Government Laws on Marriage

[The Other Guy]

THIS POLL IS MULTIPLE ANSWER AND PUBLIC.

Okay, this is a bit of an expansion on my last thread. What are your views and why? I'm just trying to get a consensus on how everyone feels about it here.

 

[5.56X45mm]

This is what I voted...


I Am Against Gay Marriage.
The Government Has No Right To Say Who Someone Can or Can't Marry.
Marriage Should Always Be Between A Man And A Woman.
Gay Marriage Destroys Family Values.
Laws Against Gay Marriage Are A Step Back For Society.
Gay Pride Parades Are Ridiculous.


I am 100% against homosexual marriage. I am 100% against the open flaunting of homosexual relationships. I am 100% against the idea that being gay means you should be treated special.

I believe that if you want to be gay. Fine.... keep it in the bedroom or at least act responsible in public. Most of what I have seen of Gay Pride Parades are nothing but open displays of sexual acts. Fantasy Fest in Key West, Florida and the Homosexual events that happen in San Francisco, California. Those are all simply public sex acts. People performing sexual intercourse on public streets, perform oral sex, etc... WRONG!

You want to be gay... fine. You want to kiss your partner in public fine. You want to show affection. Fine. But don't do what most of the more vocal part of the gay community does. Act Responsible. I have very close people to me that are gay. Both male and female.... I have no issue with them being gay. As a Catholic I am against them marrying someone but that is an issue between me, them, and God. But it is the same issue with abortions. I am against abortions but I will not support any law outlawing them.

But I am also 100% against the State stepping in and saying who can and can't get married. Even though I am against homosexual relationships I will stand up and support them getting the right for marriage. The State has not right to deny them that right. Just as the State has no right to deny me my rights to free speech and my right to keep and bear arms.

You cannot have a one set of rights while not having another. You cannot give the State power over matters like this. Because once that is done the State will expand.... and that is bad.

 

[Duty Honor Country]

Where is Civil Unions in this poll? Since I like compromise, I am in favor of civil Unions

 

[The Other Guy]

Where is Civil Unions in this poll? Since I like compromise, I am in favor of civil Unions

Ah, I KNEW I was forgetting something! :smile:

 

[Duty Honor Country]

I used my mod powers to add in Civil Unions. I won't vote until I get your "blessing."

 

[mmarsh]

Before I vote, a point of clarification please:

When it says I am FOR/AGAINST do you mean as a personal view or legally?

For example: I personally I am repulsed by the idea of two men marrying, however since gay marriage has no effect on me personally I can see no reason to draft laws to ban it. I mind my own business.

If you mean it should be legally than you have a few choices on the board that are the same.

 

[SHERMAN]

same as ibve said before on similar discussions.

I believe in civil rights. I believe in democracy. You cant say those two things and than say "but not for gays".

If they want to marry each other, let them.
As for gay pride parades...I dont go on the street shouting "I'm straight!" and dancing in my underwear. neither should they in my honest opinion.

 

[The Other Guy]

vote away, vote away.

 

[Chukpike]

Before I vote, a point of clarification please:

When it says I am FOR/AGAINST do you mean as a personal view or legally?

For example: I personally I am repulsed by the idea of two men marrying, however since gay marriage has no effect on me personally I can see no reason to draft laws to ban it. I mind my own business.

If you mean it should be legally than you have a few choices on the board that are the same.

I voted based on my believes.

Since it is multiple vote.

I voted against gay marriage.

But did not vote on the government being able to decide.
The reason I didn't vote on that issue is.
It is complicated by who you consider the government.
The States have been regulating marriage since the beginning.
For example how old you had to be to marry.
Marriage had been understood to be between man and women.
When states started to legislate and the courts decided to allow gay marriage. The voters petitioned to ban gay marriage and then voted to ban it. So the question of the government deciding who can marry depends on who you are talking about.
If you think of the government as the people then you would answer based on whether you thought the people had a right to decide.
If you think of the government is the elected bodies then you would vote on whether the elected officials should decide.

The elected officials deciding to allow it, and then voters voted no.
I just did not vote on that part at all. It gave me a headache.

 

[Del Boy]

Before I vote, a point of clarification please:

When it says I am FOR/AGAINST do you mean as a personal view or legally?

For example: I personally I am repulsed by the idea of two men marrying, however since gay marriage has no effect on me personally I can see no reason to draft laws to ban it. I mind my own business.

Friendly and interested question for you re the above sentiment MM, only very slightly off-topic.

As you feel as you do, when, may it please God, you have little 4-10 years old boys at primary school, will you be happy for them to instructed that this was not only perfectly acceptable, but also perfectly normal and a life-style and practice of precisely the same credit to society as marriage and family between a man and a woman.

If such instruction is compulsory, how will that effect your own business.
Will you then feel that you said nothing and now they are coming for you and yours?

 

[Rob Henderson]

Friendly and interested question for you re the above sentiment MM, only very slightly off-topic.

As you feel as you do, when, may it please God, you have little 4-10 years old boys at primary school, will you be happy for them to instructed that this was not only perfectly acceptable, but also perfectly normal and a life-style and practice of precisely the same credit to society as marriage and family between a man and a woman.

If such instruction is compulsory, how will that effect your own business.
Will you then feel that you said nothing and now they are coming for you and yours?

I'd like to say a bit on this issue... Obviously things are quite different in the UK and the US. Here, we don't even offer HETEROSEXUAL sex ed. until middle school. In our 4 year old classes, we're learning to stay inside the lines. Maybe THAT'S why our test scores are so low........

 

[The Other Guy]

I'd like to say a bit on this issue... Obviously things are quite different in the UK and the US. Here, we don't even offer HETEROSEXUAL sex ed. until middle school. In our 4 year old classes, we're learning to stay inside the lines. Maybe THAT'S why our test scores are so low........

The general rule in the states is, "Thou Shalt Not Express Thyself In A Way That Thine Elders May Disapprove Of Until You Move Out Of Thine Elders' House or Turn 18. Whichever Comes First."

I really hate the American system on this topic. It just sort of... avoids the topic. Ed classes started for me in... 4th Grade. 4th-5th Grades were about what's in your pants, then 6th-9th Grades were about keeping it there. Very little useful info. And the attempt to shelter our kids so much really makes them a lot more immature. I knew a 5th grade teacher who went to Australia to teach for one year in an exchange program. The thing she remarked the most on was how much more mentally mature the Australian children were. The tiniest hint of what is widely considered "4th grade humor" in the States would cause giggles in America, While the serious business in Australia was taken without a blink. I think this is mostly because of the authoritarian oppression put on by parents on any vaguely "private" topics in the States. So when kids say things, they find it funny, because they think they're getting away with being bad.

I think it calls for a change in approach.

I know that was all off topic, but blame Henderson, he set me off.

 

[Rob Henderson]

The general rule in the states is, "Thou Shalt Not Express Thyself In A Way That Thine Elders May Disapprove Of Until You Move Out Of Thine Elders' House or Turn 18. Whichever Comes First."

Agreed...

I really hate the American system on this topic. It just sort of... avoids the topic. Ed classes started for me in... 4th Grade. 4th-5th Grades were about what's in your pants, then 6th-9th Grades were about keeping it there. Very little useful info. And the attempt to shelter our kids so much really makes them a lot more immature. I knew a 5th grade teacher who went to Australia to teach for one year in an exchange program. The thing she remarked the most on was how much more mentally mature the Australian children were. The tiniest hint of what is widely considered "4th grade humor" in the States would cause giggles in America, While the serious business in Australia was taken without a blink. I think this is mostly because of the authoritarian oppression put on by parents on any vaguely "private" topics in the States. So when kids say things, they find it funny, because they think they're getting away with being bad.

That's interesting... But I must say it doesn't surprise me about the Australia thing. I agree with this too... The United States is still extremely conservative when compared to most of the modern world. Sheltering our children and threatening "Abstinence or die" is NOT the way to make sure our kids know what they're getting into... I mean, me, I plan on saving myself for marriage, just because I think it will make it more special, but it's not because I was forced into it. Kids are gonna do what they wanna do, and the only thing we can do is educate them on it, and show them what's right. I'm not saying quit preaching abstinence, I think it shows some real moral character, but don't just NOT teach them about it... Especially in a day and time so rampant with STDs... Your elementary and junior high ed. is just about spot on with mine, but in high school (yeah, they still gave the talk in 12th grade) they were more focusing on prevention of disease than abstinence.

I think it calls for a change in approach.

I know that was all off topic, but blame Henderson, he set me off.

It's not quite off topic... Del Boy brought it up. Blame him!

 

[The Other Guy]

That's interesting... But I must say it doesn't surprise me about the Australia thing. I agree with this too... The United States is still extremely conservative when compared to most of the modern world. Sheltering our children and threatening "Abstinence or die" is NOT the way to make sure our kids know what they're getting into... I mean, me, I plan on saving myself for marriage, just because I think it will make it more special, but it's not because I was forced into it. Kids are gonna do what they wanna do, and the only thing we can do is educate them on it, and show them what's right. I'm not saying quit preaching abstinence, I think it shows some real moral character, but don't just NOT teach them about it... Especially in a day and time so rampant with STDs... Your elementary and junior high ed. is just about spot on with mine, but in high school (yeah, they still gave the talk in 12th grade) they were more focusing on prevention of disease than abstinence.

Personally, I think a person should live their life. Constantly living in fear isn't living at all. It's the Puritan remnants in this country that really set all of this in motion.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the place where the Puritans settled in the New World now allows Gay Marriage?

 

[Chukpike]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the place where the Puritans settled in the New World now allows Gay Marriage?

I guess you mean Massachusetts? For those that do not believe that the government should decide who can or can't get married. Allowing homosexual marriage was decided by the courts and legislature in Massachusetts. Not by a vote of the people. How is that for ironic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

 

[Rob Henderson]

But there is a difference between living without fear and living recklessly. If kids are going out porking anyone they want because they're just "living life" and contracting STDs, then they should stop... But I don't believe that it should just be a question of either having sex or NOT having sex...




Now Chukpike, assuming that was directed to me, I believe that the government shouldn't tell you NOT to do something... They aren't making homosexuality mandatory, they're just leaving the option up to the people who want to get married... California is not allowing homosexuals to get married. THAT'S what I don't agree with. I don't agree with telling them they can't do something. I'm all for telling them they can if they want to.

 

[The Other Guy]

I guess you mean Massachusetts? For those that do not believe that the government should decide who can or can't get married. Allowing homosexual marriage was decided by the courts and legislature in Massachusetts. Not by a vote of the people. How is that for ironic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

you know, you're like a professional golfer; you can take anything and put spin on it.

And secondly, I have no worries about who the government says someone can marry. That means that they have the right to marry whoever they want. When the government DENIES this right, then I have a problem.

 

[Del Boy]

Agreed...
:roll: It's not quite off topic... Del Boy brought it up. Blame him!

Sure, happy to take the blame guys, feel free; that's what I'm here for.
I get the blame for everything in London, just like my grandfather.:thumb:

 

[senojekips]

you know, you're like a professional golfer; you can take anything and put spin on it.

And secondly, I have no worries about who the government says someone can marry. That means that they have the right to marry whoever they want. When the government DENIES this right, then I have a problem.

Speaking of spin, where did you get this idea of utopian freedom in this matter, I'm sure that you are well aware that your statement regarding being able to marry who ever you want is patently false. It does not exist. Not for marriage not for anything.

No one has the right to marry whoever they want, this is already covered by legislation. You may not marry any sibling, parent, step parent, child, step child, person already married, or person deemed to be under age. In this country there are also laws that automatically dissolve a marriage should it be proven to have taken place illegally, and there are probably others that I'm not aware of. The subject of marriage is as bound by law as any other thing you might wish to do.

Once the legislators start seeing what homo "marriage" is going to cost the state, as previously pointed out in the other thread on this subject, it will be banned. They may experiment with it for a few years due to noisy agitation from the homo lobby, but eventually it will be banned.

 

[Chukpike]

I guess you mean Massachusetts? For those that do not believe that the government should decide who can or can't get married. Allowing homosexual marriage was decided by the courts and legislature in Massachusetts. Not by a vote of the people. How is that for ironic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

you know, you're like a professional golfer; you can take anything and put spin on it..

Thanks, but my golf is not that good.
This is no spin it is a fact. The state elected officials and courts decided.

And secondly, I have no worries about who the government says someone can marry. That means that they have the right to marry whoever they want. When the government DENIES this right, then I have a problem.

"That means that they have the right to marry whoever they want."

No it does not. There are still age limits. It means the government gets to decide who can and can't marry.
You can not have it both ways. In your true belief, who should decide? We already know it will not be one individual person.

If you agree that the government can decide who can marry. Then you agree that the people have no right to decide. Even if it violates the basic tenant of the Constitution, that the people are the ultimate authority.

Just curious, how did you mark the poll as far as the Government having the right to decide?