Obama-Marriage Debate - Spencer, TN

Discuss the national Obama-Marriage debate in Spencer, TN.

Are you with President Obama in supporting gay marriage?

Spencer is not with Obama on gay marriage
Not at all
 
8
Yes, all the way
 
2
I'm on the fence
 
0

Vote now in Spencer:

Comments
1 - 14 of 14 Comments Last updated -
Confused

Pikeville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 10, 2012
 
Dead against it
Former Democrat

Spencer, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 13, 2012
 
Former Democrat
No no

Pikeville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
May 16, 2012
 
Sick os
Nay

Pikeville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 16, 2012
 
I cant see why this is such a big issue,im against it
billy

Sparta, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 18, 2012
 
not at all
billy

Sparta, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 18, 2012
 
not at all that ant wright god didn,t make them that way he made a wpmen for a man
Mam

Spencer, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 23, 2012
 
Marriage is clearly meant to be between a man and a woman. God created man and then a woman from man's rib. If God wanted Marriage to be between the same sex he wouldn't have created Man AND Woman.
old timer

Pikeville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 23, 2012
 
are you Democrats that go to church still going to vote for Obama,my uncle is one of the old Rhineharts democrats,against Abortion,and hates Homosexuals, but he will vote that way because the Republicans did something 60 or so years ago,and gets mad when asked if he supports gay marriage. I say HELL NO!!!!!
Ron

Uniontown, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 25, 2012
 
Here are three reasons why gay marriage should be legal:

1) as marriage is a civil act (requiring governmental registration in the form of a marriage license) it is illegal and unconstitutional to deny them due process or equal protection under the law.

2) If the Bible is your justification for not supporting gay marriage, remember that homosexuality is only a sin in the Old Testament, in the same section that forbids work on the sabbath, eating pork, planting different crops in the same field, and commands people to stone adulterers to death. Those are the "old world" sins that Christ died to save us from, as described in the New Testament. In other words, you cannot logically condemn gay marriage unless you are equally willing to condemn the wearing of different fabrics, working on the Sabbath, eating pork and shellfish, or using foul language.

3) Gay marriage has been shown to have no impact on heterosexual marriage. If anything, the divorce rate decreases in place where same-sex marriage is legal.

If anyone has some proof or reason why same-sex marriage should not be legal, please let me know. I'd really like to hear it.

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 25, 2012
 
Here is why you are wrong.
Ron wrote:
Here are three reasons why gay marriage should be legal:
1) as marriage is a civil act (requiring governmental registration in the form of a marriage license) it is illegal and unconstitutional to deny them due process or equal protection under the law.
Although it is a civil act (and marriage is defined as one man/one woman BTW), it is not a civil right. The fact that siblings cannot marry proves that (unless you think civil rights can be withheld simply based on genetics/lineage)
Ron wrote:
2) If the Bible is your justification for not supporting gay marriage, remember that homosexuality is only a sin in the Old Testament, in the same section that forbids work on the sabbath, eating pork, planting different crops in the same field, and commands people to stone adulterers to death. Those are the "old world" sins that Christ died to save us from, as described in the New Testament. In other words, you cannot logically condemn gay marriage unless you are equally willing to condemn the wearing of different fabrics, working on the Sabbath, eating pork and shellfish, or using foul language.
The Bible is not a factor in determining US law.
Ron wrote:
3) Gay marriage has been shown to have no impact on heterosexual marriage. If anything, the divorce rate decreases in place where same-sex marriage is legal.
If anyone has some proof or reason why same-sex marriage should not be legal, please let me know. I'd really like to hear it.
Polygamy and incestuous marriage also do not impact heterosexual marriage, yet they are also not recognized by the gov't. And the reason is that they do not provide a sufficient benefit to society/the gov't.
Likewise, there is no sufficient reason for the traditional definition of marriage (in US history) to be changed for gays. There simply is no incentive or reason to do so.
If we are changing the definition because of "equality", then you have to include incestuous marriage and polygamy (since Lawrence V Texas decided you can't have laws based on "morality"-which led to the fall of most sodomy laws)
Ron

Uniontown, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 26, 2012
 
And, I think you're absolutely right. We have to be able to include all forms of consenting marriage in our definitions. If siblings want to marry each other, we should let them. If people want to marry multiple partners, we should let them. So long as consent is there, it's none of our business what people do in the bedroom.

Polygamous marriage does get dicey for tax purposes, though. I could see people marrying 15 others to claim 15 dependents on a tax return.... But gay marriage would not lead to that kind of abuse (at least, no more abuse than heterosexuals marrying solely for tax purposes).

You are absolutely right about the bible: it is irrelevant in US law. Thank you for pointing that out.

As far as how marriage is defined, that changes. People change the meanings of words all the time through use. A "legal definition" can be changed, just as the legal definition of "person" was changed to include former African American slaves in the US.
Sawber wrote:
Here is why you are wrong.
<quoted text>
Although it is a civil act (and marriage is defined as one man/one woman BTW), it is not a civil right. The fact that siblings cannot marry proves that (unless you think civil rights can be withheld simply based on genetics/lineage)
<quoted text>
The Bible is not a factor in determining US law.
<quoted text> Polygamy and incestuous marriage also do not impact heterosexual marriage, yet they are also not recognized by the gov't. And the reason is that they do not provide a sufficient benefit to society/the gov't.
Likewise, there is no sufficient reason for the traditional definition of marriage (in US history) to be changed for gays. There simply is no incentive or reason to do so.
If we are changing the definition because of "equality", then you have to include incestuous marriage and polygamy (since Lawrence V Texas decided you can't have laws based on "morality"-which led to the fall of most sodomy laws)

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 26, 2012
 
Ron wrote:
And, I think you're absolutely right. We have to be able to include all forms of consenting marriage in our definitions. If siblings want to marry each other, we should let them. If people want to marry multiple partners, we should let them. So long as consent is there, it's none of our business what people do in the bedroom.
Polygamous marriage does get dicey for tax purposes, though. I could see people marrying 15 others to claim 15 dependents on a tax return.... But gay marriage would not lead to that kind of abuse (at least, no more abuse than heterosexuals marrying solely for tax purposes).

<quoted text>
Ah, but it is not just the tax issues. Once we allow incestuous marriages, now a daughter can legally marry her ailing dad so that she can get widows Social Security benefits when he dies.

A woman in the military can marry her brother to get out of living in the barracks, get an increased housing allowance and get him medical and other benefits.

A person in the military can have 65 kids which the gov't will have to provide healthcare and other benefits along with perdiem when they move and a variety of other things--all for one worker.

The benefit of those and gay marriages simply are not worth the cost. If it is proven that those marriages are a right, then the cost is irrelevant, but that hasn't happened.
getty lee

Shelbyville, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
May 28, 2012
 
hey sawber i like that album

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
May 28, 2012
 
getty lee wrote:
hey sawber i like that album
Rock on, Geddy!

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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 Spencer Discussions

Search the Spencer Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Zack Flanagan 2 min EL OH EL 15
TN Who do you support for Governor in Tennessee in... (Oct '10) 1 hr WTSenior 140,875
Steve Mackie NOT in general sessions court 1 hr Yes he was 38
Have do feel about the blacks moving up here 1 hr karma 2
Dollar Store in Derossett (Jan '14) 1 hr Ihatethissite 24
James Bennett and WCHS molestation cover up 2 hr Not true 13
KKK meeting on square saturday at 9pm (Jul '13) 2 hr slapstick 22

Spencer Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]