The So-Called Marriage Protection Amendment

[Midway ®]

I am sorry to have interfered with your mission. Perhaps I am off topic. But I seem to have changed just as many hearts and minds as you have. Looks like we are both 0 for 0 on that one.

So it would appear that both of our accomplishments with regard to effecting change are on an equal footing then.

I am not sure if you are just editorializing, or if as you say, this is a discussion. A discussion is an interchange of intelligent thought and verifiable facts, conducted in a civil fashion.

I am just trying to get you to understand that if you would present a coherent and well reasoned argument, you actually could change some hearts and minds, that's all, instead of talking about straw men, liberals, having your words twisted, being a victim and so forth.

Stay with your argument. Present facts. play to win. Otherwise, this is just worthless blather.

 

[reednavy]

Ok, for one, can we get back on the freckin topic at hand, this is turning into a 3rd grade type "fight" ANY FRECKIN WAYS, I am totally against a marriage amendment. This is just such a stupid thing our government is having to deal with. I'm sorry, I believe in God and all, but the Bible is more the less, a book, this coming from a raised Southern Baptist! The WORD has been interpreted so many different ways, its useless now, hell look how many different types of Protestant there is! I do not approve of restricting gays at all, this is a violation of civil rights, of wait, guess my people got left out in the cold, and to think OUR GOVERNOR is a closet case, there is much evidence to back this, I mean MUCH!, ask alot of people in Orlando. I just don;t see why we have to define marriage, I mean, its practically stupid now anyways, just a reson to change your last name nowadays. Love is what it is, love, I dunno why the government has to say who we can marry.

[Midway ®]

I agree.

It's just commonsensical.

[fhrathore]

I don't understand why this is supported by most Republicans? Aren't Republicans for smaller government and less government intervention in everyday lives? It seems to me that most Republicans complain about too much government regulation, but when an issue like this comes up, the very same people turn to the government to solve this problem. It seems to be going against what they tand for.

Personally, if gay marriage/civil unions aren't putting our nation in danger or hurting our economy, then why the hell not? I don't support homosexuality, but I don't really care what everyone else does as long as their actions are not putting our nation in mortal danger...

[gatorback]

It doesn't matter if you've professed to be a liberal or not. Your words and actions on this forum alone define what you really stand for, and I have yet to see an "independent" thought come from you. You toe the liberal agenda on almost everything, from what I've read.

Using my words against me is considered manipulation. You also twisted the context of my posts, which were directed to Midway with his ostentatious concerns on my spelling and grammar, and somehow directed them to gatorback and his opinions. And I DIDN'T tell somebody to go to hell. YOU took my statement of frustration and twisted it in your own warped logic. It's pretty sad that you would do that, but I shouldn't expect anything less from you.

I notice you said nothing of Midway basically questioning my intelligence, which was the sole reason I got upset. Picking and choosing, aren't we?

Wow.  Somebody needs to take the pink pill not the blue pill before blogging.

I don't like your choice of words as they are  hostile in nature.  Allow me:

It doesn't matter if you've professed to be a liberal or not. Your words and actions on this forum alone define what you really stand for, and I have yet to see an "independent" thought come from you. You toe the liberal agenda on almost everything, from what I've read.

I respect your opinion; however, I'm not completely sure where you're coming from.  Reading your post you appear to toe the line of the liberal agenda which is okay.  Although I do not agree with it.

Using my words against me is considered manipulation. You also twisted the context of my posts, which were directed to Midway with his ostentatious concerns on my spelling and grammar, and somehow directed them to gatorback and his opinions. And I DIDN'T tell somebody to go to hell. YOU took my statement of frustration and twisted it in your own warped logic. It's pretty sad that you would do that, but I shouldn't expect anything less from you.

Perhaps I did not articulate the point I was trying to make.  My comments were to Midway in particular.  I'm sorry if I offended him with my numerous typographical and gramatic errors.  In the future I will reread my post and put them through a spell checker to catch errors in an effort to convey my thoughts clearly.

notice you said nothing of Midway basically questioning my intelligence, which was the sole reason I got upset. Picking and choosing, aren't we?

You hurt my feelings by not validating my intelligence.  After a good night sleep, I am feeling better now.  In church the other day I asked for and was forgiven.  Please forgive me, I don't know what i was thinking.

Okay?  Can we get past all that people?  Equal protection for equal taxes.  Do not support the so-called marriage protection amendment.  It's not right.

[midnightblackrx]

I believe in equal rights across the board.  Which means that if a man and a woman can get married, so can homos. We do not need another law to further define the what constitutes relationship between two consenting adults.  I know mine is not a popular stance, but gays are no different than straight people and should be respected the same as everyone else. 

Other than liking techno music there aren't any differences between gays and straights.  I never did understand that stuff 

[Charleston native]

Wow.  Somebody needs to take the pink pill not the blue pill before blogging.

I don't like your choice of words as they are  hostile in nature.  Allow me:

Well, yeah, I guess the truth can be hostile in nature. Oh well.

You hurt my feelings by not validating my intelligence.  After a good night sleep, I am feeling better now.  In church the other day I asked for and was forgiven.  Please forgive me, I don't know what i was thinking.

Nice. Interesting way of mocking me in addition to taking jabs at my religious practices. Such tolerance...I feel it.

Anyway, I think the marriage protection goes far beyond religious beliefs. It is an institution that has carried on in the same manner for thousands of years, throughout mankind's existence on this planet. Changing the definition of marriage, which is what many of you appear to want, will have numerous ramifications, IMO. I guess the one thing that we could all agree on is that government shouldn't give benefits of ANY type in order to avoid issues like this.

[gatorback]

I'm not "mocking" you.  As evident by your post, I lack the mental capacity to mock somebody like you.
At best I'm making light of your points for the MPA.

Humans have been sacrificing animals to the gods for over 12,000 years.  Want to keep that up too?

[Charleston native]

Humans have been sacrificing animals to the gods for over 12,000 years.  Want to keep that up too?

Well, that was a practice that did not necessarily affect the procreation of mankind, now did it? It is a red herring argument, but I do understand the parallel you're trying make with it. However, did you ever hear of the old-saying that still is truthful to this day: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" This amendment isn't trying to "fix" anything, but it is attempting to prohibit other groups with different agendas to "fix" the institution of marriage.

I know we'll never agree on this, but I do want to make it clear that my support for this amendment goes beyond my religious beliefs. Even if I didn't have any faith in God, I don't think it would be right to change marriage.

[JeffreyS]

Do you mean change marriage again?  As the U.S. and other societies have done many times.

[Charleston native]

Maybe. How did US and other societies change marriage equaling a union between one man and one woman? By changing marriage, I mean changing the gender makeup of that union.

[JeffreyS]

Well many societies have and do allow multiple women in the marriage. A different principle than our one man one woman. The Netherlands started allowing same sex marriages in 2001.( a western cultural example)   Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, this was not the will of the population but it is an example of the U.S. once again redefining marriage.(an argument could be made that this is still the current issue and does not merit precedence) I do think a person wanting to define marriage by his own or his groups traditions is as valid as any other view.  The government just shouldn't have any role in defining or redefining marriage.

[gatorback]

I agree 120% wid ya JS; however, allowing equal protection for equal taxes is what I'm saying this is about.

[Charleston native]

Jeffrey, the Massachusetts decision is what indeed provoked the Amendment. In other instances, the US made polygamy illegal, so I do see your point. But the Amendment exists due to other decisions being made against the will of the people.

Gator, I think your last point is where we can all agree: government defining marriage and giving tax benefits should not be done. I'm all for not receiving tax benefits as a married person...leave government out of it.

[gatorback]

And we did it in only three pages--they said it couldn't be done