Race for the presidency political discussion thread

[InfinityMax]

Originally Posted by Drumline3469

Let's just legalize gay prostitution and call it even?

See, now you're making sense.

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Snotwalker 8000

So should there be NO definition of marriage at all?

• Because simply by having a definition of marriage, you are by default excluding someone or something... which nowadays could, and probably would be, construed as discriminatory.
• But if there is no definition of marriage, then marriage, by default, loses all meaning...

SW8K....

The definition of marriage should be altered to include those previously excluded as long as it is between two consenting adults. It should not be based on race, sex, or religion.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Roland

The State gets nothing from recognizing marriage.

Then why does it? May I suggest a few things the State might see as benefits to recognizing marriage?

1) It has the potential to produce more taxpayers.
2) It provides a method for training future taxpayers.
3) It tends to provide social stability.

~Aldin, curious as to whether you agree with this

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Then why does it? May I suggest a few things the State might see as benefits to recognizing marriage?

1) It has the potential to produce more taxpayers.
2) It provides a method for training future taxpayers.
3) It tends to provide social stability.

~Aldin, curious as to whether you agree with this

I personally could not think of a reason, but given the above 3 what do any have to do with being a heterosexual?

~ Roland, agreeing with your reasons.

[Drumline3469]

Originally Posted by Roland

The definition of marriage should be altered to include those previously excluded as long as it is between two consenting adults. It should not be based on race, sex, or religion.

Who defined marriage? The church. If you want separation of church and state, then let the state stay out of it. If the church wants to marry gays (some will) then let them. If they don't want to, then don't make them. If the state wants to recognize unions for tax purposes, let them do that, but don't call it marriage. Marriage in its essence is a religious act.

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by Drumline3469

That's what happens when you take people out of context just to try and make someone think you're right. You stick with what you know about homosexuals, I'll stick with what I know about homophones.

Is that what gay people use to call each other with???


Bannister

[Roland]

Originally Posted by Drumline3469

Who defined marriage? The church. If you want separation of church and state, then let the state stay out of it. If the church wants to marry gays (some will) then let them. If they don't want to, then don't make them. If the state wants to recognize unions for tax purposes, let them do that, but don't call it marriage. Marriage in its essence is a religious act.

Then the state should not recognize it period using your argument.

[Bannister]

Hey! I found one!!



Bannister

[Ted_Danson]

You guys, this is crazy!

Seriously, we can not condone telling people what they can and can't do. It is not what this country is based on. It is not really the path that has been followed, but we can only make the same mistakes so many times, right?

Gay people are people, who are BORN gay. If you say it is a choice, that means that you've CHOSEN to be straight, leading me to believe there were options open at some point.

Passive objection to gay marriage is the same as the US allowing hitler to capture and kill Jews, before getting involved because we were bombed.

I personally think organized religion is an awful tool used to look down on others, and should be undone altogether. I am allowed that opinon. But, I am not on the street corner throwing it at the world, because I know it is not the way to treat people for believeing in the things they believe in.

[Snotwalker 8000]

Originally Posted by Roland

The definition of marriage should be altered to include those previously excluded as long as it is between two consenting adults. It should not be based on race, sex, or religion.

So could a brother legally marry his sister? Or mother marry her son?

SW8K

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Roland

I personally could not think of a reason, but given the above 3 what do any have to do with being a heterosexual?

~ Roland, agreeing with your reasons.

I think I need to first mention that pure theory is pretty irrelevant in this case simply because there is such a strong desire to treat people fairly and to see others become both happy and satisfied in their lives. In other words, I don't think a rational, factual discussion really touches on the genuine issues of gay marriage. I also note that the State's current method of supporting marriage and allowing for divorce has already moved away from the strictly pragmatic and to a stance which attempts to allow more emotional sway than is strictly beneficial to the State.

Having said that, the answer is that while you could certainly argue that married homosexuals provide for #s 2 & 3 (you could also argue against it, but that's a wholly seperate discussion), they are incapable of providing #1 - new taxpayers, aka babies. Thus, there is a genuine incentive for the State to recognize heterosexual marriages and not recognize homosexual ones.

~Aldin, wondering if the State part should be pragmatic while everyone yells at eachother over the religious aspects

[Bannister]

Originally Posted by Snotwalker 8000

So could a brother legally marry his sister? Or mother marry her son?

SW8K

You mean they can't legally marry each other???

Bannister, while playing his banjo.