Harleyman Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 The Constitution doesn't have to specifically say single sex couples can have a legal relationship. The Constitution doesn't specifically say that mixed sex couples can get married and have a legal relationship does it? The Constitution says plenty of things you just gloss over and ignore and take on for yourselves over there. The most common one being the right to bear arms. A bit of common sense might go a long way on this. Thank god we do have a Constitution and it came about because of the necessity to safeguard citizens from politicians who just messed around with basic human rights in Europe on a mere whim. Maybe it's about time you had one in the UK or do you think that a Head of State should inherit the position by lineal descent with all the trappings of wealth that go with it?... most of it obtained by robbery and jobbery in the distant past. Every citizen has the right to be heard on any subject and when the subject of gay marriage which is frowned on by a large segment of the American population comes up it's serious enough to be dealt with on a responsible level and not by some arrogant individual entity who thinks his or her opinion should count above all and offending and alienating many others is of secondary importance. So again the issue of same sex marriage will be decided somewhere in the future by democratic process and not by dictatorial methods. What's the right to bear arms got to do with this thread? You keep trying to sideline the discussion with irrelevancies. If you want to discuss that subject start a new thread although it's already been flogged to death Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted May 10, 2012 Author Share Posted May 10, 2012 Thank god we do have a Constitution and it came about because of the necessity to safeguard citizens from politicians who just messed around with basic human rights in Europe on a mere whim. Maybe it's about time you had one in the UK or do you think that a Head of State should inherit the position by lineal descent with all the trappings of wealth that go with it?... most of it obtained by robbery and jobbery in the distant past.Agree entirely Every citizen has the right to be heard on any subject and when the subject of gay marriage which is frowned on by a large segment of the American population comes up it's serious enough to be dealt with on a responsible level and not by some arrogant individual entity who thinks his or her opinion should count above all and offending and alienating many others is of secondary importance.Agree mostly What's the right to bear arms got to do with this thread? You keep trying to sideline the discussion with irrelevancies. If you want to discuss that subject start a new thread although it's already been flogged to deathYou brought up that gay marriage should be included as an amendment to the Constitution. I'm making the point that it doesn't need to be, mixed sex marriage isn't mentioned on it why should gay marriage be? Also parts of the Constitution are wilfully ignored and glossed over as it suits most Americans. The right to bear arms being the most famous example. Its actually not an irrelevancy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Surely "the gays" should be happy at this news. The only advantage I can see about being gay is not having to get married. Well that and a far higher joint income. If you chose a life outside "social and religious norms" why then fight to be a part of them? It's as ridiculous as moving to the uk and then wanting to impose sharia law here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 If you chose a life outside "social and religious norms" why then fight to be a part of them? They're not fighting to be a part of anything. They want their relationships to have legal status. Maybe it's about time you had one in the UK or do you think that a Head of State should inherit the position by lineal descent with all the trappings of wealth that go with it?... most of it obtained by robbery and jobbery in the distant past. How you have changed your tune, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Agree entirely Agree mostly You brought up that gay marriage should be included as an amendment to the Constitution. I'm making the point that it doesn't need to be, mixed sex marriage isn't mentioned on it why should gay marriage be? Also parts of the Constitution are wilfully ignored and glossed over as it suits most Americans. The right to bear arms being the most famous example. Its actually not an irrelevancy The people who framed the constitution lived at a time when homosexuality was considered a criminal offence and marriage between man and woman ordained by god so that put simply is why "mixed sex" isnt mentioned. You also earlier mentioned interracial marriage... why? nothing to do with same sex marriage. The issue here is whether in the opinion of many that marriage between a man and woman is the law of Christian belief (and also held by other major religions incidentally) or that marriage between same sex couples is part of an evolving attitude of society in general ? Thirty states have already ratified a ban on same sex marriage with North Carolina being the latest. Others have either not considered it an issue worth voting on at this time or like Vermont and a few others declared same sex marriage as legal. North Carolinians have the right to decide themselves on such issues so going into a hissy fit because they dont happen to agree with your point of view is just childish. Voters in California voted against gay marriage three years ago and yet now we have some judge expressing his views that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional and gay rights groups pushing to overturn that decison. I have an axe to grind with that. The vote is sacrosant and not open for individuals or groups with their own agendas to start trying to destroy. If you want to harp on abour rights tio bear arms then this right was given to the Citizen Militia as a means to have such an armed Militia on hand in case of foreign invasion. Later the settling of the western part of the continent by the influx of immigrants from Europe required the use of firearms for hunting and self defence and again the Constitution being inviolate does not allow some leader or government to come along and dicker around with it. Hitler and Stalin certainly supported gun control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 now we have some judge expressing his views that banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional and gay rights groups pushing to overturn that decison. I have an axe to grind with that. The vote is sacrosant and not open for individuals or groups with their own agendas to start trying to destroy. If it's a democratic vote to deny certain groups a liberty that others have then it may very well be unconstitutional. Why do you have a problem with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 If it's a democratic vote to deny certain groups a liberty that others have then it may very well be unconstitutional. Why do you have a problem with that? It's unconstitutional also to deny the vote to people who disagree with a measure that they happen to believe is wrong. Works both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Personally i think Obama's latest remarks on the same sex marriage subject may go against him, which would be ashame in my opinion.Can't see him being re-elected though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 This is very, very, very, extremely disappointing for me to read about. What is happening to the USA these days? What with the undercurrent against women and now this! In the 50s we were brought up and fed the propaganda that the USA was a forward looking, forward thinking, egalatarian society where Jack was as good as his master, and everyone had a fair go. It goes against everything we believed in about the good ole USA. What's going to happen to the people who are already in a civil partnership? Does this mean that they have to move out of state and that no-one can move in either? If already 30 states have gone for discrimination and prejudice, where is there going to be for dissenters to live? I feel so disappointed and let down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 "Tami Fitzgerald, chairwoman of Votes for Marriage NC, the main group behind the amendment, said: "We are not anti-gay, we are pro-marriage. The whole point is you don't rewrite the nature of God's design for marriage based on the demands of a group of adults." That's odd, people (theists) have been re-writing God's "designs" for hundreds/thousands of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.