d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Gay Marriage > In The Us Nationallly
Prev1353637383951Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 5032Replies: 506Track Topic
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
#361
Dec 23 2009 09:34pm
Quote (inkanddagger @ Dec 24 2009 03:27am)
Doesn't matter what the majority wants. This country was founded on the principle of shaking off the shackles of the tyranny of the majority. I don't want to marry a man - in fact I am married to a woman, but that doesn't mean two men getting married threatens my marriage at all. The only marriage gay marriage threatens is a Republican marriage where the man is a closet homosexual with an unfortunate and repressed life.



Gays can marry when blacks are 3/5ths of a person again.
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
#362
Dec 23 2009 09:38pm
Quote (thundercock @ Dec 23 2009 11:34pm)
Gays can marry when blacks are 3/5ths of a person again.


You know you wan to thunder your cock deep inside some lucky boy's fun chute.
Member
Posts: 61,688
Joined: Mar 14 2006
Gold: 28.77
#363
Dec 23 2009 09:38pm
Quote (Santara @ Dec 23 2009 11:31pm)
If only Republicans "felt threatened," why do ballot initiatives in liberal bastions go against them too?


fake liberals.
Member
Posts: 6,031
Joined: Jul 15 2008
Gold: 57.92
#364
Dec 23 2009 09:41pm
Quote (Santara @ Dec 23 2009 10:31pm)
If only Republicans "felt threatened," why do ballot initiatives in liberal bastions go against them too?


I don't know why that would surprise anybody. The differences between democrats and republicans are magnified to make them look like complete opposites.
Member
Posts: 1,729
Joined: Sep 14 2009
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 10%
#365
Dec 23 2009 09:58pm
Quote (Santara @ Dec 20 2009 01:32am)
No. Government shouldn't be sanctioning any marriage. The extent of government involvement should be to protect people's rights in relation to each other, and should extend to straight or gay unions. If you want to get married, do it in a church.


their is no such thing as rights, it's an idea. if you think you have rights than tell me were they came from.
Member
Posts: 52,227
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,902.00
#366
Dec 23 2009 10:18pm
Quote (BankMoney @ Dec 23 2009 09:58pm)
their is no such thing as rights, it's an idea. if you think you have rights than tell me were they came from.


The last thing you were telling me was something about getting your friend to come put me in my place. That fall through?
Member
Posts: 34,649
Joined: Jul 2 2007
Gold: 273.37
#367
Dec 24 2009 12:13am
Quote (inkanddagger @ Dec 24 2009 03:27am)
Doesn't matter what the majority wants. This country was founded on the principle of shaking off the shackles of the tyranny of the majority. I don't want to marry a man - in fact I am married to a woman, but that doesn't mean two men getting married threatens my marriage at all. The only marriage gay marriage threatens is a Republican marriage where the man is a closet homosexual with an unfortunate and repressed life.


Gay marriage is a matter of having the state recognize it. No one is forbidding a gay man from participating in a private ceremony with another man.

Given that the state offers significant benefits for marriage, it stands to reason that society as a whole decides what the "state's definition" is.

For the last time, no negative rights are being infringed, a gay man can participate in marriage as it is currently defined. If he wished to pursue a relationship outside of those parameters, he is free to do so, but it isn't for us to immediately recognize his marriage in a legal setting.
Member
Posts: 21,747
Joined: Jan 4 2007
Gold: 2.47
Warn: 20%
#368
Dec 24 2009 12:15am
Fuckin faggots have no right to get married.

Marriage is defined as the legal bonding of a male and female.

Member
Posts: 6,031
Joined: Jul 15 2008
Gold: 57.92
#369
Dec 24 2009 12:17am
Quote (bogie160 @ Dec 24 2009 01:13am)
Gay marriage is a matter of having the state recognize it. No one is forbidding a gay man from participating in a private ceremony with another man.

Given that the state offers significant benefits for marriage, it stands to reason that society as a whole decides what the "state's definition" is.

For the last time, no negative rights are being infringed, a gay man can participate in marriage as it is currently defined. If he wished to pursue a relationship outside of those parameters, he is free to do so, but it isn't for us to immediately recognize his marriage in a legal setting.


Why should the state recognize marriage in the first place?
Member
Posts: 22,457
Joined: Mar 3 2007
Gold: 76.11
#370
Dec 24 2009 12:18am
Quote (bogie160 @ Dec 24 2009 06:13am)
Gay marriage is a matter of having the state recognize it. No one is forbidding a gay man from participating in a private ceremony with another man.

Given that the state offers significant benefits for marriage, it stands to reason that society as a whole decides what the "state's definition" is.

For the last time, no negative rights are being infringed, a gay man can participate in marriage as it is currently defined. If he wished to pursue a relationship outside of those parameters, he is free to do so, but it isn't for us to immediately recognize his marriage in a legal setting.


Unfinished sentence is unfinished.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1353637383951Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2026 d2jsp  Contact