Texas.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

If you cant read or write English or need the help of an interpreter you shouldn't be able to vote. Im sure this would apply to half of Texas.

and very very soon Kalifornia...

[GBBob]

[quote=geeker2]and very very soon Kalifornia...[/QUOTE]


Good movie

[Scav]

A quick did you know...

There is large number of people in the US that 'consider' themselves married(Have property, have kids, bills, etc...) but are not married 'legally' for tax reasons.

[Mike]

How can I be pro gay marriage when I'm just plain anti-marriage?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Mike

How can I be pro gay marriage when I'm just plain anti-marriage?

You can just be pro-equal rights for all!!

[Mike]

You can just be pro-equal rights for all!!

Yeah, I can go with that. That will make things a lot simpler for me and everyone else

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Mike

You can just be pro-equal rights for all!!

Yeah, I can go with that. That will make things a lot simpler for me and everyone else

Cool!

I just finished doing my annual enrollment for the benefits package... and my company makes sure to put several times....

"*** requires a legal union between one man and one woman to be considered as a husband and wife (“spouse”) under the terms of our plan."

That makes me really upset.... So even in states like California (where I know we have offices) that have LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE... the partner would not be able to get the benefits because it specifically defines "between one man and one woman".

Or what about the states that have civil unions, or domestic partnerships?? This is def. discrimination by my employer... and with over 8,000 people that work for this company.. I wouldnt expect this because most large corporations offer "partner" benefits

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Cool!

I just finished doing my annual enrollment for the benefits package... and my company makes sure to put several times....

"*** requires a legal union between one man and one woman to be considered as a husband and wife (“spouse”) under the terms of our plan."

That makes me really upset.... So even in states like California (where I know we have offices) that have LEGAL GAY MARRIAGE... the partner would not be able to get the benefits because it specifically defines "between one man and one woman".

Or what about the states that have civil unions, or domestic partnerships?? This is def. discrimination by my employer... and with over 8,000 people that work for this company.. I wouldnt expect this because most large corporations offer "partner" benefits

It should make you really upset.

[Antitrust32]

These anti-gay amendments are just the last form of discrimination that people feel is acceptable. (maybe not the last because Muslim-Americans are really feeling it now too)

You think the gov would dare let us vote on an amendment (in todays world) saying that blacks should be at seperate schools and only allowed to sit in the back of the bus??? Would that go over at all??

How would that be any different than denying gays equal rights.

The Prop 2 here in FL wants to define marriage as one man and one woman.. and the wording in it would also harm gays who have partner benefits with their companies and other legal contracts.

Its a crying shame that this is even taking place and as an American I am embarassed for my country and the discrimination that is taking place in it.

And that fact that the majority of people (that prop 2 is supposed to pass with flying colors) in this country support and defend this discrimination makes me want to go all office space on my computer right now.

[Antitrust32]

Hi Dala!

Did you vote today?

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

because you can't give civil rights to some members-by allowing marriage, naming someone as your legal rep, etc-but not allowing other adults those same rights, because they're 'different'.
the constitution is to keep the often-times voiceless minority from losing their rights, regardless of majority thoughts.

That's what I said isn't it? I said I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL to deny these rights to this minority. It's only being done because they don't have the power that the majority have. There are special rights given to married people. If they are gunna keep certain people from marrying, then they should atleast take away any financial advantages that married people now have. I can tell ya that the thing I dislike about all this the most is these Mormons from Utah sending checks here to try to make an impact on how people in another state vote. I despise them. It's never enough for them to live as their religion says. They have to try to make other people conform to their beliefs. You let them have small stuff like this, and eventually they will end up acting like those Moslem Savages.


Before you people freak out about that noun, I will define it.

Savage:
1 : a person belonging to a primitive society
2 : a brutal person
3 : a rude or unmannerly person

They all fit. Don't lie.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

No, just different.

1 Man and 1 Woman is call marriage.

A gay couple is something different and you can call it anything you want except Marriage.

why?

i think the high divorce rate, as well as having multiple marriages, has done more to damage the supposed sanctity of marriage than allowing gay people the same rights (no more, no less) as straight folks. tell me, if gays can call it marriage (since two adults, joining their lives, committing to each other, etc is basically marriage, regardless of their sex) how does that affect you? your life? your marriage, assuming you're married? i bet it won't. how could it? i have been married for almost 23 years to a wonderful guy...it bothers me tremendously to see folks who are married treat each other badly, or cheapen their vows by being disrespectful, hatefuly, downright mean, or selfish. they're certainly not teaching their children to honor marriage by doing so.
so, a guy or gal can get married, divorced, remarried, divorced, remarried, ad nauseum...and that's just ducky because it's a guy and a girl.
but two guys, two girls. oh, put on the brakes-how dare anyone want to damage marriage? HAH! that's a riot.