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:

Confused

Pikeville, TN

#1 May 10, 2012
Dead against it
Former Democrat

Pelham, TN

#2 May 13, 2012
Former Democrat
No no

Pikeville, TN

#3 May 16, 2012
Sick os
Nay

Pikeville, TN

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

Sparta, TN

#5 May 18, 2012
not at all
billy

Sparta, TN

#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

Pelham, TN

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#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

#13 May 28, 2012
hey sawber i like that album

Since: Oct 09

Harv wishes he were me

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

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.

Spencer Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
allen brent green 2 hr Al Henry 4
Who is the most handsome man in Sparta? 4 hr mee 5
Nails 6 hr Leroy 4
Where should I get my nails done? 8 hr mole 2
Daycare 16 hr Jessie 3
Holly Smith 17 hr wild man 12
Flu Season Fri Al Henry 2
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]