Govt Drops Defense of Anti-Gay Marriage Law

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]

Yeah, and I can’t do any of that with my friend. I was talking about the hospital and power of attorney, both of those are relatively easy.

42

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it that fools are still crying the slippery slope argument? How?[/quote]

Yes, slippery slope is a fallacy some of the time using deductive logic, but when you have the evidence in your face. It is not a fallacy, sorry ol’ pal.

43

Also, is not the Dept. of Justice ignoring a law? What if we ignored Roe vs. Wade, what if Palin was president and she told the American People that her Executive branch would stop defending it?

Obama is stomping on the Constitution. It is not in his power to do this. Listen I dont care about one being a fag, but just keep to yourself, go down to Oak Lawn or Cedar Springs.
He is using this as a test basis for something much bigger.

Also, was it not a few years ago that California voted down a bill that legalized same sex marriage, the most liberal state in this country said Hell no by a landslide am I not correct?

44

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Thankfully, most Americans disagree with you. Last August a poll conducted by the Associated Press found that 52% of people in the United States believe the government should recognize same-sex marriage (with 46% against).

In the 1950s almost all Americans would have agreed with you. Your line of thinking is nothing more than a dim vestige of our barbarous past. You can believe in any fairy tale you want as long as you keep it out of other people’s homes. “An invisible bearded man in the sky told me to” is not sufficient enough reason to enact oppressive legislation in modern America.[/quote]

Lol, in the 1930’s I’m sure if a poll was conducted in Germany it would find that the majority of the people in Germany thought they should exterminate the Jews. Appeal to the majority you say? Well, why not majority makes right? Or, is that might makes right?

P.S. Who in the hell is this invisible bearded man in the sky?

45

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

What is wrong with making rational and moral judgments? And, I don’t believe in divorce so unless their marriage is annulled, then it is a pseudo-polygamy situation. [/quote]

Nothing.

If this moral jusgement is based on a book that is a few thousand years old and claims to be be “rational” on top of it, as if there was such a thing as a rational value judgement, well, it better should not be the basis of laws that aspire to prevent bloodshed.

That is of course a value judgement too, bases on my completely irrational preferences for peaceful solutions.

46

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it that fools are still crying the slippery slope argument? How?[/quote]

There is of course the issue why governments would reward one form of lifestyle over another, financially, legally or otherwise.

So yes, it is a legitimate question, why not polygamy?

And mind you, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but if you think that the state should force one group of people to support your own lifestyle choices gay marriage weakens that position.
[/quote]

I think the heart of the issue is “lifestyle choice”. Sexuality isn’t a choice (inasmuch as desires are concerned), but arrangement (binary, polyamory, polyandry, etc) is.

Its fairly obvious, though, that you bring up the issue as a legitimate concern regarding rights - bigots like Zeb bring it up so they can scream “Its the downfall of civilization! Those faggot weirdo’s want to ruin America! We’d have to let grown men marry children and plants and let dogs rape your grandmother if we allow two men to marry!”[/quote]

I have no problem with gays, I have a problem with homosexual acts and those living in sin, but not orientation. Now, that that is out of the way.

Logically speaking, if the birth rate of a society is below 2.1 babies per woman they are committing societal suicide and it will lead to the eventual downfall of civilization. Same-sex marriage, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, &c. all lead to a decreasing birthrate.

47

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How is it that fools are still crying the slippery slope argument? How?[/quote]

There is of course the issue why governments would reward one form of lifestyle over another, financially, legally or otherwise.

So yes, it is a legitimate question, why not polygamy?

And mind you, I have no problem with that whatsoever, but if you think that the state should force one group of people to support your own lifestyle choices gay marriage weakens that position.
[/quote]

I think the heart of the issue is “lifestyle choice”. Sexuality isn’t a choice (inasmuch as desires are concerned), but arrangement (binary, polyamory, polyandry, etc) is.

Its fairly obvious, though, that you bring up the issue as a legitimate concern regarding rights - bigots like Zeb bring it up so they can scream “Its the downfall of civilization! Those faggot weirdo’s want to ruin America! We’d have to let grown men marry children and plants and let dogs rape your grandmother if we allow two men to marry!”[/quote]

Yeah but he has a point.

I do not think that the end of state subsidies to traditional marriages would end them as we know it, I would expect that to strenghten them, but one of the reasons why I am all for gay marriage, polygamy and probably marrying your toaster is precisely because I think it would end those subsidies.

I find it weird that people who preach the sanctity of marriage think that people should be bribed in order to marry, but then again I do not really expect anyone to be honest when it comes to the war of everyone against everyone that a redistributing state turns our society into.

[/quote]

You know I don’t care for the subsidies.

48

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral.

Thankfully, most Americans disagree with you. Last August a poll conducted by the Associated Press found that 52% of people in the United States believe the government should recognize same-sex marriage (with 46% against).[/quote]

Not so fast, according to a recent Gallup poll the majority of Americans are against same sex marriage. But they’re all bigots anyway. They probably also oppose marriage for polygamists and incestuous couples. Why is it that the majority of Americans want to impose their moral values on the rest of us? Sheesh.

In all fairness however to all polls I thik this issue pretty much cuts along generational lines. So it really depends on who you poll. [/quote]

The poll I used was a legitimate one, as was yours. Such is the nature of using opinion polls in argument.

The substance of my point was in the rest of my post.[/quote]

Your substance was based on the poll.

49

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
This is an excellent discussion of the political fallout that will likely occur:

EXCERPT:

If that approach becomes widely adopted, then it would seem to bring a considerable power shift to the Executive Branch. Here�¢??s what I fear will happen. If Congress passes legislation on a largely party-line vote, the losing side just has to fashion some constitutional theories for why the legislation is unconstitutional and then wait for its side to win the Presidency. As soon as its side wins the Presidency, activists on its side can file constitutional challenges based on the theories; the Executive branch can adopt the theories and conclude that, based on the theories, the legislation is unconstitutional; and then the challenges to the legislation will go undefended. Winning the Presidency will come with a great deal of power to decide what legislation to defend, increasing Executive branch power at the expense of Congress�¢??s power. Again, it will be a power grab disguised as academic constitutional interpretation.[/quote]

Picking and choosing which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore is what goes on in every city, county, state, and federal district as we speak. Usually based on the prefernces of those in power. US law was intended to deal with DIRECT ‘Force or Fraud’ matters.
Any idealogy, moral code, or religion that requires laws that punish others that behave in a manner it objects to, is malevolent by nature, and therefore without credibiliy. If your arguement is so weak you are unable to persuade others…
[/quote]

Ah, so it is a matter of persuading others. I see, so Hitler was very persuasive, so was Joseph Stalin, so was Muss, so their arguments had credibility because they were persuasive and got a lot of people to agree with them?

50

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

And the fact that one group of people can easily get all those rights bundled up in one package, in a system where no judge will ever arbitrarily decide to ignore them, compared to another group who has to go through a complex, lengthy, and expensive procedure for some of those same rights, where any judge can simply decide to ignore those agreements, is a blatant form of discrimination on the part of the government.[/quote]

Easily? No, not really that easily. And, Judge’s ignore the institution of marriage all the time. It’s not a complex, lengthy, expensive procedure for someone to be put on the visitation list. If you put a card in your wallet with the names of non-family members who are allowed to visit the hospital will check ID and allow you to enter. Power of attorney is as simple as redrafting your living will and giving it to your lawyer.

Yes it is discrimination, so is not letting me be a mother. But, guess what suck it up.[/quote]

You not being able to be a mother is a case of discrimination?

Maybe you want to look up the word “discriminate”.

[/quote]

No, but people equate not getting their way with discrimination. It’s called not having it your way.

51

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

What is wrong with making rational and moral judgments? And, I don’t believe in divorce so unless their marriage is annulled, then it is a pseudo-polygamy situation. [/quote]

Nothing.

If this moral jusgement is based on a book that is a few thousand years old and claims to be be “rational” on top of it, as if there was such a thing as a rational value judgement, well, it better should not be the basis of laws that aspire to prevent bloodshed.[/quote]

No, it is a moral judgement based on Aristotle’s and Aquinas writings on Natural Law, you knowing Ayn Rand should know Rand’s three A’s (Aristotle, Aquinas, Ayn) and her views on Natural Law. As well, Kant put forth a few good arguments in figuring if something is moral. I don’t use the Bible when it comes to talking to people that do not believe in the Bible. That is ridiculous, the Bible is for those in the Church so what weight does it have for those that do not hold to the faith of the Church?

That would be like a Muslim trying to convince me of something and stating it says so in the Koran. The Koran is a nice book, but it holds no weight with me. If a Catholic or Christian would disagree with me I suppose I could use the Bible, but I’m not totally sure if the Bible says anything about gay marriage.

I’m all for peaceful solutions, but I’m do not hold to quietism or pacifism. That doesn’t mean I am going to force people against their wills to do what I want, but that doesn’t mean that I have to let them do something against my will with my money. I don’t want them to get married for moral and economical reasons. I also don’t want heterosexual couples receiving money for being married from the Gov’t for economical reasons.

52

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

What is wrong with making rational and moral judgments? And, I don’t believe in divorce so unless their marriage is annulled, then it is a pseudo-polygamy situation. [/quote]

Then why don’t you support laws making it illegal for someone to marry if they’re already divorced and not annulled?

Why don’t you support laws making it illegal to marry if you practice sex that doesn’t always include vaginal intercourse?

53

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

And the fact that one group of people can easily get all those rights bundled up in one package, in a system where no judge will ever arbitrarily decide to ignore them, compared to another group who has to go through a complex, lengthy, and expensive procedure for some of those same rights, where any judge can simply decide to ignore those agreements, is a blatant form of discrimination on the part of the government.[/quote]

Easily? No, not really that easily. And, Judge’s ignore the institution of marriage all the time. It’s not a complex, lengthy, expensive procedure for someone to be put on the visitation list. If you put a card in your wallet with the names of non-family members who are allowed to visit the hospital will check ID and allow you to enter. Power of attorney is as simple as redrafting your living will and giving it to your lawyer.

Yes it is discrimination, so is not letting me be a mother. But, guess what suck it up.[/quote]

You not being able to be a mother is a case of discrimination?

Maybe you want to look up the word “discriminate”.

[/quote]

No, but people equate not getting their way with discrimination. It’s called not having it your way.[/quote]

Discrimination? I’m currently being discriminated against because of my age. Where do I go to have new laws written so that I don’t feel the pain of not being able to join the US military? I can easily pass their physical fitness test. But alas because of my age the US government will not allow me to join.

One can only imagine the pain that polygamists and incestuous couples are currently feeling because of discrimination. Is there no end to the unfairness that the government has brought to bear on us?

54

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]

Yeah, and I can’t do any of that with my friend. I was talking about the hospital and power of attorney, both of those are relatively easy.[/quote]

But you can do all of that with your spouse. Which is kinda the point.

55

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

And the fact that one group of people can easily get all those rights bundled up in one package, in a system where no judge will ever arbitrarily decide to ignore them, compared to another group who has to go through a complex, lengthy, and expensive procedure for some of those same rights, where any judge can simply decide to ignore those agreements, is a blatant form of discrimination on the part of the government.[/quote]

Easily? No, not really that easily. And, Judge’s ignore the institution of marriage all the time. It’s not a complex, lengthy, expensive procedure for someone to be put on the visitation list. If you put a card in your wallet with the names of non-family members who are allowed to visit the hospital will check ID and allow you to enter. Power of attorney is as simple as redrafting your living will and giving it to your lawyer.

Yes it is discrimination, so is not letting me be a mother. But, guess what suck it up.[/quote]

You not being able to be a mother is a case of discrimination?

Maybe you want to look up the word “discriminate”.

[/quote]

No, but people equate not getting their way with discrimination. It’s called not having it your way.[/quote]

In this case though it clearly is a case of discrimination if hetero couples can marry and gays cannot.

Whether you recognize those marriages is up to you, whether a government recognizes them, if it feels it has to meddle in marriages at all, is a matter of civil rights.

What is basically done is denying a contract to consenting adults based on their sexual preference.

56

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

And the fact that one group of people can easily get all those rights bundled up in one package, in a system where no judge will ever arbitrarily decide to ignore them, compared to another group who has to go through a complex, lengthy, and expensive procedure for some of those same rights, where any judge can simply decide to ignore those agreements, is a blatant form of discrimination on the part of the government.[/quote]

Easily? No, not really that easily. And, Judge’s ignore the institution of marriage all the time. It’s not a complex, lengthy, expensive procedure for someone to be put on the visitation list. If you put a card in your wallet with the names of non-family members who are allowed to visit the hospital will check ID and allow you to enter. Power of attorney is as simple as redrafting your living will and giving it to your lawyer.

Yes it is discrimination, so is not letting me be a mother. But, guess what suck it up.[/quote]

You not being able to be a mother is a case of discrimination?

Maybe you want to look up the word “discriminate”.

[/quote]

No, but people equate not getting their way with discrimination. It’s called not having it your way.[/quote]

Discrimination? I’m currently being discriminated against because of my age. Where do I go to have new laws written so that I don’t feel the pain of not being able to join the US military? I can easily pass their physical fitness test. But alas because of my age the US government will not allow me to join.

One can only imagine the pain that polygamists and incestuous couples are currently feeling because of discrimination. Is there no end to the unfairness that the government has brought to bear on us?[/quote]

Different scenario, the government discriminating as an employer is different from the government discriminating by preventing two people to close a contract.

57

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

And the fact that one group of people can easily get all those rights bundled up in one package, in a system where no judge will ever arbitrarily decide to ignore them, compared to another group who has to go through a complex, lengthy, and expensive procedure for some of those same rights, where any judge can simply decide to ignore those agreements, is a blatant form of discrimination on the part of the government.[/quote]

Easily? No, not really that easily. And, Judge’s ignore the institution of marriage all the time. It’s not a complex, lengthy, expensive procedure for someone to be put on the visitation list. If you put a card in your wallet with the names of non-family members who are allowed to visit the hospital will check ID and allow you to enter. Power of attorney is as simple as redrafting your living will and giving it to your lawyer.

Yes it is discrimination, so is not letting me be a mother. But, guess what suck it up.[/quote]

You not being able to be a mother is a case of discrimination?

Maybe you want to look up the word “discriminate”.

[/quote]

No, but people equate not getting their way with discrimination. It’s called not having it your way.[/quote]

In this case though it clearly is a case of discrimination if hetero couples can marry and gays cannot.

Whether you recognize those marriages is up to you, whether a government recognizes them, if it feels it has to meddle in marriages at all, is a matter of civil rights.

What is basically done is denying a contract to consenting adults based on their sexual preference.[/quote]

You are spot on with that orion, spot on. And as I’ve mentioned several times if we are going to recognize homosexual marriage, I think there are other less traditional unions that also need to be recognized as well. And there is also much discrimination regarding age, shall we call it “ageism?”

There needs to be some mighty changes in this country because what we’ve been doing for over 200 years is obviously not working.

58

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

And the fact that one group of people can easily get all those rights bundled up in one package, in a system where no judge will ever arbitrarily decide to ignore them, compared to another group who has to go through a complex, lengthy, and expensive procedure for some of those same rights, where any judge can simply decide to ignore those agreements, is a blatant form of discrimination on the part of the government.[/quote]

Easily? No, not really that easily. And, Judge’s ignore the institution of marriage all the time. It’s not a complex, lengthy, expensive procedure for someone to be put on the visitation list. If you put a card in your wallet with the names of non-family members who are allowed to visit the hospital will check ID and allow you to enter. Power of attorney is as simple as redrafting your living will and giving it to your lawyer.

Yes it is discrimination, so is not letting me be a mother. But, guess what suck it up.[/quote]

You not being able to be a mother is a case of discrimination?

Maybe you want to look up the word “discriminate”.

[/quote]

No, but people equate not getting their way with discrimination. It’s called not having it your way.[/quote]

Discrimination? I’m currently being discriminated against because of my age. Where do I go to have new laws written so that I don’t feel the pain of not being able to join the US military? I can easily pass their physical fitness test. But alas because of my age the US government will not allow me to join.

One can only imagine the pain that polygamists and incestuous couples are currently feeling because of discrimination. Is there no end to the unfairness that the government has brought to bear on us?[/quote]

Different scenario, the government discriminating as an employer is different from the government discriminating by preventing two people to close a contract.[/quote]

you’re splitting hairs orion. It doesn’t matter the reason for the discrimination all that matters is that there IS discrimination. I could produce literally hundreds of documents which shows a high degree of evidence that practicing homosexuality is dangerous, but so what? The point is these poor…poor homosexuals are not allowed to marry. AND, similarily keeping someone who is older than the traditional recruit out of the military is discrimination pure and simple.

I don’t think there should be any more discrimination of any kind by the government.

I just want people to be happy and pretty much do whatever they want - I want everyone to be able to live by their own code. I’m so sick of the same old same old.

What we need is hope and change…oh wait we have that huh?

59

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Same-sex marriage = gravely immoral. [/quote]

Feel free to condemn me to hell in your church, just don’t force your religious beliefs on me through our government.

Then again, maybe we should start denying marriage to people who are divorced, have sex without culminating in vaginal intercourse, and all other kinds of gravely immoral acts.[/quote]

What is wrong with making rational and moral judgments? And, I don’t believe in divorce so unless their marriage is annulled, then it is a pseudo-polygamy situation. [/quote]

Then why don’t you support laws making it illegal for someone to marry if they’re already divorced and not annulled?

Why don’t you support laws making it illegal to marry if you practice sex that doesn’t always include vaginal intercourse?[/quote]

I don’t think the state should be involved, just because I am against same-sex marriage doesn’t mean I’m not against the state intervening. And your last sentence doesn’t make sense, if someone practices sex that doesn’t always include vaginal intercourse that doesn’t mean it won’t produce children when they do have vaginal intercourse. Same-sex marriage will never produce children. However, I do support correcting those that practice immoral sex which as you said includes the conjugal act when it is not finished in the vaginal canal.

60

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]

Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?

What are they thinking, really.[/quote]

You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]

This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]

Yeah, and I can’t do any of that with my friend. I was talking about the hospital and power of attorney, both of those are relatively easy.[/quote]

But you can do all of that with your spouse. Which is kinda the point.[/quote]

Yes, because she would be part of my immediate family.