Gay Marriage ban unconstitutional.
- Thread starter hugo
- Start date
Ahhlee
New member
I completely agree with you there, hugo.
It's funny because I really do see both sides to the argument.
You have the extreme conservatives freaking out over the idea of homosexuality in general, so they try to utilize the laws and government to condemn and impede the lifestyle at every turn.
Then you have the exteme liberals who simply won't be happy with a legal marriage being acknowledged. They will push their agenda into all the churches and demand that their lifestyle choice be not only accepted by mainstream society, but also sanctified by *** and all those who believe in His word and teachings.
Well, some people just don't believe same *** partnerships are ok, and they are still within their rights to feel that way!
You know, if people would just worry about what's going on in their own backyards rather than pushing their personal agendas upon everyone else, the world would be a much happier place.
I would think her happiness is paramount. If my kids were gay and they found someone to share a life with, why would I stand in their way of making it official? Besides...marriages today are a complete and utter joke. Today...marriages mean nothing more than a bad decision that can be remedied quickly with some signed papers. Why bother.
Ahhlee
New member
If the neighbor is right there messing in my yard and pushing an agenda that directly affects me and mine, then you're **** right I will do something about it if it goes against my beliefs. I'm a fukking **** cat when it comes to protecting my own.
Other than that, live and let live.
That's my take on it.
Ain't that the truth.
I told my mom I'm never getting married again. She said I'm too young to think that way. I told her I'm too smart not to.
timesjoke
Active Members
My take on it is as a nation of laws we should be allowing for the committed relationships of adults, period. I don't think we should even restrict multi relationships, benefits can be evenly divided among more than one survivor just as easily as one survivor. On a purely legal basis, how can we say two people being committed to each other is any different than three or four, or even 100?
Religious relationships called Marriage was accepted because they were here before our Government but I believe "civil unions" or whatever new term they want to use should be approved to offer the same exact legal rights that man/woman relationships have.
Yes, non-religious people have been using the term marriage as well, and they have 'muddied up the water' for how the unions are perceived by the general public, but I see no reason to further degrade the religious term when a perfectly acceptable system can be offered to give all the same rights without at the same time completely removing the religious nature of the term they began in America.
Religious relationships called Marriage was accepted because they were here before our Government but I believe "civil unions" or whatever new term they want to use should be approved to offer the same exact legal rights that man/woman relationships have.
Yes, non-religious people have been using the term marriage as well, and they have 'muddied up the water' for how the unions are perceived by the general public, but I see no reason to further degrade the religious term when a perfectly acceptable system can be offered to give all the same rights without at the same time completely removing the religious nature of the term they began in America.