Are you voting up or down? I'm voting against because I don't care if two guys want to get married--it's none of my business.

Where's your diploma?

I am against it. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman, at that is all there is to it.

a vote for it here! however, if it passes i will seek to marry multiple wives.

quote:

---

I don't care if two guys want to get married

---

So you and Raul must have an open relationship.....right? Monogamy not that high on the list of priorities?

quote:

---

I am against it. Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman, at that is all there is to it.

---

What is your opinion on civil unions, or similar process, whereby gay couples would enjoy the same workplace and tax benefits as hetero couples?

I could care less what they do.

Once they're married they'll really step up the public displays of affection. Since that makes me want to vomit I will vote for the ban.

I'll go with God and the Bible on this one.

Why are you asking this on an Aggie board? You know what the majority will say.

It's interesting because you can classify the bigots.

quote:

---

Once they're married they'll really step up the public displays of affection. Since that makes me want to vomit I will vote for the ban.

---

You ain't married are you? After they are married, they won't have too many PRIVATE displays of affection.

CowDog

It seems odd to me that the party that likes to talk about less government intrusion in our lives wants to make the constitution intrude upon people's bedrooms. I think the amendment would violate the US Constitution anyway. The Constitution is a secular document, not a religious one.

[This message has been edited by LilGiant (edited 10/25/2005 9:05p).]

Marriage is not "the bedroom".

^
|
|

So are you voting "aye"? Does the thought of two men being married make you pucker up?

Less government intrusion?

The only thing Dems and Reps disagree on is HOW to use government power to influence the lives of the citizenry.

So, pick a poison, sparky.

CowDog

(Laugh about it, ahout about it, when you've got to choose.

Anyway you look at it you lose.)

Let the tsips make honest men of their men.

sami-like thread started by a sami-like poster

quote: Marriage is not "the bedroom".

It is a state conferred status. And the government isn't supposed to discriminate amongst its citizens when deciding who gets a special status and who doesn't.

And if you really think that this has nothing to do with "the bedroom" then you're not paying attention. It's all about what happens in the bedroom. It's a way of pointing at people and saying "you are less than a full citizen because of what you like to do in the bedroom". Our government isn't supposed to do that.

quote:

---

And if you really think that this has nothing to do with "the bedroom" then you're not paying attention. It's all about what happens in the bedroom. It's a way of pointing at people and saying "you are less than a full citizen because of what you like to do in the bedroom". Our government isn't supposed to do that.

---

It's not just that. If the government sanctions same-sex marriage, then they'll be no reason for state adoption agencies to favor a man-woman couple over a man-man or woman-woman couple.

It's fvcked up enough that people as screwed in the head as Rosie O'Donnell can adopt kids as it is.

We don't need the state saying those relationships are normal.

Quote: We don't need the state saying those relationships are normal.

My point is that I don't think the US Constitution gives the state an alternative other than to say they're "normal".

[This message has been edited by LilGiant (edited 10/25/2005 11:39p).]

Gay marriage is just another attack on the traditional family. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

If Gay marriage is allowed then what is to stop gay psudo-families from adopting children. What kind of enviroment is that for a child to be raised in. The practice of homosexual relations is unnatural, it violates the laws of nature, and for us Christians it violates the laws of heaven. This is not against anyone who would call themselves gay or lesbian, I respect them as people and have no problem calling them friend, but I don't condone the act or any act that is immoral.

i dont think gays should get married, but i dont really care enough about it to go vote for it. it doesnt really affect me either way.

I'm down with some queer bashing. Sick to death of the uninvited influence on our culture. Do us all a favor and climb the **** back into the closet!

FYI: Don't start a thread like this if you intend to call either side out.

quote:

---

quote: Marriage is not "the bedroom".

It is a state conferred status. And the government isn't supposed to discriminate amongst its citizens when deciding who gets a special status and who doesn't.

And if you really think that this has nothing to do with "the bedroom" then you're not paying attention. It's all about what happens in the bedroom. It's a way of pointing at people and saying "you are less than a full citizen because of what you like to do in the bedroom". Our government isn't supposed to do that.

---

WRONG!
Marriage is a religious status with a state equivalent. The state does not have the right to take a religious institution and pervert it. Again this is an attack on the family and on the rights of children to be allowed to have a family with a father (male) and a mother (female).

What is next, are we going to fight for the rights of child molesters to get their freak on with six year olds.

Well said Hank.

What's to stop the necrophiliacs and donkey ****ers from coming out of the woodwork for their so-called right to wed the dead ... or whatever?

quote:

---

My point is that I don't think the US Constitution gives the state an alternative other than to say they're "normal".

---

Well, unless there's some special clause in the Constitution that the Supreme Court is just going to discover in the next couple of terms that they never noticed there before and pretty much every state in the country never thought was there I don't see where you're coming from.

Of course, that's pretty much where all of the bull**** the Supreme Court forces down our throat comes from these days so who knows.

Well actually the Constitution says that all powers not deligated to the US government are deligated to the state government.

Since there is nothing in the constitution that religates the institution of marriage then according to the constitution it belongs to the states to govern.

Go figure...............a thread about gay marriage started by some f@g from austin

You Know What Alabama Fans and Maggots Have In Common? They Can Live Off A Dead Bear For Years.

"What's to stop the necrophiliacs and donkey ****ers from coming out of the woodwork for their so-called right to wed the dead ... or whatever?"

Slippery slope used to work. Like in the 1850s when a slave was deemed "not a citizen" and the ultra-conservatives said "thank goodness... otherwise they might actually want other personal liberties like voting and owning property!"

Nowadays it doesn't fly with a much tougher court. And if social mores and taboos are somehow reversed over the next 600 years, then the Constitution might reflect that. But I doubt it.

Article 10 says that certain powers are reserved for the states or the people. Article 9 says that the Constitution is not used to deny or disparage the rights of people. There is no inherent right to marriage. This is what churches should be for.

quote: "Well actually the Constitution says that all powers not deligated to the US government are deligated to the state government.

Since there is nothing in the constitution that religates the institution of marriage then according to the constitution it belongs to the states to govern."

My point isn't that there is some magic bullet clause. Let's try a hypothetical: Two women marry in a state where gay marriage is legal, say, Massachussetts. They are issued a marriage license. They live in Mass. for a few years, then move to Texas because they hate the New England winters.

The relationship sours and one of them files for divorce. The district court dismisses the petition saying "the Texas Constitution does not recognize a marriage between two women". Correct? Not so fast, my friend.

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution compels Texas to treat Massachussetts marriage licenses, just as Texas would a Massachussetts drivers license, as legal.

I think that's the way that gay marriage will eventually become legal in every state. Because a Texas Constitutional amendment can't trump the US Constitution. Nor can the federal Defense of Marriage Act, a simple act of Congress, trump the Constitution.

Any ruling by any Supreme Court that decided that the hypothetical Texas District Court acted properly, would be just plain wrong.

[This message has been edited by LilGiant (edited 10/26/2005 9:11a).]

[This message has been edited by LilGiant (edited 10/26/2005 9:15a).]

I had a guy come in yesterday needing some legal work relating to his house. He explained the situation to me and said that he and his "domestic partner" of many years needed to get it taken care of. I helped him out and got him what he wanted. I don't see why these folks should be treated any differently than anyone else.

If they want to be "married," I'm fine with that. Why should only the heterosexual men have to suffer?

The disappointing thing in all of this is the simple fact that we've gone this far.

It really is just a matter of time until child molesters and murderers are allowed to get away with their crimes and basque in the glow of their "civil liberties".

Oh wait, that's already happening.