Plainol... You address ONLY the prurient point, not the actual facts that make us all equal....
Even the definition you posted is not definite... it says "a person of the same sex in a relationship "LIKE" that of a traditional marriage." Unions "LIKE" that of a traditional marriage (making Gays LEGALLY equal) have been passed in several states and do meet your posted definition yet as Keith points out the Gay community is not happy with that... they demand that the state call it "Marriage"... this has failed in 33 states and will continue to fail every time there is a popular vote. The word "Marry" has (regardless of your stance on religion) religious connotations is is one of the seven sacraments.... while most people will say they don't care publicly they are like the proverbial atheist in the foxhole.... they vote their culture and tradition and for what they know to be a correct definition. Marriage is not about sex... regardless of what the Gay community wants us to think... it IS about family and procreation (love is not a requirement for these things). On Jun 19, 8:17 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree that government has no business in marriage. > --- > then they should have no say in who gets married > > the definition of marriage will not be > changed based upon one's sexual behavior. > --- > it has already changed. Seehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage > Definition of MARRIAGE > 1 > a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as > husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship > recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the > same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. > > I predict that this whole movement will come > back to hurt the Gay movement for acceptability and equal protections. > Those States who have approved and allowed for the redefinition of > marriage > will eventually change and strike these laws, as I think you will see > the > military reverse it's recent determination to allow openly Gay men and > women in the service. > --- > a pipe dream > > only the religious persecute gays. > > On Jun 19, 3:35 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree that government has no business in marriage. > > > As Mark rightfully and correctly stated, any man can marry anyone that he > > so chooses, and any woman can marry anyone that she so chooses. Nothing > > has changed in North Carolina, with the exception of North Carolinians, > > like Floridians and something like 36 other states' citizenry, > > have unequivocally made clear that the definition of marriage will not be > > changed based upon one's sexual behavior. > > > Plain Ol', you can try to spin it any way that you want, but the move by > > the militant Gay Agenda, which is a part of the secularist movement > > to revise American history, is not about discrimination. It's not > > about equal rights. This movement/agenda is about secularists such as > > yourself attempting to change the very morality of, and the fabric of our > > Nation. To change the definition of marriage, and the Western/Christian > > moral tenets that our Nation is based upon. Most Americans reject an > > attempt to redefine the term marriage. > > > Just to prove my point that this has nothing to do with equal rights or > > discrimination: Assuming for a moment that a State > > acknowledges homosexuals' privilege of "joining" as a couple, and giving > > them the same status as heterosexual "married" couples was to affect a > > class of people, (which it doesn't; again we have established that there > > is no class of people, homosexuals are no different than you or I, and > > only can be distinguished by their admission of what they do sexually) then > > this has been accomplished in a number of States, to include California, > > New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, and a host of other States. Civil > > Unions have been allowed in these States for a number of years. The > > militant Gay Agenda, as well as secularists such as yourself, have not > > been satisfied with "equal". Civil Unions were not good enough. No, > > there was no happy medium, but only the change of the term "marriage" was > > acceptable; the only purpose of which was to shove what many Americans > > believe to be an immoral lifestyle and unnatural acts down our proverbial > > throats. > > > It's not going to happen, and I predict that this whole movement will come > > back to hurt the Gay movement for acceptability and equal protections. > > Those States who have approved and allowed for the redefinition of marriage > > will eventually change and strike these laws, as I think you will see the > > military reverse it's recent determination to allow openly Gay men and > > women in the service. > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > Plainol... Any man can marry any woman... It applies very equally to > > > gays. > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > homosexuals are still guaranteed those same > > > > identical rights that you and I > > > > --- > > > > not true > > > > they can't get married or receive spousal benefits ... for starters > > > > > On Jun 18, 2:45 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > And today, as was three weeks ago before North Carolina voted to > > > maintain > > > > > the definition of marriage, homosexuals are still guaranteed those > > > same > > > > > identical rights that you and I have. Nothing's changed, other than > > > North > > > > > Carolina chose not to grant a certain group of people more rights than > > > I > > > > > have, or that you have, because of their behavior. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, plainolamerican > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > North Carolina did nothing that was > > > > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action > > > > > > against a > > > > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the religious and > > > > > > the blacks > > > > > > > This was a > > > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North > > > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs. > > > > > > --- > > > > > > their beliefs, reliious or not, have no effects on the courts > > > > > > decisions > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Well said Mark. > > > > > > > > We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think writers > > > such > > > > > > as > > > > > > > Chris Bassil are missing, is that North Carolina did nothing that > > > was > > > > > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action > > > against > > > > > > a > > > > > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. This was a > > > > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North > > > > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs. > > > > > > > > At one time I was opposed to amending the Constitution to define > > > > > > marriage. > > > > > > > I see no other alternative. The militant Gays and those that have > > > been > > > > > > > brain washed into believing that this is some type of "right" > > > need to be > > > > > > > quashed and shut down on this issue. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th > > > Amendment... > > > > > > > > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral > > > compass > > > > > > > > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as the > > > > > > > > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is well > > > > > > > > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any basic > > > > > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012 > > > > > > > > > byChris Bassil > > > > > > > > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North > > > Carolina > > > > > > > > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing gay > > > > > > marriage, > > > > > > > > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was passed > > > by > > > > > > voters. > > > > > > > > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory content, > > > the > > > > > > former > > > > > > > > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but > > > much of > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything > > > else. > > > > > > > > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that > > > this > > > > > > > > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but > > > rather > > > > > > that we > > > > > > > > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a means > > > of > > > > > > > > collective decision making in the first place. > > > > > > > > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue > > > of gay > > > > > > > > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly assumes > > > that > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place of > > > > > > business, > > > > > > > > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for > > > collective > > > > > > > > decision making. It suggests that state residency is a common > > > > > > denominator > > > > > > > > fundamental enough to bind 9.7 million people to one another's > > > > > > opinions, > > > > > > > > interests, and backgrounds -- complex, diverse, and > > > > > > > > contradictory > > > > > > though > > > > > > > > they may be. It contends that it is morally acceptable for 93 > > > counties > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > decide an issue not only for themselves but for the remaining > > > seven as > > > > > > > > well. And it denies a man -- or two, or several -- the > > > opportunity to > > > > > > lead > > > > > > > > his life as he, and not as his distant neighbors, sees fit. > > > > > > > > > In fact, this is true of any state election -- from the local > > > to the > > > > > > > > federal -- regardless of the issue or its outcome. To be sure, > > > the > > > > > > > > Amendment 1 decision results in a greater and more visible loss > > > of > > > > > > freedom > > > > > > > > than many others, but each and every vote that has ever been > > > cast has > > > > > > been > > > > > > > > predicated on establishing a uniform set of rules for a > > > heterogeneous > > > > > > group > > > > > > > > of people. A simple examination of the purpose behind voting > > > shows > > > > > > this to > > > > > > > > be true a priori. If, on the one hand, the population were > > > entirely > > > > > > > > homogeneous, there would be no need to vote, because our > > > identical > > > > > > beliefs, > > > > > > > > incentives, and experiences would compel us all toward the exact > > > same > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
