7/4/2008 9:56:20 AM
Marriage is not the business of the government to interfere in. Therefore, the government should ban gay marriage.
7/4/2008 10:02:37 AM
Marriage is not the business of the government to interfere in. Therefore, the government should ban all marriage.
Odd how banning something doesn't count as interference for some idiots.
7/4/2008 10:16:10 AM
7/4/2008 10:18:16 AM
"And when it comes to hetero's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?"
No. Nuff said. And watch your apostrophe's. I mean apostrophes.
7/4/2008 10:37:45 AM
7/4/2008 11:29:21 AM
Oh yes, because every lifestyle needs government sanction. Has the government sanctioned being a bigoted fuck? I don't think so.
7/4/2008 11:35:37 AM
When dealing with any issue in a free democratic society the rights of the individual are to be protected unless there can be shown a compelling reason society would incur a detriment.
In the instance of same-sex marriage the has never been shown a detriment to society. I have heard slippery slopes, and rants on the sanctity of marriage (whatever the hell that means).
7/4/2008 12:02:53 PM
So by that logic no marriages of any kind should be legal under the state, even straight ones because then they're sanctioning that "lifestyle".
Edit: Damn, too late again. Everyone else said it better too.
7/4/2008 12:02:54 PM
Sheik yer Bouti
"And when it comes to homo's, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle."
No, it is not the state sanctioning a lifstyle.
We are talking about a couple having the right to marry.
If one couple (I am talking about consenting adults here)has the right then all couples have the right.
Guaranteeing equal rights IS the business of government.
7/4/2008 12:35:03 PM
Stock response for anti-gay statements:
Why aren't you picketing Captain D's? Leviticus states that Shellfish is unclean and an abomination.
7/4/2008 12:45:22 PM
Allegory for Jesus
So, allowing for equal rights is a "state sanctioning a lifestyle", which isn't allowed for some reason? Well, looks like we have to retroactively remove all civil rights progress, because we cannot sanction the lifestyle of interracial couples, and working women.
And, marriage has changed: from a contract between families that amounted to trading off children, to its current state as a contract between two people that love each other.
7/4/2008 1:41:26 PM
Yet, you want the state to sanction your god when it is not their business.
Hypocricy makes any argument you come up with irrelevant.
7/4/2008 2:57:21 PM
I wonder what this guy would say for blacks marrying whites or vice-versa.
7/4/2008 4:01:44 PM
PS. And as said above in response to marriage has changed - NO IT HASN'T! [Happy smiley face]
Cool... so it's still a Jewish-only cermony marking the transferance of ownership of a woman from her father to her husband?
It isn't?? But you said it hadn't changed!!
7/4/2008 5:26:19 PM
religion is the lifestyle choice.
Priests are lifestyle coaches.
If you're born in a Xian nation that's what you usually stay. If Muslim, the same. Short answer: a religion isn't something intrinsic to a person (as being gay is).
So why tax exceptions for purely religious reasons (as opposed to charity activities)?
7/4/2008 6:05:41 PM
Hmmm... *gets out marker pen*
[In a thread on revoking universal atheism laws of the United States of Hypothetical]
And when it comes to allowing people to worship a God, what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?
If it was Subman1's way of life being repressed, I'm sure he'd want that reversed prontissimo.
7/4/2008 6:12:19 PM
Marriage is a legal, financial and social contract between two consenting adults. A government therefore has no right to interfere with it, only provide a legal framework within which it is regulated.
I'd love to see one of those "OH NOED GHEY MARRIHAGE!" fundies actually explain what makes marriage so special in a way that is not based on their Big Book of Bedtime Stories.
7/4/2008 7:34:57 PM
And when it comes to homo's (sic) ...
When what comes to homos?
7/4/2008 8:17:51 PM
PS. And as said above in response to marriage has changed - NO IT HASN'T!
Right. So how are your wives?
7/4/2008 8:39:52 PM
So then marriages for noone
7/4/2008 9:45:33 PM
Why yes, now that you bring it up, yes, it *is* the place of government to protect civil rights.
7/4/2008 10:40:27 PM
So...the state has no business in the lifestyles of the people, and as such should intervene directly, and disallow people from marrying. Lol whut?
7/4/2008 11:42:38 PM
what you are talking about is the state sanctioning a lifestyle. Is that the business of government?
well, seems to work with marriage.
you stupid fucking cunt
7/5/2008 1:06:42 AM
"Subman" - does that mean you're a bottom?
7/5/2008 3:03:16 AM