Gay Marriage..Ure thought - Page 3 - 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 16th, 2008, 08:10 AM   #41
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,689
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

AJ is so wrong, but if I am honest, I will say I cracked up at the sova part. I don't think sova is gay, but it was just funny for some reason. I personally don't support gay marriage, I don't think the glorification of the gay lifestyle is good for our society, the same way I don't think the glorification of cohabitation is good for our society. But it seems better for gay couples to be committed to each other than to simply cohabitate, I'm not saying that makes it right, it is a tough issue. In terms of legislation, the only thing that truely ruffles my feathers is abortion

Last edited by Dave Kerwin; May 16th, 2008 at 08:18 AM.
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old May 16th, 2008, 08:15 AM   #42
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,787
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
AJ is so wrong, but if I am honest, I will say I cracked up at the sova part. I don't think sova is gay, but it was just funny for some reason. I personally don't support gay marriage, I think the glorification of the gay lifestyle is good for our society, the same way I don't think the glorification of cohabitation is good for our society. But it seems better for gay couples to be committed to each other than to simply cohabitate, I'm not saying that makes it right, it is a tough issue. In terms of legislation, the only thing that truely ruffles my feathers is abortion
so you're saying you "think the glorification of the gay lifestyle is good for our society". I'm just quoting you.
mikesova is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 08:18 AM   #43
bearlys2005
Senior Member
 
bearlys2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-13-06
Location: Macomb, Michigan
Posts: 955
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

I don't care what people do, we're supposed to live in a free country, a free society... If two women or two men want to be married so be it... If a married couple (man and woman) want to add another woman to their marriage I'm even for that... :tonka: With that said I don't think that the court should overturn the voters no matter what the topic!!!
bearlys2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 08:20 AM   #44
Dave Kerwin
web wheeling, hard.
 
Dave Kerwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-18-05
Location: SE MI
Posts: 6,689
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
so you're saying you "think the glorification of the gay lifestyle is good for our society". I'm just quoting you.
oops, I missed a "don't"

What I am saying is that I don't like the glorification of the gay lifestyle for our society anymore than anything else that is bad for our society, such as the glorification of cohabitation and permadating (et al).
Dave Kerwin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 08:46 AM   #45
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,787
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
oops, I missed a "don't"

What I am saying is that I don't like the glorification of the gay lifestyle for our society anymore than anything else that is bad for our society, such as the glorification of cohabitation and permadating (et al).
why is cohabitation or perma-dating bad for our society. I mean if the only thing thing that is missing from one of those relationships is a ring and a church service, where is the harm? to society, not your religion...
mikesova is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 10:44 AM   #46
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

On the flip side I hope that they have to pay the same to get divorced that Straight couples do.

You know the saying, pennies to get married thousands to get divorced.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 10:51 AM   #47
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,787
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by InBBA View Post
On the flip side I hope that they have to pay the same to get divorced that Straight couples do.

You know the saying, pennies to get married thousands to get divorced.
what would lead you to believe it would be any different than a heterosexual divorce in terms of money?

plus from what I've seen online, you can get divorced reasonably cheaply.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...apDivorce.aspx
mikesova is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 10:52 AM   #48
3-foot
Senior Member
 
3-foot's Avatar
 
Join Date: 07-21-06
Location: Springfield Township, Mi
Posts: 1,113
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 87'YJ View Post
If it was voted on by the people, then why is it being overturned? No more democracy?
We are not a Democracy; the United States of America is a Republic. Also the majority does not rule here and it never did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bearlys2005 View Post
I don't care what people do, we're supposed to live in a free country, a free society... If two women or two men want to be married so be it... If a married couple (man and woman) want to add another woman to their marriage I'm even for that... :tonka: With that said I don't think that the court should overturn the voters no matter what the topic!!!
The Supreme Court is supposed to decide on the legality of laws when they are challenged in court, like this one must have been. Obviously if it was challenged in court then not everyone agrees with the legality of the law that passed, even if it was passed by a vote of the people.

It is within the power of the Supreme Court to overturn ANY law, voter approved or not, if it can be successfully argued in court that the law is unconstitutional. Constitutionality of this law is debatable but the power of the Supreme Court to make that decision is not debatable.

That being said I think it IS unconstitutional to have a set of laws (marriage) that apply to one group of people (straight) but not the other group (gay). Marriage is a legal act. It can be a religious act as well but it is always a legal act.
3-foot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 10:59 AM   #49
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
what would lead you to believe it would be any different than a heterosexual divorce in terms of money?

plus from what I've seen online, you can get divorced reasonably cheaply.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...apDivorce.aspx
Nothing really, I mean it won't change them from being gay just that they might not marry each other so quickly if they new how much it would cost them to divorce.

But yeah, they are still gay so . . :miff:
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 11:40 AM   #50
bearlys2005
Senior Member
 
bearlys2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-13-06
Location: Macomb, Michigan
Posts: 955
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
We are not a Democracy; the United States of America is a Republic. Also the majority does not rule here and it never did.



The Supreme Court is supposed to decide on the legality of laws when they are challenged in court, like this one must have been. Obviously if it was challenged in court then not everyone agrees with the legality of the law that passed, even if it was passed by a vote of the people.

It is within the power of the Supreme Court to overturn ANY law, voter approved or not, if it can be successfully argued in court that the law is unconstitutional. Constitutionality of this law is debatable but the power of the Supreme Court to make that decision is not debatable.

That being said I think it IS unconstitutional to have a set of laws (marriage) that apply to one group of people (straight) but not the other group (gay). Marriage is a legal act. It can be a religious act as well but it is always a legal act.
I understand your point however why should the Supreme Court hear a case just because a small group of people don't agree with the outcome of the peoples vote... The people have spoken and that should be the end of it... If that small group didn't like the outcome then they should have voted and encouraged others to vote their way on the subject thus having a different outcome. They could also get a petition going to bring the topic up for another vote. Having everything challenged in the courts is ridiculous and expensive to the taxpayers... Having the court overturn the vote of the people is never a good thing no matter what the topic.
bearlys2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 11:51 AM   #51
cham
Inconsistant at Best.
 
Join Date: 10-24-07
Location: Bremerton WA
Posts: 627
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovrlnd View Post
super true. If two dudes or chicks want to get married, I could care less.
Did you mean to say "couldn't care less" or do you really mean that you "could care less." Because that means that you do care about the issue.
cham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 11:52 AM   #52
cham
Inconsistant at Best.
 
Join Date: 10-24-07
Location: Bremerton WA
Posts: 627
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a.j. hall View Post
Fawking fags. Why do they have to get married? Isnt living togather good enough? or do they really have to flaunt it even more and make all gays look even more stupid.
Thats why a lot of people don't like them. Becuae they have to flaunt the fact that they are gay.
So go steal something from them after pissing on their parade.
cham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 12:52 PM   #53
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueydChevygal View Post
SAN FRANCISCO (May 15) - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in ."Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.


My only ? is this, im glad people are happy, but wouldnt you be pissed off to vote on something, and then have ure gov overturn it anyway, kinda pointless, huh!!!
I haven't read everyone's responses yet, so this may already have been said, but basically the Supreme Court is there to ensure that a democracy is also "fair"....

A republic was originally focused on a society that is centered on individual rights and freedoms. The term has since been expanded in many ways, but that was the basic root of it.

A democracry on the other hand, was a society focused on the will of the majority (also called the good of the people).

When our founding fathers were debating what type of society would be best for us the argument was raised by that a republic could evolve in to anarchy, but asserted that a democracy would be like 20 wolves and 2 chickens voting on what should be for dinner.....

Thus, we ended up with a democratic republic, so....... Our Supreme Court is there to analyze the constitutionality of any given law, approved by popular vote or otherwise.

Answer your question?

Last edited by AGoodBuzz; May 16th, 2008 at 01:03 PM.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 12:57 PM   #54
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flexin' XJ View Post
My thought on the article is where it mentions California as being the countries largest state. FAIL. Anybody else remember from grade school what the countries largest state is? (the article I read was from MSN, sorry)

I'll give a hint, it is where we would like AJ to move to.


But on a serious note, I am glad that somebody in the supreme court isn't a total retard. The voters there still think that if gay people marry then people marrying goats will be next.
FAIL.... Beastiality is unlawful.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 12:59 PM   #55
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Kerwin View Post
AJ is so wrong, but if I am honest, I will say I cracked up at the sova part. I don't think sova is gay, but it was just funny for some reason. I personally don't support gay marriage, I don't think the glorification of the gay lifestyle is good for our society, the same way I don't think the glorification of cohabitation is good for our society. But it seems better for gay couples to be committed to each other than to simply cohabitate, I'm not saying that makes it right, it is a tough issue. In terms of legislation, the only thing that truely ruffles my feathers is abortion
Wow Dave.... I'm STOKED!!!! This is the first thing I've seen you post that offers a true respect for those that are outside of your belief system. Awesome!
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 01:01 PM   #56
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
We are not a Democracy; the United States of America is a Republic. Also the majority does not rule here and it never did.



The Supreme Court is supposed to decide on the legality of laws when they are challenged in court, like this one must have been. Obviously if it was challenged in court then not everyone agrees with the legality of the law that passed, even if it was passed by a vote of the people.

It is within the power of the Supreme Court to overturn ANY law, voter approved or not, if it can be successfully argued in court that the law is unconstitutional. Constitutionality of this law is debatable but the power of the Supreme Court to make that decision is not debatable.

That being said I think it IS unconstitutional to have a set of laws (marriage) that apply to one group of people (straight) but not the other group (gay). Marriage is a legal act. It can be a religious act as well but it is always a legal act.

Well stated, especially the last 2 paragraphs!
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 01:07 PM   #57
Chiefwoohaw
Pokerob is my B*tch!
 
Chiefwoohaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-06-05
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 11,507
iTrader: (7)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz View Post
FAIL.... Beastiality is unlawful.
So was being GAY at one time.
Chiefwoohaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 01:18 PM   #58
mojo
Wha Happen???
 
mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-17-07
Location: Roseville, Michigan
Posts: 209
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via MSN to mojo Send a message via Yahoo to mojo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 87'YJ View Post
If it was voted on by the people, then why is it being overturned? No more democracy?
Because that is the beauty of a democracy and our system being set up with many checks and balances. The legislature and the majority of the voting public say no, but the judicial branch says "hey wait, that isn't for the good of the mass populous."

Who cares if they get married, it doesn't affect anyone but the 2 of them. People seem to be paranoid about PDA and the like. I know a few gay people and have hung out with them and theri "partner" in public, they reserve that for home and are very civil in public.

Let them be happy and live their lives.
mojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 01:23 PM   #59
mojo
Wha Happen???
 
mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-17-07
Location: Roseville, Michigan
Posts: 209
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via MSN to mojo Send a message via Yahoo to mojo
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
We are not a Democracy; the United States of America is a Republic. Also the majority does not rule here and it never did.



The Supreme Court is supposed to decide on the legality of laws when they are challenged in court, like this one must have been. Obviously if it was challenged in court then not everyone agrees with the legality of the law that passed, even if it was passed by a vote of the people.

It is within the power of the Supreme Court to overturn ANY law, voter approved or not, if it can be successfully argued in court that the law is unconstitutional. Constitutionality of this law is debatable but the power of the Supreme Court to make that decision is not debatable.

That being said I think it IS unconstitutional to have a set of laws (marriage) that apply to one group of people (straight) but not the other group (gay). Marriage is a legal act. It can be a religious act as well but it is always a legal act.

That too. I didnt see this before I posted.
mojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16th, 2008, 01:38 PM   #60
clint357
Web Wheeler Extraordinair
 
clint357's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-13-07
Location: grand rapids
Posts: 2,278
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

What is the difference to you if you see two dudes holding hands walking down the street vs. the same situation but they both have rings on their fingers? I think a lot of people think it should be illegal just because they don't like it, not because it's hurting people in any way, shape, or form. I could say that I don't like people who like fat chicks because I think it's gross....should they make that relationship illegal? I also think that a lot of people get religion mixed up in the legalities of marrage. I'm agnostic/aetheist, but I'm also legally married and so are many other people. I don't care if people say that they think gay marriage is wrong because of their beliefs because gambling, swearing, drinking, and pre-marital sex is against a lot of religious beliefs but that doesn't mean they should make it illegal. People are just homophobic and they try to hide behind their religion.
clint357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Tags
buuuttseeeeeeexxxxxxx, coffee, dave kerwin, do my pooper!, doomsick loves dick., fag lovers, gay jay hall, jelly beans, lothos, punch faygs, sore o-ring, star trek

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 01:24 PM.


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 0.44491 seconds with 80 queries