For candidates and ballot measure to legalize gay marriage, of course.
does that mean I can't vote republican?
toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
does that mean I can't vote republican?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No Chrys, they want their parents to cut each others heads off or for one of them to emigrate to Fiji and live as a goat. What is with you nowadays? Obviously it's best if a couple stay together but it's simply not always tenable for a variety of reasons, and a marriage contract isn't some magical cure for failed relationships.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
If the couple in question have children and it's possible to work things out then yes. That goes for couples married or not. Obviously marriage itself is not even about children to begin with, but as long as you like your hat handed back to you then repeat the same stupid mantra dude.
Dena
New member
I see you missed my point.
If negative rep on an internet forum is your idea of punishment then you sure do live a blessed life. At any rate, I didn't give you neg rep because you don't accept homosexuality. I've given neg rep only three times during my three years on this forum. You are perfectly entitled to think homosexuality is wrong. That is your business and it follows along with your religion. I gave you negative rep because you are hateful, rude and mean spirited about it. Not only that but you praise others for the same behavior! So go ahead and whine to the rest of the forum if it makes you feel better.
why should they stay together if there are no children involved?
griffinsavard
New member
According to Matthew 19 Jesus said whatever God instituted let not man do away with....A man and a woman is of God, go create your own unity. Why do gay people believe their relationship should be monogamous? A man and a woman constitute the creation of God go make your own institutions and bring them before Government. Marriage between a man and woman is a CHRISTIAN institution....
You could vote for a Log Cabin Republican. Or you could just write a letter to you Congressman telling them that you'd prefer they didn't vote against gay marriage. Or you could even refrain from advocating for the continuance of the the discriminatory practice and continue voting for Republicans. I don't suggest that this be the one issue that determines who you vote for. But you seem interested in advocating the continued discrimination, so I figured we'd address that before talking about what you could do to help.
I vote republican because of abortion
and
I am not going to waste one minute of my time worrying about a couple of guys living together
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . in which version of the most common christian wedding vows does it say . . . "you must have children"?
Yes, I understand that. And I don't suggest that you change it over this issue. But there are many things that you could do within the Republican party to help, if you truly did believe in equality. I'm just pointing out that you don't need to support discriminatory marriage policies just so that you can oppose abortion. That's a separate choice that you make.
Did you know that the new law in New York legalizing gay marriage passed because several Republicans were persuaded to vote for it?
But you will waste a bunch of your time defending the discrimination against them? Why does it seem like your time is not the real issue?
So you, like other Republicans, are FOR abortion. Nice to know.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . she does that . . . a LOT.
. . . good description of IK . . . very good.
. . . being against same-sex marriage is a religious "thing".
In Chrysostom's version ...
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh gee, I dunno....because they love each other? :idea:
lain:Again, marriage is (so far as the state is involved) a contract. Whatever religious or personal gravitas or understanding it carries for the individual is not a matter of legal enforcement. It has parties, terms, statutory definitions and legal particulars that must be followed in dissolution. It carries certain obligations and privileges and has punitive protections for interference from outside parties.
A marriage may but need not consist of more than the immediate parties to it. Children, when and if they become a part of that union, are provided for by statute as regards the obligations of the parties.
As with any contract, some honor it and others don't, irrespective of whether or not children have become an issue.
Any other or additional value beyond the binding of the parties subject to conditions allowing dissolution is entirely subjective and has no bearing on the legal legitimacy of the union.
"What's love got to do, got to do with it
What's love but a second hand emotion
What's love got to do, got to do with it
Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken"
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . :snap: . . . :doh:.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
. . . :idunno:
. . . Abraham and Sarah stayed together with no prospect of having ANY children . . . until . . . there was divine intervention . . . or so I've read . . . :think:.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Dena
New member
1. love
2. commitment
3. divorce pretty much sucks for all parties involved and that includes all the family members on both sides
I don't even understand your argument here? My husband and I have been together 10 years, married for five. We do not have any children. We should just get divorced?
- Status