Federal Marriage Amendment Re-introduced in Senate

gracie935 wrote:
You want to leave religion out of marriage, do ya?

Gracie: Do you even listen to what you say? We are not the ones trying to change the Constitution and other laws to force our religious views on other people. On the one hand you want to claim marriage is a religious institution then you want only YOUR particular religion to get preference from the courts and the laws.

BTW clergy from many different religions have been performing "marriages" for same sex couples for a long time.

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like I said, financially. We suffer from the tax dollars being wasted on all of the legal costs incurred dealing with homosexuals and the homosexual agenda; instead of dealing with the REAL issues.
This is no different than when the zoosexuals start screaming for their rights. God knows how much that fiasco is going to cost.

thats not a excuse...as the LGBT community subsidizes the heteros community/thier public services and public schools...etc...while at the same time paying higher taxes since Marriage is out of thier reach...you still haven't explained how it would affect you?

BlueLamp wrote:

<quoted text>
Right. And we all know that when women and blacks got the right to vote, children and animals immediately followed gaining their right to vote.

My puppy is going to vote for Nader!

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently you have not seen how animals are suing for rights now. The right to consent will come in time, just like homosexual "marriage" has come in time.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/080529-chi...

Fascinating article. However I think there's not a lot of chance a court would classify a chimp as a human - since it's a chimp. I wouldn't be surprised, however, FortMyers, if a court reclassified you as a chimp.

Anndee wrote:

<quoted text>
Give me a break!
I know quite a few gays.
I don't buy it for on minute.
This is just a politcal manuever.
Same as that gay college student that wanted to be a Boy Scout leader. He couldn't have care less about the Boy Scouts. He was just an activist.
Of the males I know , the last thing they want is a monogamous relationship.
In the females, one couple did get married and it lasted 6 months.
So before you started lecturing me about divorce court
I've been married to the same man for 38 years.

I'm glad you have enjoyed such a long marriage. I'm going to visit my parents tonight to help them celebrate 66 years.
My husband and I will be celebrating our 8th anniversary this August. My two best friends have been together for 12 years and are raising a beautiful baby daughter. My sister's six year relationship ended when her partner passed away from brain cancer.

Your world is very small. There are thousands and thousands of gay couples who are committed and monogamous, and have been that way for years, some as long as my parents.

As for the young man who sued the BSA, you didn't research that very well either. The man cared genuinely and deeply about the Boy Scouts and his part in the organization. for you to call him a sensationalist and an activist is cruel and libelous. And why? What's the point? Did it make YOU feel any better?

David Divelbiss wrote:

Yellow Light-bulbs
Stars
Checkmarks
Nauseating, watching these sodomites pat each other on the butt!

You like it when the football players do it though.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
My puppy is going to vote for Nader!

I have a dog and 14 cats. If I can get them all registered to vote it may be the first time Oklahoma goes Democrat since Johnson!!!

Disgusted American wrote:

<quoted text>thats not a excuse...as the LGBT community subsidizes the heteros community/thier public services and public schools...etc...while at the same time paying higher taxes since Marriage is out of thier reach...you still haven't explained how it would affect you?

Incorrect. MFJ rarely ever yields lower taxes. Hence, the "marriage penalty". There is no subsidizing. Check your facts.

Done That wrote:

<quoted text>No a negative out come is not necessary to a slippery slope. There are those who think this was a negative outcome. The only reason I think an 18 year old should vote is if in the military. He can't buy a drink but he can vote

can you show me a slippery slope argument that doesnt involve a future negative outcome..? I have never met one. they are always as follows; "if b is an exception to A, then no part of A is true." and aall hell will break loose as the result. and the examples used (of what is projected to take place) are always extreme cases of negatives. as we see in this debate. gay marriage will automatically lead to all sorts of other aberrant marriages.

all made with zero proof. all the past SS arguments used didnt result in their negative outcomes and can be seen to negate this one.

ltndncr59 wrote:

<quoted text>
In childish debates perhaps, but not in formal debates.

Incorrect. Cause and effect is a main debating point. The term "slippery slope" is used by those who have been defeated. That and insults/name calling.

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like I said, financially. We suffer from the tax dollars being wasted on all of the legal costs incurred dealing with homosexuals and the homosexual agenda; instead of dealing with the REAL issues.
This is no different than when the zoosexuals start screaming for their rights. God knows how much that fiasco is going to cost.

oh right, youre the arbitar of Real Issues, and not?

there would not be these extra cost if gay-unions were automatically given the legal rights they wished for from the beginning...

and Im sure you favor various other agendas that waste a greater amount of "our" money than I care to spend...

you know, of course, that Vitter (R-La) and Craig (R-Idaho) are among the co-sponsors of the Amendment. I don't approve of wedge-issue Constitutional Amendments (prohibition, abortion, marriage, etc). The Constitution should be treated with more respect. Equal protection and liberty are very helpful concepts, along with due process and others. Or, would be, if the people appointed to the courts recently were not so scary.

From the Constituion of the Uninted States of America (and not the bible or any other book from any religion):

14th Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Article IV
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/const...

Light Sensitive wrote:

<quoted text>
there would not be these extra cost if gay-unions were automatically given the legal rights they wished for from the beginning...

LOL. There are extra costs to everything.

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like I said, financially. We suffer from the tax dollars being wasted on all of the legal costs incurred dealing with homosexuals and the homosexual agenda; instead of dealing with the REAL issues.
This is no different than when the zoosexuals start screaming for their rights. God knows how much that fiasco is going to cost.

suck it up buttercup!

Fort Myers wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL. There are extra costs to everything.

so whats your point? doesnt sitting on the rationality fence like that hurt your butt?

Symone wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
I'm not a bigot.You only say I'm a bigot because I disagree with your point of view which is bigoted in itself.
<quoted text>
Here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnis...
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/f...
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/sune...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/27/g...
These links just show that the debate for legalizing other types of marriages is alive and well and may have gotten an extra boost now that the definition of marriage is becoming more debatable.Which is basically what I've been saying. You may choose to ignore this because it's damaging to your cause but it's hard to dispute that other people won't try to push their marriage agendas too.What's your basis for thinking that they won't? Do you have hard evidence that they won't or are you just going to on your assumptions that they won't?

The articles are interesting. The one one on incest especially, but I didn't see too much evidence that brothers and sisters will be allowed to marry anytime soon. The article dealt mostly with second and beyond cousins, and the science of genetics. There were no pending cases mentioned, just a basic listing of each state's laws regarding marriage and incest. The article further mentioned that many of the scientific reasons for preventing incest may be obsolete, when dealing with non-immediate family members, and also went into the changes in today's family, noting that uncles and aunts, nieces and nephews and cousins are less apt in modern society to live in the same household or even in the same neighborhood.
But that's all it was, not a diatribe against the nation for not letting Dad marry his daughter - something the article made very clear was never going to happen.
As far as polygamy is concerned, I think the LDS has a very good case for making polygamy legal, but as I said, that's not our fight. And should polygamy become legal, I really don't care. I am not going to marry multiple people. Polygamy was okay for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, I don't see why modern people can't practice the same.
Nowhere in any of your articles was there a statement that marriage equality will lead to polygamy and incest. In fact, the tenor of the articles was that all of these are completely separate issues.

Kerdy 1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, I dont subscribe to the new world ebonics dictionaries. I stick with the traditional English language that was taught to me from people who actually knew how to use the language properly. But we all know what the definition of stupid is. I guess you use "aint" a lot also.

The below was from Webster, genius. You didn't know that adjectives have comparatives and superlatives?

Try Strunk and White's "Elements of Style."

Anbreen wrote:

<quoted text>
The below was from Webster, genius. You didn't know that adjectives have comparatives and superlatives?
Try Strunk and White's "Elements of Style."

Welcome anbreen! You have meet the infamous 'Lord' kerdy!

LMAO he's not the brightest bulb in the group but he's the best liar!

Light Sensitive wrote:

<quoted text>
so whats your point? doesnt sitting on the rationality fence like that hurt your butt?

Yeah, you know us rational thinkers; always using logic, reason and common sense.