Obama-Marriage Debate - Somerset, KY

Discuss the national Obama-Marriage debate in Somerset, KY.

Are you with President Obama in supporting gay marriage?

Somerset is not with Obama on gay marriage
Not at all
 
92
Yes, all the way
 
65
I'm on the fence
 
1

Vote now in Somerset:

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1092 Jan 16, 2013
KennyKelly3 wrote:
.... The definition of marriage is arbitrary; but you claiming that marriage HAS to be a man and a woman, you are supporting that your definition of marriage must be enforced. You are the antithesis of sanctity of marriage because of this alone.
The male/female nature of marriage is ubiquitous, it exists in every culture at every time. That's the antithesis of arbitrary.

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

#1093 Jan 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The male/female nature of marriage is ubiquitous, it exists in every culture at every time. That's the antithesis of arbitrary.
Every culture also included incest, and many cultures include polygamy and same-sex relations. It still is arbitrary because marriage is a diverse term.

It's hard to mask bigotry, isn't it? lol!

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1094 Jan 16, 2013
Can you cite? Every case of polygamy and incest I've heard of was male/female. That's part of what I mean when I wrote, "the male/female nature of marriage is ubiquitous".

Not in the least bit arbitrary; The Kentucky Constitution, Section 233A says, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky."

Same sex marriage supporters ignore law, precedent and the people's will. Is it any wonder they don't want to think about the consequences of their policy? They prefer to think of themselves as enlightened and call their opponents bigots.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1095 Jan 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Can you cite? Every case of polygamy and incest I've heard of was male/female. That's part of what I mean when I wrote, "the male/female nature of marriage is ubiquitous".
Not in the least bit arbitrary; The Kentucky Constitution, Section 233A says, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky."
Same sex marriage supporters ignore law, precedent and the people's will. Is it any wonder they don't want to think about the consequences of their policy? They prefer to think of themselves as enlightened and call their opponents bigots.
You have pointed out argument you think is valid....You have yet to give one that the state finds valid. Brian sometimes the people are wrong when it comes to laws if you need examples I can provide them but I am sure you understand that concept, or am I giving you too much credit? You are also wrong on the people will. The majority of the nation now support SSM. There was a time when inter-racial marriage was thought bad, but as time progressed and so did people they realized that they were wrong. There are people still today that think inter-racial marriage is bad, but we now they are wrong. Just like a few months/years from now their will still be people who think SSM is bad, but equality and justice for all moves forward.

As I have stated before why not give a valid state vested interest in preventing SSM not you points. My guess is you can't and if you do like I have stated before you might want to let the legal team who is defending Prop 8 and DOMA know since they don't have a clue either.
Billy Bob

Sunbright, TN

#1096 Jan 16, 2013
Gay marriage is the product of a moral decaying nation.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1098 Jan 16, 2013
Billy Bob wrote:
Gay marriage is the product of a moral decaying nation.
Under whose definition of morality?

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1097 Jan 16, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Can you cite? Every case of polygamy and incest I've heard of was male/female. That's part of what I mean when I wrote, "the male/female nature of marriage is ubiquitous".
Thought I would give you some links since you are unable to google things for yourself.

http://www.firstpeople.us/articles/the-two-sp...

http://jfh.sagepub.com/content/32/4/343.short

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-...

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

#1099 Jan 16, 2013
Billy Bob wrote:
Gay marriage is the product of a moral decaying nation.
Hatred and bigotry are, I'm sorry. If loving someone of the same sex is immoral, while trying to put your business in someone else's life and hating them for it is moral, then you have no idea what morality is.
Yeah

Butler, KY

#1100 Jan 16, 2013
Allanon80 wrote:
<quoted text>
Under whose definition of morality?
See post #1090

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1101 Jan 17, 2013
Allanon80 wrote:
Thought I would give you some links since you are unable to google things for yourself.
I claimed every case of incest and polygamy I've heard of is male/female. This is what I get.

.
Allanon80 wrote:
http://www.firstpeople.us/arti cles/the-two-spirit-people-of- indigenous-north-americans.htm l
Here we learn native Americans accepted homosexuality. There is no mention of incest or polygamy; it has nothing to do with my request.

.
Allanon80 wrote:
http://jfh.sagepub.com/content /32/4/343.short
This is sweet; the only legal mention of same sex marriage before the 21st Century is a low prohibiting it with the penalty of capital punishment. When I write: "Same sex marriage is harmful to homosexuals" the Theodosian Code is exactly what I mean:

CTh.9.7.3

Impp. Constantius et Constans aa. ad populum. Cum vir nubit in
feminam, femina viros proiectura quid cupiat, ubi sexus perdidit
locum, ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, ubi venus mutatur
in alteram formam, ubi amor quaeritur nec videtur, iubemus insurgere
leges, armari iura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur
infames, qui sunt vel qui futuri sunt rei. Dat. prid. non. dec.
Mediolano, proposita Romae XVII kal. ianuar. Constantio III et
Constante II aa. conss.(342 dec. 4).

Translation:
when a man who marries in the manner of a woman, a woman who is about to cast men aside, what does he wish? Where sex has lost its place, where the crime is that which it profits not to know, where Venus is changed into another form, where Amor does not seem to be looked for, we order the laws to rise up, the statutes to be armed with the avenging sword so that the guilty, in the present and future, will be subjected to exquisite punishments.

http://ancientrome.ru/ius/library/codex/theod...

This supports my arguments but doesn't answer my point, every incest marriage and polygamous marriage I've discovered is male/female.

.
Allanon80 wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H istory_of_same-sex_unions
Again, this Wikipedia page says nothing about incest or polygamous marriage. The page is about unions: I support civil unions and domestic partnerships.

It's unreliable, even with Wikipedia's own scoring mechanism.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1102 Jan 17, 2013
If you read again their good Brian I was talking about you saying there was a lack of SSM in history which you are wrong. Furthermore if you read the reason that GLBT people were killed from that point and a long time after was for what reason? I know it right there on the tip of my tongue.....I know something else was gaining traction at that time as well....I know this group burned women for being witches, then there was the crusades, and lets not forget telling us all the world is flat and we are the center of the universe. What was that group again?

Regardless you have failed to give an answer to the the following which I will repost:

You have pointed out arguments you think is valid....You have yet to give one that the state finds valid. Brian sometimes the people are wrong when it comes to laws if you need examples I can provide them but I am sure you understand that concept, or am I giving you too much credit? You are also wrong on the peoples will. The majority of the nation now support SSM. There was a time when inter-racial marriage was thought bad, but as time progressed and so did people they realized that they were wrong. There are people still today that think inter-racial marriage is bad, but we now they are wrong. Just like a few months/years from now their will still be people who think SSM is bad, but equality and justice for all moves forward.

As I have stated before why not give a valid state vested interest in preventing SSM not you points. My guess is you can't, and if you do, like I have stated before you might want to let the legal team who is defending Prop 8 and DOMA know since they don't have a clue either.
Yeah

Butler, KY

#1103 Jan 17, 2013
Allanon80 wrote:
As I have stated before why not give a valid state vested interest in preventing SSM not you points. My guess is you can't, and if you do, like I have stated before you might want to let the legal team who is defending Prop 8 and DOMA know since they don't have a clue either.
Will brothers be allowed to marry?

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1104 Jan 17, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>
Will brothers be allowed to marry?
Are they allowed now? Are you one of those slippery slope people. What's next? Do you wonder if SSM is granted people will want to marry their animals or how about a corpse.
Yeah

Butler, KY

#1105 Jan 17, 2013
Allanon80 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are they allowed now? Are you one of those slippery slope people. What's next? Do you wonder if SSM is granted people will want to marry their animals or how about a corpse.
"Slippery slope" is not some magic word that automtatically invalidates someones point when you say it. You guys make me laugh when you try to use that.

What legal arguement would you use to say that two gay brothers could not marry each other? Does the state have a reason to keep them from marrying?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1107 Jan 18, 2013
The only pre21st century law about same sex marriage is the Theodosian Code that says the penalty for same sex marriage is death. Backlash and scapegoating are well known and documented historical and political forces. If you care about the lives of your gay acquaintances and relatives; keep marriage male/female.

“Statism is slavery”

Since: Jan 13

Somerset, KY

#1108 Jan 18, 2013
It's obvious some people have forgot how government got involved in marriage. No State defined marriage until the 1910s. The People just got married, and while there was common straight marriages, there was also polygamous and incestuous marriages.

But as soon as interracial couples became a thing, the People wanted to end that. SO they foolishly go to government, arguing the sanctity of marriage. The result? Marriage license.

That's right, for those who never got married, in order to be married you have to have the government's permission. They eventually lifted the interracial barrier. But then abused that power and banned other types of marriages.

How about we do the right thing and just repeal marriage license laws? Then mind our own business on what consenting adults do in their own homes, to their own bodies, and in their contracts. Because that's pretty much what a marriage is, underneath it all, a contract.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1109 Jan 18, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>
"Slippery slope" is not some magic word that automtatically invalidates someones point when you say it. You guys make me laugh when you try to use that.
What legal arguement would you use to say that two gay brothers could not marry each other? Does the state have a reason to keep them from marrying?
The state does have reason to keep siblings from marriage. It has to do with pro-creation. Yes you are trying to provide a slippery slope argument. I personally don't care if two siblings married be they gay or straight because it does not effect me. That is the main point here it does not effect you if GLBT people get married.

Saying that if you allow A then Z will happen too is a slippery slope argument and is a poor way to debate.

“Welcome to the Winds of Change”

Level 5

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#1110 Jan 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The only pre21st century law about same sex marriage is the Theodosian Code that says the penalty for same sex marriage is death. Backlash and scapegoating are well known and documented historical and political forces. If you care about the lives of your gay acquaintances and relatives; keep marriage male/female.
please re-read post 1102 and try again.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Level 6

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#1111 Jan 19, 2013
KennyKelly3 wrote:
It's obvious some people have forgot how government got involved in marriage. No State defined marriage until the 1910s. The People just got married, and while there was common straight marriages, there was also polygamous and incestuous marriages.
But as soon as interracial couples became a thing, the People wanted to end that. SO they foolishly go to government, arguing the sanctity of marriage. The result? Marriage license.
That's right, for those who never got married, in order to be married you have to have the government's permission. They eventually lifted the interracial barrier. But then abused that power and banned other types of marriages.
How about we do the right thing and just repeal marriage license laws? Then mind our own business on what consenting adults do in their own homes, to their own bodies, and in their contracts. Because that's pretty much what a marriage is, underneath it all, a contract.
Nice to see this thread is still going. It is a very important topic.

I kinda agree with this poster. I would actually be open minded to the idea of getting government out of marriage altogether. That would actually solve a lot of these issues. Then the homophobes could go and "oppose gay marriage" till they are blue in the face and it wouldn't matter.

But I haven't parsed out this particular angle enough to say one way or the other how I feel about it. The immediate effect would be that a lot of the privileges straight couples enjoy could vanish, which might be ok. We don't need to be giving special rights to straight people anyway (and yes, I'm one of them).

I've heard this argument from a few different places recently and it is interesting.

I'm really eager to see how the Supreme Court comes down this year on the issue of gay marriage, though. Even though they are currently right-leaning I find it hard to imagine them opposing it. Primarily due to the fact that there is no rational basis to do so, but also because over 50% of Americans are now in favor of allowing gay marriages to be recognized. It was inevitable that it would come to the Supreme Court and it appears that 2013 might be a significant milestone.

If you'd asked me 5 years ago I would have said it would take another 15 years. Seems I might have been wrong.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1112 Jan 19, 2013
Reading Kenny's post, I learned many same sex marriage supporters don't understand marriage law. No state has banned same sex marriage but Congress banned polygamy more than 150 years ago. Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act and President Abraham Lincoln signed it into law in 1862.

The law limits marriage to one husband and one wife and punishes polygamy with fine and imprisonment:

Here's the text:

Chapter CXXVI – An Act to punish and prevent the Practice of Polygamy in the Territories of the United States and other Places, and disapproving and annulling certain Acts of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That every person having a husband or wife living, who shall marry any other person, whether married or single, in a Terrority of the United States, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall, except in the cases specified in the proviso to this section, be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years: Provided, nevertheless, That this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years without being known to such person within that time to be living; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by the decree of a competent court; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which shall have been annulled or pronounced void by the sentence or decree of a competent court on the ground of the nullity of the marriage contract.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the following ordinance of the provisional government of the State of Deseret, so called, namely:“An ordinance incorporating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” passed February eight, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-one, and adopted, reenacted, and made valid by the governor and legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah by an act passed January nineteen, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-five, entitled “An act in relation to the compilation and revision of the laws and resolutions in force in Utah Territory, their publication, and distribution,” and all other acts and parts of acts heretofore passed by the said legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah, which establish, support, maintain, shield, or countenance polygamy, be, and the same hereby are, disapproved and annulled: Provided, That this act shall be so limited and construed as not to affect or interfere with the right of property legally acquired under the ordinance heretofore mentioned, nor with the right “to worship God according to the dictates of conscience,” but only to annul all acts and laws which establish, maintain, protect, or countenance the practice of polygamy, evasively called spiritual marriage, however disguised by legal or ecclesiastical solemnities, sacraments, ceremonies, consecrations, or other contrivances.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any corporation or association for religious or charitable purposes to acquire or hold real estate in any Territory of the United States during the existence of the territorial government of greater value than fifty thousand dollars; and all real estate acquired or held by any such corporation or association contrary to the provisions of this act shall be forfeited and escheat to the United States: Provided, That existing vested rights in real estate not be impaired by the provisions of this section.

APPROVED, July 1, 1862

http://probationarystate.blogspot.de/2010/06/...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Somerset Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
KY What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... 7 min ole Joe 7,079
County Judge-Exec 17 min pitbullie 133
4 word game (Jan '09) 17 min Princess Hey 1,877
Government wanting to Ban Teens from working in... 30 min Stupid tax payer 6
Hey Hatti. (Jan '12) 2 hr Hatti_Hollerand 21,187
gay cruising (Jul '09) 2 hr Ricky 14
Word Association (Feb '09) 3 hr Jennifer Renee 11,567

Somerset Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]