Same Sex Marriage? - Page 21 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 24th, 2012, 06:51 AM   #401
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,440
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

It's simple. Enough people say Gay marriage is ok, it's gonna happen. It's just a matter of time.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 24th, 2012, 07:31 AM   #402
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,127
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Just as are my rights and my religion says different things than yours. Thats why our liberties and freedoms are not religiously guaranteed. But protected as individual rights. We are all individuals free to choose how we will follow the faith we choose.



This is why its difficult to interact with you. You appear to have some comprehension issues. Please speed read all my previous posts and point out where Ive said that believing God is silly and a waste of time. Then, point out to me where I have specifically stated I respect and support your right to follow whichever religion you choose, just stop pushing it onto everyone.

You never spelled it out but the tone you take in your words says it all. See who says you should be able to tell me to not talk about God or religion to others? I have that right. Others can speak for themselves if they wanted me to stop, just as you can. I don't think it's your place to speak for others. Maybe others want to hear it.


Address the above and we can talk about this.



Its Politics, Government or Religion. It is not solely religion.

And I have an interest because you front out your God given right to practice your religion, protected by the bill of rights but take no issue with denying others protected rights in the name of your religion. That is exactly why our founders came here.

This issue encompasses more than just religion. When you try to tell someone else they can not do what you can do, based on the tenets of your religion, we have an issue.
We have certain inaliably rights edowed by our creator, not a bill of rights.
In this country we have that right and freedom to practice any religion we choose.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 07:32 AM   #403
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,127
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
It's simple. Enough people say Gay marriage is ok, it's gonna happen. It's just a matter of time.
I think there have been 40 states to ban gay marriage. I do beleive the majority has spoken.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 08:08 AM   #404
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
I think there have been 40 states to ban gay marriage. I do beleive the majority has spoken.
That's the issue. Minority rights should never be decided by a majority. That's called mob rule. Every time you put questions to a vote where the majority is against a minority's rights, the minority loses. Because it's a minority. This is why we have elected officials.

In 1967 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage, and it wasn’t until 1991 that a majority of the public thought that it should be legal. What if groups had been able to go around and collect signatures to overturn this Supreme Court decision by a majority vote (which, of course, they couldn’t have)? It’s possible that they would have voted in most states to overturn this decision and forbid interracial marriage.
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 08:09 AM   #405
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
In this country we have that right and freedom to practice any religion we choose.
Exactly. This is a two way street which you don't seem to understand.
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 08:51 AM   #406
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 21,758
iTrader: (21)
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott2.0 View Post
That's the issue. Minority rights should never be decided by a majority. That's called mob rule. Every time you put questions to a vote where the majority is against a minority's rights, the minority loses. Because it's a minority. This is why we have elected officials.

In 1967 72% of Americans opposed interracial marriage, and it wasn’t until 1991 that a majority of the public thought that it should be legal. What if groups had been able to go around and collect signatures to overturn this Supreme Court decision by a majority vote (which, of course, they couldn’t have)? It’s possible that they would have voted in most states to overturn this decision and forbid interracial marriage.
Huh? All religion aside, our society is based on voting and majority opinions.
__________________
GLFWDA member since 1979.
Member Southern Michigan Rock Crawlers.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 09:05 AM   #407
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Huh? All religion aside, our society is based on voting and majority opinions.
Really? Imagine how different American history would be if we actually took that approach; subjecting minority rights to majority vote. What if Southerners had voted on whether to allow slavery, integration or interracial marriage? What if we'd done the same nationally for women's voting rights?

Most laws are NOT put into place via a public vote. The only time an issue will go to a vote by the people is via a referendum originated by petition. If slavery had been up to the public to vote, it may very well still be legal today.

This is the very reason this will inevitably become a Supreme Court decision.
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 10:59 AM   #408
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by osteologation View Post
Other than religious opposition is there any other reasons why this is even an issue?
Sure there is, personally I oppose the government having a roll in marriage regardless of who is being married. They should mind their own business.

Why does the government have a roll in marriage at all? ....tax exemptions and child custody issues.

Why is a married couple given tax privilege?

Why can't contract law be used to decide child custody?

That conversation will never develop here, because everyone would prefer to argue pointlessly over religion.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 11:19 AM   #409
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,512
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Based on how the legal system defines terms, and this issue is essentially a legal one, marriage is already defined. It encompasses everyone. The gay rights movement is not trying to redefine anything, its already defined. The movement has sprung up because they are actively being denied the same things straight folks have.

Aber complaining about gay pride parades it quite amusing.... Cause they wouldn't be happening if he would stop persecuting them. Its that whole action/reaction thing. Also, their protests/parades are also protected by our founding documents.

I understand your stance.... Im just not convinced calling it something entirely different is the answer. IMO, just use the dictionary. How others define it in their own lives does not detract from how you define it.



Damn... Hard to portray sarcasm.....


Yes, marriage is already defined. From the origins of language until recently it has meant the uniting of men and women.

It’s only recently that it has become widely used to describe the uniting of 2 people of the same sex.

But we should not confuse dictionary definitions with legal definitions. Dictionaries report the common usage of a word, they are not, contrary to common perception, an authority on how words must be used. Dictionary definitions will change over time. Legal definitions should not change just because the common usage of the words has changed.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 11:52 AM   #410
kerryann
German cars are hot
 
kerryann's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: West Bloomfield
Posts: 11,442
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Sure there is, personally I oppose the government having a roll in marriage regardless of who is being married. They should mind their own business.

Why does the government have a roll in marriage at all? ....tax exemptions and child custody issues.

Why is a married couple given tax privilege?

Why can't contract law be used to decide child custody?

That conversation will never develop here, because everyone would prefer to argue pointlessly over religion.
I don't consider having our incomes combined and moved to a higher bracket a priviledge at all It's only a priviledge if you have a stay at home spouse.
kerryann is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 12:07 PM   #411
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,512
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerryann View Post
I don't consider having our incomes combined and moved to a higher bracket a priviledge at all It's only a priviledge if you have a stay at home spouse.
Regardless of if it’s a privilege or not, should the same laws apply to people of the same sex that have made the same lifelong commitment?
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 12:14 PM   #412
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Yes, marriage is already defined. From the origins of language until recently it has meant the uniting of men and women.

It�s only recently that it has become widely used to describe the uniting of 2 people of the same sex.

But we should not confuse dictionary definitions with legal definitions. Dictionaries report the common usage of a word, they are not, contrary to common perception, an authority on how words must be used. Dictionary definitions will change over time. Legal definitions should not change just because the common usage of the words has changed.
Please cite your evidence to support your claim.

In instances where there is no case law, often times the dictionary definition of terms is used.

Legal definitions are made using words from the dictionary.

See the common theme here? The dictionary, not the bible.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 12:18 PM   #413
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
We have certain inaliably rights edowed by our creator, not a bill of rights.
In this country we have that right and freedom to practice any religion we choose.
No bill of rights you say?! Is that because its not printed in your bible?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 12:35 PM   #414
Kevlar
Newbie
 
Kevlar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-04-12
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 29
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Kevlar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Sure there is, personally I oppose the government having a roll in marriage regardless of who is being married. They should mind their own business.

Why does the government have a roll in marriage at all? ....tax exemptions and child custody issues.

Why is a married couple given tax privilege?

Why can't contract law be used to decide child custody?

That conversation will never develop here, because everyone would prefer to argue pointlessly over religion.
Bingo. This is really the crux of the issue, that nobody will get to because the religion issue holds everyone up and prevents them from digging a level deeper.

The government shouldn't be involved in marriage. Period. They only got involved in it in the first place to prevent interracial marriages. But, we all know from history that once a government has a power, they're -never- going to give it up.
Kevlar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 12:46 PM   #415
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,512
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Please cite your evidence to support your claim.

In instances where there is no case law, often times the dictionary definition of terms is used.

Legal definitions are made using words from the dictionary.

See the common theme here? The dictionary, not the bible.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
THE dictionary? Which dictionary? Here’s a dictionary definition of "marriage" that only talks about the union of a man and a woman, or of any 2 things. So depending on which you use, it could be one man and one woman, or it could mean someone and anything else. I could marry my coffee table.



Quote:
World English Dictionary
marriage (ˈmærɪdʒ)
— n

1. the state or relationship of being husband and wife
2. a.the legal union or contract made by a man and woman to live as husband and wife
b. ( as modifier ): marriage licence ; marriage certificate
3. the religious or legal ceremony formalizing this union; wedding
4. a close or intimate union, relationship, etc: a marriage of ideas
5.(in certain card games, such as bezique, pinochle) the king and queen of the same suit
Not definitive, but this suggest to me that the origins of the word involved a man and a woman.

Quote:
Word Origin & History

marry

c.1300, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE base *meri- "young wife," akin to *meryo- "young man" (cf. Skt. marya- "young man, suitor"). Said
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 12:54 PM   #416
Kevlar
Newbie
 
Kevlar's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-04-12
Location: Kalamazoo, MI
Posts: 29
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Kevlar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
No bill of rights you say?! Is that because its not printed in your bible?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2


Funny. Though, actually, I do agree with aber here - not because I think a "creator" gave us our rights, per-se, but because the government (Bill of Rights) cannot "give" rights. Rights are innate. The government can only restrict rights, and what the Bill of Rights actually does is define those rights that the government can't touch.
Kevlar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 03:25 PM   #417
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,127
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott2.0 View Post
Exactly. This is a two way street which you don't seem to understand.
How's that? How is two gay people wanting to marrry a freedom of religion?
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 03:41 PM   #418
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,127
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Please cite your evidence to support your claim.

In instances where there is no case law, often times the dictionary definition of terms is used.

Legal definitions are made using words from the dictionary.

See the common theme here? The dictionary, not the bible.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
I think if you were to go through a dictionary from the 30's through the 60"s and then looked through one of today you would see a difference in how words were expressed and used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
No bill of rights you say?! Is that because its not printed in your bible?

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
No, our Constitution.
A quote by John Adams, Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
You do know who John Adams is right?
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 05:05 PM   #419
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 817
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
THE dictionary? Which dictionary? Here’s a dictionary definition of "marriage" that only talks about the union of a man and a woman, or of any 2 things. So depending on which you use, it could be one man and one woman, or it could mean someone and anything else. I could marry my coffee table.
Ive posted 2, one from Merriam and one I believe from dictionary.com. Curious if you could provide the link to where you got the definition you posted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Not definitive, but this suggest to me that the origins of the word involved a man and a woman.
You had me thinking about this... But IMO, its a stretch. Because the roots are still based in religion, and thats my issue with the issue.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 05:05 PM   #420
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
How's that? How is two gay people wanting to marrry a freedom of religion?
How is it not? They are free to believe that there is nothing wrong with them doing so. Because you believe your religion says it's wrong, it is? How is that an example of freedom of religion whatsoever?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
No, our Constitution.
A quote by John Adams, Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
You do know who John Adams is right?
John Adams also said this, which I'm sure you won't begin to abide by; "I shall have liberty to think for myself without molesting others or being molested myself."

And this, "Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose. Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."

And this, "The Church of Rome has made it an article of faith that no man can be saved out of their church, and all other religious sects approach this dreadful opinion in proportion to their ignorance, and the influence of ignorant or wicked priests."

You do know who John Adams is, right?
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.43676 seconds with 81 queries