| Author |
Message |
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
 Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:21 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | 4evajaneway wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | 4evajaneway wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | I believe it is about 80% of the country. And it's a tradition that should NOT be changed. It is NOT like we're not letting gays vote or anything more than marriage. |
What about the other 20%? |
A small minority. And it might be more, it might be less. If anything, it's more. |
A small minority? I realize that the population of the united states is somewhere in excess of 280,000,000. 20% of 280 mil is 56,000,000. Yes, its statistically a small number, only 20%. But 56,000,000 people is a lot of people. Thats roughly the population of Chicago, New York, and LA combined and trippled. |
1. Actually, it's over 300 million people.
2. Those are poll numbers. I think that it's reasonable to assume that it could very well be more than that that want traditional marriage. Especially considering the bias of the polls. |
Okay, well, since when have we ever done things the way a democracy should? So, lets throw democracy out the window (we're so good at doing that) and do what we should. Technically it shouldn't be able to be banned by law, because its a religous thing. And don't even pretend for a minute its not.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:24 pm |
|
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | Okay, well, since when have we ever done things the way a democracy should? So, lets throw democracy out the window (we're so good at doing that) and do what we should. Technically it shouldn't be able to be banned by law, because its a religous thing. And don't even pretend for a minute its not. |
Actually, it's NOT simply a religious thing. There is a legal argument, too, but that's NOT the debate here. That is Civil Unions. Why can't they just have Civil Unions? I'm legally for them.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:29 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Actually, it's NOT simply a religious thing. There is a legal argument, too, but that's NOT the debate here. That is Civil Unions. Why can't they just have Civil Unions? I'm legally for them. |
Whats the legal aspect based on?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:33 pm |
|
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Actually, it's NOT simply a religious thing. There is a legal argument, too, but that's NOT the debate here. That is Civil Unions. Why can't they just have Civil Unions? I'm legally for them. |
Whats the legal aspect based on? |
No more debate on Gay Marriage. I don't want to debate that further. I've said it many times, however.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:45 am |
|
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Actually, it's NOT simply a religious thing. There is a legal argument, too, but that's NOT the debate here. That is Civil Unions. Why can't they just have Civil Unions? I'm legally for them. |
Whats the legal aspect based on? |
Basically people can think that it's not natural and sick? The main argument is religion though.
|
|
|
Ithildin
Junior Cadet
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 16
|
| Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:07 pm |
|
The main argument is religion, but the problem with that it that not everyone follows the religious practices that are being presented. People are governing others with their strict moral beliefs, but it doesn't seem fair. The 'sanctity' of marriage isn't the issue because a civil union, being a legal document, is not exactly sacred. What's the big deal? Just because the bible condemns homosexuality, people have to infringe upon others rights? That's sad.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 12:26 pm |
|
| Ithildin wrote: | | The main argument is religion, but the problem with that it that not everyone follows the religious practices that are being presented. People are governing others with their strict moral beliefs, but it doesn't seem fair. The 'sanctity' of marriage isn't the issue because a civil union, being a legal document, is not exactly sacred. What's the big deal? Just because the bible condemns homosexuality, people have to infringe upon others rights? That's sad. |
Legal arguments can't be based on religion. The sanctity of marriage is not simply religious, it's a meaningful tradition, one of the most in history. And if you allow gay marriage, then you have to allow ALL OTHER FORMS OF RELIGION, under equal protection. So allow one alternate form of marriage, you have to radically change the institution and allow ALL OTHER forms of marriage. Why can't they just basically have the same thing, but not force the definition of marriage to change--THEY'RE definition upon us, disposing of the TRUE definition?
HAVE A civil union!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 2:40 pm |
|
Why not just eliminate the religious aspect altogether and have everybody getting joined in civil union?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 2:42 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | Why not just eliminate the religious aspect altogether and have everybody getting joined in civil union? |
Because marriage is a deeply-held institution that's not purely religious and is between a MAN AND A WOMAN. There is NO reason to make everyone get a civil union.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Zeke Zabertini
Captain
Joined: 13 Sep 2002
Posts: 4832
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 3:19 pm |
|
On the contrary, my concern is that the legal rights of couples (groups?) in marriage and in civil unions will deviate over time, creating an inequality. I think it is best to have only one classification of union, to prevent such discrimination.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 3:38 pm |
|
| Zeke Zabertini wrote: | | On the contrary, my concern is that the legal rights of couples (groups?) in marriage and in civil unions will deviate over time, creating an inequality. I think it is best to have only one classification of union, to prevent such discrimination. |
I don't see that as happening, UNLESS we allow Gay Marriage to occur. If that happens, THEN the rights would go down. No, one classification is not good. We should keep the traditional marriage, and allow civil unions for gays if need be.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 4:34 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I don't see that as happening, UNLESS we allow Gay Marriage to occur. If that happens, THEN the rights would go down. No, one classification is not good. We should keep the traditional marriage, and allow civil unions for gays if need be. |
How the hell would the rights go down if we allow gay marriage?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun May 01, 2005 4:58 pm |
|
I think that might have been a stupid statement  But I think that if marriage rights WERE to go down, it would be under gay marriage in the marriage system. But whatever.
Look, the Civil Union debate has gone to the gay marriage debate, and it's a circular debate that's too tiring, annoying, and consistent to debate. I'm done unless I see something KEY to argue.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:07 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Not having the right to vote, not being allowed to make decisions, not getting paid the same, etc. Gay marriage is ONE issue from a SACRED tradition held dear. The definition of marriage is NOT something to be changed. |
Well, sacred depends on beliefs. Sure, marriage shouldn't be abused with constant divorce; however, at the core marriage is simply about a complete union of two people who love eachother.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:09 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | Not having the right to vote, not being allowed to make decisions, not getting paid the same, etc. Gay marriage is ONE issue from a SACRED tradition held dear. The definition of marriage is NOT something to be changed. |
Well, sacred depends on beliefs. Sure, marriage shouldn't be abused with constant divorce; however, at the core marriage is simply about a complete union of two people who love eachother. |
No. A complete union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Something doesn't have to be exactly religious to be "sacred" 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:12 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | Something doesn't have to be exactly religious to be "sacred" |
Who/what defines what is sacred?
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue May 03, 2005 4:15 pm |
|
^^My point exactly, it doesn't have to be religious. Why would gays even want to be married in a Catholic Church (for example)?
I don't feel its any of my business whether gays want to be married or not. I couldn't care less, they aren't hurting anybody.
If half of all gays could have sex changes, then there wouldn't be a problem (or at least thats what I'm getting from your logic,  ) ?
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
