Angry & Tearful Over Gay Marriage Vote

#5
#5
TennTradition said:
I would say that it is entirely possible that 'the people' could do the wrong thing...do you find the concept that the people's vote could be viewed as the wrong thing, or just in this instance?
Click to expand...

Obviously she's referring to the state senate being wrong in this instance. However, the fact that she was elected to office with an enormous personal agenda, that amounts to zilch, shows that the general voters got it wrong.
 
#7
#7
TennTradition said:
I would say that it is entirely possible that 'the people' could do the wrong thing...do you find the concept that the people's vote could be viewed as the wrong thing, or just in this instance?
Click to expand...

well the vote has gone to 31 states, and 31 states have shot it down. Despite how it is portrayed in the media, gay marriages are not what the people want.
 
#8
#8
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
well the vote has gone to 31 states, and 31 states have shot it down. Despite how it is portrayed in the media, gay marriages are not what the people want.
Click to expand...

many times people are too stupid to know the difference in what they want and what is right
 
#9
#9
who said it was right?

by the same logic, the people made a mistake by voting in the Barackstar?
 
#10
#10
utvolpj said:
many times people are too stupid to know the difference in what they want and what is right
Click to expand...

All 31 states have got it right, gay marriage is not right and when a state like California votes it down, twice, show that this country does not support gay marriage, and rightly so.
 
#11
#11
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
who said it was right?

by the same logic, the people made a mistake by voting in the Barackstar?
Click to expand...

many people think it's right and of course the voting public got it wrong by voting for obama. Not that the other option was much better.

volfanjustin said:
All 31 states have got it right, gay marriage is not right and when a state like California votes it down, twice, show that this country does not support gay marriage, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it's right in your world. Many things have looked right at the time but history shows people were ignorant and prejudiced. I'm confident my kids/grandkids will look back and see this as another wtf moment in US history
 
#12
#12
utvolpj said:
many people think it's right and of course the voting public got it wrong by voting for obama. Not that the other option was much better.



I'm sure it's right in your world. Many things have looked right at the time but history shows people were ignorant and prejudiced. I'm confident my kids/grandkids will look back and see this as another wtf moment in US history
Click to expand...

then they need to get out and vote if that many people think its right, not just complain about it when it doesnt go their way. I know our government is starting hand EVERYTHING out for nothing, but geez, at least make an attempt to vote.
 
#13
#13
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
then they need to get out and vote if that many people think its right, not just complain about it when it doesnt go their way. I know our government is starting hand EVERYTHING out for nothing, but geez, at least make an attempt to vote.
Click to expand...

but most people don't see it as much of an issue. It's only the crazy, passionate ones who make sure to get to the polls. If people lived their lives using common sense this would never reach a vote.
 
#14
#14
utvolpj said:
but most people don't see it as much of an issue. It's only the crazy, passionate ones who make sure to get to the polls. If people lived their lives using common sense this would never reach a vote.
Click to expand...

i see that argument,


but do you really think gay marriage would pass without any resistance anywhere?

if you look at it from a science standpoint
main purpose of marriage is to further populate society, the only way to reproduce is a heterosexual relationship between a male and female, therefore marriages between female and female or male and male are invalid.
 
#15
#15
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
i see that argument,


but do you really think gay marriage would pass without any resistance anywhere?

if you look at it from a science standpoint
main purpose of marriage is to further populate society, the only way to reproduce is a heterosexual relationship between a male and female, therefore marriages between female and female or male and male are invalid.
Click to expand...

The reason for marriage doesn't seem to further populate society but to form a stable small community to make your life more possible/easier. As a woman, the male traditionally protected you. As a male, the woman typically fed you and provided you with children to help you perform the tasks you needed to get done. It takes a basic amount of effort to produce any food...so having to produce more food to feed a few more mouths requires in some ways less energy per person, simply because of the large initial energy cost.

The reason for scrogging is to populate the world. That is different than the reason for marriage. And, today, the reason for marriage is evolving away from the protection mode and into a much more emotional and financial role. As long as governments continue to grant marriages, I think that they need to extend them to all parties. I just wish that the government would stop granting marriage licenses, but would grant recognized unions to anyone married in a church or anyone the government 'unites' (but also enforce the same rules regarding divorce and re-marrying).
 
#16
#16
TennTradition said:
The reason for marriage doesn't seem to further populate society but to form a stable small community to make your life more possible/easier. As a woman, the male traditionally protected you. As a male, the woman typically fed you and provided you with children to help you perform the tasks you needed to get done. It takes a basic amount of effort to produce any food...so having to produce more food to feed a few more mouths requires in some ways less energy per person, simply because of the large initial energy cost.

The reason for scrogging is to populate the world. That is different than the reason for marriage. And, today, the reason for marriage is evolving away from the protection mode and into a much more emotional and financial role. As long as governments continue to grant marriages, I think that they need to extend them to all parties. I just wish that the government would stop granting marriage licenses, but would grant recognized unions to anyone married in a church or anyone the government 'unites' (but also enforce the same rules regarding divorce and re-marrying).
Click to expand...

why?
 
#17
#17
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
i see that argument,


but do you really think gay marriage would pass without any resistance anywhere?

if you look at it from a science standpoint
main purpose of marriage is to further populate society, the only way to reproduce is a heterosexual relationship between a male and female, therefore marriages between female and female or male and male are invalid.
Click to expand...

my opinion is that it should never come up for a vote so it wouldn't need to pass. I've looked at my marriage and 2 dudes getting hitched does nothing to hurt it. My life's the same, my wife's life is the same, our kids life will be the same, etc.
 
#18
#18
well marriage generally has a religious overtone to it, and in most if not all religions, being gay is wrong. so whats wrong with gays getting "civil unions?"
 
#19
#19
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
why?
Click to expand...

Because if marriage really is an institution of the church that needs to be protected, then the government doesn't need to be in the business of it - local, state, etc. I think that you avoid most of these concerns if the government (which can't discriminate) grants recognitions of unions to those who are officially 'married' or legal unions to those are aren't 'married' but want to be legally tied.

I am sure that there are a lot of atheists who were 'married' at a courthouse that would seriously argue with the idea that 'marriage is a religious institution.' I actually like the idea of protecting the institution that the churches really developed ... and that is why I would argue for the government to get out of the business of it.
 
#20
#20
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
well marriage generally has a religious overtone to it, and in most if not all religions, being gay is wrong. so whats wrong with gays getting "civil unions?"
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with civil unions, personally. But, I think that all 'marriages' granted by a court/government should be 'civil unions' and not 'marriages.'
 
#21
#21
utvolpj said:
but most people don't see it as much of an issue. It's only the crazy, passionate ones who make sure to get to the polls. If people lived their lives using common sense this would never reach a vote.
Click to expand...

Then these people have no reason to cry about it, this issue went to vote for everyone in the state and it has failed. This is the correct process, don't let the govt force on us who should be married, let the states decide. Which is what has happened here.
 
#22
#22
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
well marriage generally has a religious overtone to it, and in most if not all religions, being gay is wrong. so whats wrong with gays getting "civil unions?"
Click to expand...

i'm getting married this summer by my female friend who got her license off of the internet. jesus and/or god will not be mentioned in the ceremony. religion has nothing to do with marriage. marriage existed well before the birth of christ.
 
#23
#23
droski said:
i'm getting married this summer by my female friend who got her license off of the internet. jesus and/or god will not be mentioned in the ceremony. religion has nothing to do with marriage. marriage existed well before the birth of christ.
Click to expand...

who said religion=Christianity?
 
#24
#24
isn't christianity the reason why some of you gentlemen argue that gay marriage is wrong?
 
#25
#25
GASOUTHERNVOL said:
well marriage generally has a religious overtone to it, and in most if not all religions, being gay is wrong. so whats wrong with gays getting "civil unions?"
Click to expand...

what's wrong with all "marriages" being labeled civil unions by the gov't

volfanjustin said:
This is the correct process,
Click to expand...

the correct process is to let the will of the people discriminate? Pretty sure that's wrong
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top