Creation vs. Evolution

[sheck33]

The law of most states in the US currently reserve marriage for a man and women. That's hardly forcing anyone to follow the tenants of any religion.

Bull, how is that rule not totally religion based and therefore forces your beliefs on me.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Bull, how is that rule not totally religion based and therefore forces your beliefs on me.

I don't know if the legislators that wrote and passed our laws had any religion in mind when they did so or not. I suspect that we don't generally define it as marriage because it just doesn't make any sense to most people...and all law forces something on someone. that's what law does.

If we outlawed homosexual activity and enforced it, that would be forcing them.

I asked Saspotato what reasons one would have to change their mind (or vote) on the issue. I asked her to support her case.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Neither did you. So we're even now. :14:

I think I did answer your question. I said that I don't even like being forced to wear a seat belt. I prefer that the government never control my actions...of course they do it anyway.

We're not even. Gay marriage is not recognized in most of this country and you apparently think that should change. I asked you for reasons that it should.

 

[Sas]

I asked Saspotato what reasons one would have to change their mind (or vote) on the issue. I asked her to support her case.

And I gave you my reason and I have given you many reasons in the past. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

 

[MikeFerrara]

And I gave you my reason and I have given you many reasons in the past. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink...

If I've understood you, your reason is because you/they don't like it and you don't think it should matter to me?

That's not very compelling. Look, you're asking for a change. I'm ok with things just the way they are. It would seem incumbent upon you to support your case...or just get used to the idea that marriage is a man and a woman just as it has always been.

 

[Kim]

I asked you for reasons that it should.

If I understood the California ruling......it's because it's unconstitutional.

In the US, I'd imagine that would be a pretty compelling reason.

 

[MikeFerrara]

If I understood the California ruling......it's because it's unconstitutional.

In the US, I'd imagine that would be a pretty compelling reason.

That's a great reason but it was a close vote and I don't think it will stand.

Many states have or are in the process of clarifying the definition of marriage in their constitutions. Marriage in the Fifty States

And there is the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Defense of Marriage Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I suspect that if federal Defense of Marriage Act is tossed, it will just make way for a federal constitutional ammendment.

It looks like it will be a long up hill battle for a small number of people and a handfull of activist judges.

 

[MikeFerrara]

As I interpret this, the California ruling is a rather hollow victory. They'll just ammend the constitution. Further, few if any states will recognize same sex marriages that do take place in California in the mean time. If they cross state lines they aren't married anymore.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act prohibits the federal government from recognizing those marriages for any reason so, even if they stay in California, it won't even help them when they file their federal income tax.

As judges throw out state defense of marriage statutes, states will just be compelled to ammend their constitutions. I say that because it's generally considered undesireable to ammend a constitution. They aren't much good if you change them all the time and there's risk to letting legislators in there. So, when a proposed ammendment is redundant to existing statute, it's often voted down.

That's why, their only real hope is to work on the kids. If enough people grow up seeing same sex marriage as just everyday stuff, some future generation of voters will let it all happen. This campaign is taking place in our schools and involves a whole different set of proposed legislation, activist teachers/administrators and moves like the recent "gay rights day of silence" that was supported by some schools. Peer pressure works on kids.

 

[Sas]

That's why, their only real hope is to work on the kids. If enough people grow up seeing same sex marriage as just everyday stuff, some future generation of voters will let it all happen.

Yes, true. And I can't wait for that day Exciting to think, it will probably be in my life time!

 

[MikeFerrara]

Yes, true. And I can't wait for that day Exciting to think, it will probably be in my life time!

It's good that you don't deny it because that makes room for some discussion.

You have to keep in mind that this can't happen unless the parents of those school children allow it to happen by letting the school, HBO and MTV raise their children. That in itself is probably a bad thing. Exciting? It might be exciting all right but maybe in some ways that you haven't thought of.

You should also realize that the gay agenda hasn't been very sneaky about their plan and there are plenty of parents who will protect their children. There are a lot of things that you can pull off without getting folks too worked but start messing with their children and the game changes.

But, if that level of decadence is what our future holds, then so be it.