The comment has been deleted.

Gay Marriage

Posted by Robbie53024 12 years, 8 months ago to Legislation
11 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Susanne 12 years, 8 months ago
    Humans and chickens and sheep are different creatures. And while some may enjoy a touching, intimate encounter with livestock, it has nothing to do with homosexuality. (Altho, strangely enough, it always gets shifted by a few folk from Gay Marriage to Bestiality... why is that?)

    Personally - It doesn't matter to me who someone marries, as long as they're truly happy. Why is that important? Because I'd rather have an employee who is in a gay marriage happy and producing at 110% of his or her capacity because they're happy and accepted than have someone who is in a faked str8 marriage and miserable and have my productivity suffer because someone else deides that's what that person should do.

    It's always that way (sadly) about this "morality" thing - One person is uncomfortable with something someone else does, and they condemn it. Kinda like the moochers telling someone they are bad and should be outlawed because they are producers. When you think about it, there isn't much difference between the 2.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment deleted.
      • Posted by $ Susanne 12 years, 8 months ago
        You missed my point entirely. It doesn't affect me whatsoever - not emotionally, not materially, not psychologically - if Bob marries Edie or Bob marries Frank. Serious. How does that affect me in the slightest?

        My point is this - From a Producer's standpoint, not a Sociologist's, I'd way rather have happy, healthy, productive employees than miserable, downtrodden, and fearful ones. If allowing a couple - whoever they are - to get married will let them go from the latter to the former, then I'm all for it. If I were a controlling looter, I'd say otherwise - I have to prevent that sociological phenomenon because *I* don't like it. and because *I* don't approve of it, it must be wrong.

        Personally, I tend to go more toward the "personal freedom" side rather than the "Overarching controller of others" side. Maybe also because I've seen this phenomenon happen firsthand, I have an understanding of how not forcing my values on someone else pays dividends to my bottom line.

        And I still don't see how it relates to livestock. Seriously. If I married a man of a different race, or even a woman, is that the same as marrying a sheep? My God, man, how many human vs livetock marriages have you been to?

        It has always seemed to me... this whole marrying livestock Bravo Sierra, "Oooh, everyone would think *that's* weird, so lets equate something *I* don't like with something to get everyone's stomach turning, so they'll believe like me." And personally - I could care less either what 2 adults do in their bedroom, or if they show up toegther at the company picnic. As long as they produce. And generate profit for the company.

        Like I said... it's my bottom line. My happy, not looking over their shoulders, wondering wht others are thinking about them employees have fewer accidents and work harder, because their mind is on the JOB, not on what someone else is thinking about them.

        Have a prosperous Monday...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by pertinax 12 years, 8 months ago
    While I don't agree with gay marriage people have the right to do things I don't like or agree with. I don't see how it steps on my rights for gays to marry. I also agree that even if it is other people's business it's up to the States to do it their way. Feds need to stay out of it and most other things....
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by 12 years, 8 months ago
    The Supreme Court will be hearing arguments this week on 2 gay marriage issues. I hope that the first question asked is "Why is this a federal issue?" Nowhere in the constitution nor amendments can I find anything that relates to a federal authority on marriage, gay, straight or otherwise.
    In fact, the 10th amendment strictly prohibits the federal government from messing in anything not explicitly specified in the constitution and subsequent amendments, something our federal legislators seem to have forgotten.
    I encourage all to communicate with the justices that the only appropriate ruling is to nullify any/all federal legislation of marriage and send these issues back to the individual states.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ogr8bearded1 12 years, 8 months ago
    The Federal government claims the right under the 14th amendment. It is the same amendment that was used to create the abortion laws in Roe v. Wade. Somehow an amendment meant to give Blacks citizenship and the right to vote has been very broadly interpreted on the basis of due process and equal protection. Basically it renders the 10th amendment powerless in many situations by the way it has been ruled in the judiciary.

    The same process for gay marriage will be as it was for interracial marriage and most likely the courts will rule that States must allow them to take place or they will be denying a citizen their right to liberty.

    Marriage has been ruled a 'fundamental right' by the UN also, though with no definition of the term.

    The causes of the War Between the States was much more than just slavery. The people of the South felt there were Social, Economic, Political and Religious differences between the North and the South that two Nations already existed. One cause does not tear a Nation apart, it is a cumulation of many factors that highlight major differences until one side or the other no longer sees a purpose of trying to reason with the other. Or as was put in the Declaration of Independence, "...to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 11 years, 10 months ago
      I would again ask what business is it of the federal government? This is not in the constitution, nor any amendment, and thus is a states or peoples issue.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo