Is gaiety andgotry the same thing?
No, the "Gaiety" was a burlesque theater in Detroit.
gotry has something to do with smoking cigarettes in England, or a bundle of sticks.
On the constitutionality of being Homosexual
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
- Status
No, the "Gaiety" was a burlesque theater in Detroit.
gotry has something to do with smoking cigarettes in England, or a bundle of sticks.
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
I haven't been on in awhile and I come back to find Amonger still thinks his religious beliefs should run the country...and I thought our current politicians holding office were doing a bad job? I'm so glad that Amonger isn't in a position of any power what so ever!
Homosexuality is not a choice...they are born that way! They deserve to as happy or as miserable as straight couples....you don't like gay marriage or relationships don't have one! Homosexuality is not ruining this country...there are so many other pertinent issues ruining this country to see obsess about homosexuality leads me to say, "Me thinks he doth protest too much!"
Oh and to give your God the finger I would have to believe in him first! Considering I find the God of your religion to something like a kid with magnifying glass over the ant hill I would have no problem flipping him the bird if he were real!
Homosexuality is not a choice...they are born that way! They deserve to as happy or as miserable as straight couples....you don't like gay marriage or relationships don't have one! Homosexuality is not ruining this country...there are so many other pertinent issues ruining this country to see obsess about homosexuality leads me to say, "Me thinks he doth protest too much!"
Oh and to give your God the finger I would have to believe in him first! Considering I find the God of your religion to something like a kid with magnifying glass over the ant hill I would have no problem flipping him the bird if he were real!
"They deserve to as happy or as miserable as straight couples...."
They may, but it is not the business of the federal government to codify it. That is strictly a state issue.
They may, but it is not the business of the federal government to codify it. That is strictly a state issue.
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
As long as states couldn't deny wills, rights of survivorship, health care, etc to them because their state doesn't allow homosexual unions...that's why it's become such a national issue. A straight couple can get married in any state or country and no state says you're not married in our state!
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I'm still waiting to hear something about the premise that the title of this thread proclaimed itself to be about ... the constitutionality of being homosexual ...
Personally, I never had an inkling that the Constitution might address this issue.
I'm afraid that at this point I feel somewhat misled and deceived by the OP ...
Personally, I never had an inkling that the Constitution might address this issue.
I'm afraid that at this point I feel somewhat misled and deceived by the OP ...
So what? Go to a lawyer, make up a legal contract and MOST of that would be covered. Health care is not an issue, it is an individual's responsibility. It is a "national issue" mainly because people like to cause problems rather than looking for solutions.
I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that IF they were to make "legal" homosexual unions, called "civil unions", that carried the same "rights" as a marriage, that a very large number of people would STILL be screaming to make legal "same sex marriage". For many, it is nothing more than the act of being in someone's face that this is all about, NOT about a few, rather easily fixed, legal issues.
So what?? Why should gay couple have to go through extra steps to get something straight couples already get?? There tax paying citizens just like everybody else...there not 2nd class citizens as everybody treats them..
Extra steps? What business is it of the Federal Government? They could, if they wanted to, have all the "benefits" without pushing for un-constitutional, federal government interference into states rights issues. Everybody does not treat "them" as second class citizens either. That is a VERY incorrect statement. What even makes you think that they ARE tax paying citizens? With close to 40% of the population paying little or no federal taxes there is a VERY good chance that many homosexuals are NOT tax paying citizens.
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
If you're married your spouse can be under your insurance...it's not just an individuals issue. And personally I believe if the state government is handing out certificates then they all should be civil unions. Then everyone arguing marriage is a religious issue are happy...dilemma solved! Heck then the greedy little tax free churches can make even more money bc they can offer at an added price a nifty little marriage cert!
I guess it depends on how you believe health insurance should be handled.I don't believe that government, or employers should be involved. It is my belief that each person should purchase their own. Problem solved.
The States COULD say that ANYONE can enter into a "civil union". That is what the "state recognizes". The word "marriage" COULD be retained as a religious ceremony, that each individual religion could regulate as their beliefs allow. The States COULD recognize the "marriage" as being equal to the "civil union".
What about "plural marriage"? Should the federal government be involved in outlawing that?
So you think hundreds if not thousands of years of tradition and legal precedent should be altered to accommodate the special wants of a small minority of the population? Interesting.
Funny thing is, government marriage certificates are, in fact, civil unions. The reason it's called a marriage license is because marriage is, at its core, a religious institution, and the certificates were created to make the marriage legal for civil purposes. If the same-sex marriage crowd would accept civil union as being the same as a marriage, it would in less than a generation be referred to as a marriage, anyway. But that's not what they want, they don't want equal rights, they wanna win, to get one over on religions which refuse to accept homosexuality as being normal. It's as simple as that.
Last edited:
Let them have civil unions or get married. The only objection I would have is if they tried to force a non believing church to marry them. Like all factions of a group, there will be a few that demand that. Couldn't support that line of thinking.
That is true that many just want "the marriage" to slap religion.
If not, civil unions would suffice.
That is true that many just want "the marriage" to slap religion.
If not, civil unions would suffice.
Last edited:
I was under the impression that the original "marriage license" was put into effect to prevent interracial marriage.
I do agree with Turtle that the entire argument has little to do with "rights" but it is all being in some people's faces.
I do agree with Turtle that the entire argument has little to do with "rights" but it is all being in some people's faces.
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
Hundreds and thousands of years ago there were same sex marriages or unions...so tradition smadition...ancient Rome, Mesopotamia and Egypt accepted same sex unions, the Native Americans were also much more accepting of homosexuality. It's only with the rise of Christianity that homosexuality has become so taboo...actually even early Christianity was not so uptight about it!! And the only reason Christianity is one of the most popular religions is because they killed off those who wouldn't submit...it was a convert or die attitude...so no I really don't care to continue to let them reign.
That's the problem. The supporters are often radical, in your face types who are not willing to accept sensible solutions, only the most radical option possible.
Kinda like the pagans in Rome did, they persecuted the early Christians, killing many. Kinda like the Muslims once did too. That kind of garbage is hardly limited to Christian religions.
This entire problem is being pushed to cause trouble. The solutions are easy. Just as much of what happened in the Civil Rights push in the '60's set back race relations you will see the same thing now with this issue. Things resolve faster when government stays out of it.
pandora2112
Seasoned Expediter
Oh I agree the killing in the name of religion is not strictly a Christian thing...almost every religion has blood on it's hands. But idc what religion it is, they don't get to make the rules here.
Also...to say pagan is broad generalization. Which pagans? Wiccan (note wiccans were not around yet), Celts, Norse, Stregan...it's a broad umbrella term that covers some extremely different religions.
Also...to say pagan is broad generalization. Which pagans? Wiccan (note wiccans were not around yet), Celts, Norse, Stregan...it's a broad umbrella term that covers some extremely different religions.
I was speaking of the 300 year persecution of Christians by the Romans.
I don't really care. The fact is that THIS problem is simple to fix but the groups looking to fix it are not really trying to do so. They ONLY want to cause trouble. The political reason is to TRY to insure that Obama style control continues to win at the ballot box. They don't WANT freedom or the will of the People. They have proven that time and time again.
That is true. But it can be also said there are radicals on the other side as well. I think it has evolved into the "we wanna win" on both sides as Turtle mentioned.
I think you will likely see that they will be able to marry because the courts rarely consider religion in these types of cases. The ones that oppose it lose much of their argument once religion is pulled from the debate.
- Status