Gay Marriage Debate - Hinesville, GA

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Hinesville, GA.

Do you support gay marriage?

Hinesville opposes
Oppose
 
52
Support
 
26

Vote now in Hinesville:

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 56 of56
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Jan 24, 2013
 
K Long wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that reproduction is a " requirment" for marriage, but even one with the twisted view that you have must understand that one of the blessings of marriage is children. If gay marriage was natural they wouldn't be incapable of reproducing. How long would the earth's population exist if everyone was queer? As for your comments on gay animals and the fact that only 11 animals mate for life, making it unnatural, you have to be joking. Are we to pattern ourselves after animals? I thought that God made man to have dominion over the earth and subdue it, making them superior to animals. With your reasoning we should kill and devour each other, mate with our offspring, and fight over who gets to breed the females. This would be natural since it is practiced in the animal kingdom.
If gay marriage was natural they wouldn't be incapable of reproducing
So you are saying that marriage was natural you must be able to reproduce
so...
A couple where one is infertile... is an unnatural marriage
A couple where one was "fixed" prior to marraige is a unnatural marriage
A marriage of a post menopausal women is an unnatural marriage.
Got you....

You mention God... Did they teach you in school.. that we as a nation are a republic... not a theocracy... so what you believe "god" said in your "holy book" is irrelevant when it comes to the law and civil rights....

Tell me leaving all theological viewpoints out of it, why you believe two u.s. citizens should be denied the same rights given to two other citizens? Then tell me how the equal protection clause of the 14th does not blow your reasoning out of the water.
K Long

Springfield, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Jan 24, 2013
 
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
If gay marriage was natural they wouldn't be incapable of reproducing
So you are saying that marriage was natural you must be able to reproduce
so...
A couple where one is infertile... is an unnatural marriage
A couple where one was "fixed" prior to marraige is a unnatural marriage
A marriage of a post menopausal women is an unnatural marriage.
Got you....
You mention God... Did they teach you in school.. that we as a nation are a republic... not a theocracy... so what you believe "god" said in your "holy book" is irrelevant when it comes to the law and civil rights....
Tell me leaving all theological viewpoints out of it, why you believe two u.s. citizens should be denied the same rights given to two other citizens? Then tell me how the equal protection clause of the 14th does not blow your reasoning out of the water.
What do you mean " Got you"? Do you honestly think that you have presented a solid argument? The aforementioned normal couples who can't have children are the exception, not the rule. While gay couples who can't have children ( 100%) ARE the rule. Did they teach you THAT in school? The " god" and my " holy book" that you so disrespectfully speak of is the basis for all law. Where do you think that law prohibiting murder, theft, etc. comes from? That's right, the " holy book". With your perverted reasoning there can be no judgment of any behavior of any kind. Pedophilia may seem just as natural to the pedophile as homosexualtity is to you. But, with your reasoning you can't judge this behavior. The " equal protection clause" provides this right for them. To you everything is relative with no rule of law and order. If you consider pedophilia, incest, polygamy, beastiality or adultery as being wrong, number yourself a hypocrite.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Jan 24, 2013
 
K Long wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean " Got you"? Do you honestly think that you have presented a solid argument? The aforementioned normal couples who can't have children are the exception, not the rule. While gay couples who can't have children ( 100%) ARE the rule. Did they teach you THAT in school? The " god" and my " holy book" that you so disrespectfully speak of is the basis for all law. Where do you think that law prohibiting murder, theft, etc. comes from? That's right, the " holy book". With your perverted reasoning there can be no judgment of any behavior of any kind. Pedophilia may seem just as natural to the pedophile as homosexualtity is to you. But, with your reasoning you can't judge this behavior. The " equal protection clause" provides this right for them. To you everything is relative with no rule of law and order. If you consider pedophilia, incest, polygamy, beastiality or adultery as being wrong, number yourself a hypocrite.
"The aforementioned normal couples who can't have children are the exception, not the rule. While gay couples who can't have children ( 100%) ARE the rule. Did they teach you THAT in school? "

Sorry.. thanks to the 14th... you cant have such "exceptions"... If you put having children as a reason for marriage... exception or not ANYONE who can not have children would be prohibited...

"The aforementioned normal couples who can't have children are the exception,"
But if they can not have children... they can't be normal... your the one who put that there not me.... Do you need me who show you what your wrote?....

"The " god" and my " holy book" that you so disrespectfully speak of is the basis for all law. Where do you think that law prohibiting murder, theft, etc. comes from? That's right, the " holy book"."

Really.. so hindoos believe in murder and theft...? After all YOUR holy book is not theirs but by your statement no murder theft comes from Your holy book..... I guess since athiest dont believe in your book.. they believe in murder and thievery also... after all it all comes from your book... not universal law.....

ith your perverted reasoning there can be no judgment of any behavior of any kind. "
So where in your mind did you get I said that?..... Go on.. remember the comandment thou shalt not lie... and sow me where I said that....

"Pedophilia may seem just as natural to the pedophile as homosexualtity is to you."
Difference is pedophile hurt people... homo. do not.. except the sensibilities of bible thumpers...

. To you everything is relative with no rule of law and order.
Again where did I say that... liar
What I said was we are not a theocracy... we are not ruled by any persons theological view point.... Maybe you should read up on what a theocracy is...

If you consider pedophilia, incest, polygamy, beastiality or adultery as being wrong, number yourself a hypocrite."

Do you ever quit lieign.... where did I say all those were acceptable?.....
What I said was just because some of those may or may not be in your holy book,,,, does not make us a theocracy... now does it.... oh i forgot you dont know exactly what a theocracy is...

Now I will ask you again.. not really expecting a answer... leaving your theology out of it... tell me why you believe it is ok to deny the right to enter into a contract from two u.s. citizens and allow it to two others.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Jan 25, 2013
 
K Long wrote:
<quoted text>
It's no more strange than two men or women getting married. Just curious, if this is so natural, why can't they reproduce? Could it be that it goes against God's natural order?
There are also marriages between man and wife that can't reproduce either. What's your point?
K Long

Springfield, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Jan 25, 2013
 
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"The aforementioned normal couples who can't have children are the exception, not the rule. While gay couples who can't have children ( 100%) ARE the rule. Did they teach you THAT in school? "
Sorry.. thanks to the 14th... you cant have such "exceptions"... If you put having children as a reason for marriage... exception or not ANYONE who can not have children would be prohibited...
"The aforementioned normal couples who can't have children are the exception,"
But if they can not have children... they can't be normal... your the one who put that there not me.... Do you need me who show you what your wrote?....
"The " god" and my " holy book" that you so disrespectfully speak of is the basis for all law. Where do you think that law prohibiting murder, theft, etc. comes from? That's right, the " holy book"."
Really.. so hindoos believe in murder and theft...? After all YOUR holy book is not theirs but by your statement no murder theft comes from Your holy book..... I guess since athiest dont believe in your book.. they believe in murder and thievery also... after all it all comes from your book... not universal law.....
ith your perverted reasoning there can be no judgment of any behavior of any kind. "
So where in your mind did you get I said that?..... Go on.. remember the comandment thou shalt not lie... and sow me where I said that....
"Pedophilia may seem just as natural to the pedophile as homosexualtity is to you."
Difference is pedophile hurt people... homo. do not.. except the sensibilities of bible thumpers...
. To you everything is relative with no rule of law and order.
Again where did I say that... liar
What I said was we are not a theocracy... we are not ruled by any persons theological view point.... Maybe you should read up on what a theocracy is...
If you consider pedophilia, incest, polygamy, beastiality or adultery as being wrong, number yourself a hypocrite."
Do you ever quit lieign.... where did I say all those were acceptable?.....
What I said was just because some of those may or may not be in your holy book,,,, does not make us a theocracy... now does it.... oh i forgot you dont know exactly what a theocracy is...
Now I will ask you again.. not really expecting a answer... leaving your theology out of it... tell me why you believe it is ok to deny the right to enter into a contract from two u.s. citizens and allow it to two others.
Well I'll be. I've just discovered that I am a liar, have been misspelling Hindu ( Hindoos) and lying ( lieign) all my life. I don't understand what a theocracy is, two people of the same sex can have children,and that I am a bible thumper that doesn't have the right to be offended while proponents of queer marriage do. I doubt that there is anything that I could say that could convince you or of the rest of the sodomite supporters that it is wrong, so I'll leave you with Prov. 26:4-5.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Jan 25, 2013
 
K Long wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'll be. I've just discovered that I am a liar, have been misspelling Hindu ( Hindoos) and lying ( lieign) all my life. I don't understand what a theocracy is, two people of the same sex can have children,and that I am a bible thumper that doesn't have the right to be offended while proponents of queer marriage do. I doubt that there is anything that I could say that could convince you or of the rest of the sodomite supporters that it is wrong, so I'll leave you with Prov. 26:4-5.
"Well I'll be. I've just discovered that I am a liar, have been misspelling Hindu ( Hindoos) and lying ( lieign) all my life. "
Topix rule 101... you can tell when someone has no real argument when they start going after spelling mistakes and not the subject at hand... oh btw ( lieign) pot kettle

" I don't understand what a theocracy "
I can only go by what I see... you seem to think that because many of the people writing our constitution were of the christian faith.. we must be accountable to what the Bible says and use that as our laws.... Not realizing what the constitution means by separation of church and state, and the equal protection clause.

"I am a bible thumper that doesn't have the right to be offended while proponents of queer marriage do."
Where exactly did I say you did not have the right to be offended.... oh yea yet another lie....
You can be offended as much as you want... just can not take away their rights because your delicate nature is "offended"

"I doubt that there is anything that I could say that could convince you or of the rest of the sodomite supporters that it is wrong, so I'll leave you with Prov. 26:4-5. "

If you put together a logical arguement leaving your faith out of it.. you might stand a chance. But since you only have your version of your holy book to back you bias up.. you can't.... so you are correct.
A little snowflake spoke

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Jan 28, 2013
 
Correction Please wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it's okay if my Mom and I get married?
If you want to, then go right ahead. I support gay marriage because if two people wish to spend the rest of their lives together under a legal bond, then they they should be allowed to do so. If you and your mother wish to get married, those of us who support freedom of wedlock shall support you. And, what if you're atheist or lacking in a religion? Should you be prohibited from something you want when the very people who oppose partake in a belief system that you don't support? How is that fair? Where are the values of freedom and liberty that America preaches, when we can't even agree on something that, in many people's eyes, shouldn't even be of consequence? Were it something like the future of America's (downward-spiralling) economy, then I would be willing to discuss more thoroughly the details of the issue, but is it really so hard to permit two people wedlock if they want it? If it disgusts you, fine. If you think it's a sin, okay. Go right ahead believing it. You may adhere to such a belief so long as it is not used to inhibit the freedom and love of others.
pat

Saint Petersburg, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Feb 18, 2013
 
Marriage is for a man and woman. and that is how it should stay. if they want to live there way so be it . but not married in the eyes of God.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Feb 18, 2013
 
pat wrote:
Marriage is for a man and woman. and that is how it should stay. if they want to live there way so be it . but not married in the eyes of God.
It is in the eyes of the law that matter.... Marriage is a civil contract. We are not a theocracy
K Long

Glennville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Feb 19, 2013
 
Just curious. How do we decide what our laws should be? How do we choose what is allowed and what is not? What do we use for our legal template? Is it based on our personal opinions? what if they differ? Who gets to decide? While we might be able to tolerate some lifestyles that offend us, if it becomes a matter of law, doesn't that make the citizens willingly or unwillingly associated with it?
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Feb 19, 2013
 
K Long wrote:
Just curious. How do we decide what our laws should be? How do we choose what is allowed and what is not? What do we use for our legal template? Is it based on our personal opinions? what if they differ? Who gets to decide? While we might be able to tolerate some lifestyles that offend us, if it becomes a matter of law, doesn't that make the citizens willingly or unwillingly associated with it?
IMHO no.... The template for any law is the constitution. In the case of ssm, is it constitutional to allow one group to marry while not allowing the other. According to SCOTUS there is only one reason to for a state to deny rights to one group of citizens and allow it to another. That would be a overwhelming states interest. Now you can argue that the overwhelming states interest in having a 21 yo drinking age is the need to keep alcohol out of teenagers hands.... There can be a health and safty argument given. Now ask yourself what reason can be giving to allow the state to say osc can marry and have the rights and privileges of marriage, while denying a ssc the same . It can not be because some people disaprove of ssc or homosexuality... people disaprove of varioius people due to race religion yet they are not discriminated against by the law. It can not be propigation, i.e. osc will give children for the future ssc will not, as people who can not have c hildren, for whatever reason are allowed t marry... so what would the states interest be?.... Unless you can show an overwhelming interstest, then the state can not deny the ssc.
K Long

Glennville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Feb 19, 2013
 
Why is there a legal age for marriage? Is this constitutional? What is the state's interest in this? What about polygamy? If all parties involved agree, what does it matter? Other countries seem to practice this without any problems? If these things were being petitioned to become legal, would it be unconstitutional or immoral to oppose them?
K Long

Glennville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Feb 19, 2013
 
Why is there a legal age for marriage? What is the state's interest in this? Why is polygamy illegal? If all parties agree, what's the harm? Other countries allow this without any problems. If these things were petitioned to be made legal, would it be unconstitutional or immoral to oppose them?
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Feb 19, 2013
 
K Long wrote:
Why is there a legal age for marriage? Is this constitutional? What is the state's interest in this? What about polygamy? If all parties involved agree, what does it matter? Other countries seem to practice this without any problems? If these things were being petitioned to become legal, would it be unconstitutional or immoral to oppose them?
Why is there a legal age for marriage?
There are age of consent laws to protect minors. A case can be made of an overwhelming states interest in protection of children. Harm or potential harm can be shown.

What about polygamy"
Again a case can be argued about protecting the rights of women by the state... If the man dies... how is the estate divided?.. should it be equally so the person married 1 day gets as much as the one married 10 yrs>... bit absurd maybe.. but the issue can be argued. Harm or potential harm can be shown

Now what harm or potential harm can be shown for ssm?.

If these things were being petitioned to become legal, would it be unconstitutional or immoral to oppose them?

First unconstitutional and immoral are two separate items.
Morals are defined by the person... not state
Constitutionality is a different thing. The constitution does forbid polygamy or early marriage. This is a state issue. This is where they follow what SCOTUS has said the 14th amendment reads. The state can have these restrictions because they can show possible harm.

Secondly the 14th amendment has the equal protection clause. Basically it says that a state can not have two sets of rules for its citizens. If they allowed (again in the absurd) blond hair children to marry at 13 but not red haired... it would be unconstiturional. However since they have the same laws across the board... it is ok. Now with ssm vs osm.. they have two sets of rules. Now IF they could show a overwhelming states interest in having the rules there would not be an issue. But there is no overwhelming interest.. Unless you can show one.
K Long

Glennville, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Feb 19, 2013
 
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is there a legal age for marriage?
There are age of consent laws to protect minors. A case can be made of an overwhelming states interest in protection of children. Harm or potential harm can be shown.
What about polygamy"
Again a case can be argued about protecting the rights of women by the state... If the man dies... how is the estate divided?.. should it be equally so the person married 1 day gets as much as the one married 10 yrs>... bit absurd maybe.. but the issue can be argued. Harm or potential harm can be shown
Now what harm or potential harm can be shown for ssm?.
If these things were being petitioned to become legal, would it be unconstitutional or immoral to oppose them?
First unconstitutional and immoral are two separate items.
Morals are defined by the person... not state
Constitutionality is a different thing. The constitution does forbid polygamy or early marriage. This is a state issue. This is where they follow what SCOTUS has said the 14th amendment reads. The state can have these restrictions because they can show possible harm.
Secondly the 14th amendment has the equal protection clause. Basically it says that a state can not have two sets of rules for its citizens. If they allowed (again in the absurd) blond hair children to marry at 13 but not red haired... it would be unconstiturional. However since they have the same laws across the board... it is ok. Now with ssm vs osm.. they have two sets of rules. Now IF they could show a overwhelming states interest in having the rules there would not be an issue. But there is no overwhelming interest.. Unless you can show one.
Could it be argued that children raised by a gay couple needs protecting, as well? As you state, it could be argued. What do these children need protection from? Not long ago it wasn't uncommon for girls to marry at 13. Some would argue ( myself included ) that a child raised in a gay house needs protection more than a child bride. This could be considered overwhelming state interest.
The argument that you present against polygamy protecting the rights of women is by your own account a bit absurd. With this reasoning, a man should be limited to having children with one woman. If he has children by different wives, the potential for the heirs to claim seniority in the inheritance. There could be potential for harm.
Would not the 14th amendment's protection of the gay couple apply to the 13 yr. old bride or the polygamist as well? Their lifestyle is no more harmful than gay marriage.
I'll agree with the statement that it is a state issue. And the state could very easily prohibit it as a degenerate lifestyle, just as they do incest, polygamy, etc. It is harmful, in that it perverts the natural order of things. Men and women have defined roles in this world, and when that order is not followed chaos ensues.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Feb 19, 2013
 
K Long wrote:
<quoted text>Could it be argued that children raised by a gay couple needs protecting, as well? As you state, it could be argued. What do these children need protection from? Not long ago it wasn't uncommon for girls to marry at 13. Some would argue ( myself included ) that a child raised in a gay house needs protection more than a child bride. This could be considered overwhelming state interest.
The argument that you present against polygamy protecting the rights of women is by your own account a bit absurd. With this reasoning, a man should be limited to having children with one woman. If he has children by different wives, the potential for the heirs to claim seniority in the inheritance. There could be potential for harm.
Would not the 14th amendment's protection of the gay couple apply to the 13 yr. old bride or the polygamist as well? Their lifestyle is no more harmful than gay marriage.
I'll agree with the statement that it is a state issue. And the state could very easily prohibit it as a degenerate lifestyle, just as they do incest, polygamy, etc. It is harmful, in that it perverts the natural order of things. Men and women have defined roles in this world, and when that order is not followed chaos ensues.
Could it be argued that children raised by a gay couple needs protecting, as well? As you state, it could be argued. What do these children need protection from? Not long ago it wasn't uncommon for girls to marry at 13. Some would argue ( myself included ) that a child raised in a gay house needs protection more than a child bride. This could be considered overwhelming state interest.

It could be "argued" not successfully but it could I guess... There are many many studies showing that children raises by ssc are as well adjusted as those raised by osc. Plus... this has NOTHING to do with children. Again while ssc MAY have children via variuos methods or adopt, that is not a prereq for marriage. So you "children arguement" is silly strawman at best.

Just curious... what do you deem a child of two loving parents need protected from?... You seem relatively smart smart enough not to equate homosexuality with pedophilia... so what "protection" is needed.

Would not the 14th amendment's protection of the gay couple apply to the 13 yr. old bride or the polygamist as well? Their lifestyle is no more harmful than gay marriage.

How is a gay couple "lifestyle" harmful?...
No it can not be applied as the 14th says the law must be applied evenly. In otherwords if the state said black 13o girls could marry but not white then it wouldbe agaisnt the 14th. Since it is across the board, 14th is not in play. However w ssm vs osm.. it is because the state is saying which couple they will allow to marry for no reason other than sexual orientation. MAJOR difference.

"It is harmful, in that it perverts the natural order of things. Men and women have defined roles in this world, and when that order is not followed chaos ensues"

This is opinion, the perversion you speak of is opinion only. To equate homosexuality where the re is no victim, with incest where there is .. says a lot about you... not good ... but a lot still the same.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 56 of56
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Hinesville Discussions

Search the Hinesville Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
GA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia i... (Oct '10) 16 min free 39,444
Hobart closing Richmond Hill plant Apr 15 CURRENT EMPLOYEE 3
GA Who do you support for Governor in Georgia in 2... (Oct '10) Apr 13 youfool 1,983
Review: Jj&b Services Apr 10 Jacksinnj 2
A show for the troops: Lt. Dan Band rocks Fort ... Apr 7 LaDonna Clark 1
Motorists cautioned as smoke from Fort Stewart ... Apr 2 Lawswon 1
Anyone ever hear of a girl named Molly? Mar 31 Just wondering 1

Hinesville Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]