STUDY finds: More Support for Gun Rights, Gay Marriage than in 2008, 2004

Ezerharden · May 11, 2012

Super Trucker said:
Thankfully a few people had morals when this topic was voted on a few years ago. I guess that will soon change as well.

I find that "morals" are much like "ethics" in the fact that they are both "situational" in nature. Which is more "moral", following a religious definition or abiding by the rule of respect for individual freedoms? Many would (and have) argued that carrying a device created to kill is an immoral act as it violates "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Not the best example but the best I can come up with after being up almost 24 hours. Guess what I am getting at is just because someone doesn't believe what you believe doesn't make their belief any less valid.

"Everyone's pain is valid to themselves"

hermannr · May 11, 2012

Marriage is a religious thing, the government does not need to be involved, they already involved, or trying to be involved in to much of our private lives. The reason you find the gay crowd crying for "state sanctioned" same sex marriage is for the potential government benifits and social acceptance. IMHO, the state should get out of the marriage business completely and leave it to the church if someone wants to marry.

This poll is like any other. It is designed to be run on a computer, independent variables are not allowed. Like political party, are you a Dem or Rep? No? then you must be independent, so do you lean Dem or Rep...Hej, I'm a libertarian, no I do not lean to eitehr side, OK? That always gets them...they have no cute little bucket to put me in.

Ezerharden · May 11, 2012

hermannr said:
Marriage is a religious thing, the government does not need to be involved, they already involved, or trying to be involved in to much of our private lives. The reason you find the gay crowd crying for "state sanctioned" same sex marriage is for the potential government benifits and social acceptance. IMHO, the state should get out of the marriage business completely and leave it to the church if someone wants to marry.

This poll is like any other. It is designed to be run on a computer, independent variables are not allowed. Like political party, are you a Dem or Rep? No? then you must be independent, so do you lean Dem or Rep...Hej, I'm a libertarian, no I do not lean to eitehr side, OK? That always gets them...they have no cute little bucket to put me in.

I disagree, I think it is a form of contract. If it were a religious thing Judges and Captains of ships could not marry two people. Love is love, and no one should be treated less fairly because of their beliefs. If you want to argue the religious side of this, go for it. I can quote many scriptures that advocate prostituting one's daughter, stoning adulteress's, and many others. Those rules are archaic and obsolete, but lets keep marriage a "religious" issue because some don't agree. Well Some do not agree with people owning and carrying guns. What makes your Belief on marriage any more valid than their belief on gun ownership and carrying? And please do not cite the 2nd amendment unless you can cite another one that says marriage is a religious issue and only between man and woman.

Bottom line, either you respect all peoples rights as laid down by constitutional law or you are a hypocrite picking and choosing what you will "accept"

WilDChilD · May 11, 2012

Ezerharden said:
Bottom line, either you respect all peoples rights as laid down by constitutional law or you are a hypocrite picking and choosing what you will "accept"

What amendment protects gay marriage? The gay marriage thread needs to be locked down.

Ezerharden · May 11, 2012

WilDChilD said:
What amendment protects gay marriage?

What amendment rules against it?

Back OT as to the gun portion of the study. I think with the steadily rising crime rate and gutting of police departments across the country, it is not surprising to see more and more people for carrying a gun for protection as it is increasingly clear no one else will protect you.

Tucker6900 · May 11, 2012

Ezerharden said:
What amendment rules against it?

Back OT as to the gun portion of the study. I think with the steadily rising crime rate and gutting of police departments across the country, it is not surprising to see more and more people for carrying a gun for protection as it is increasingly clear no one else will protect you.

The Constitution does neither. So, per the 10th amendment, the power to regulate goes to the state. The states have the power to regulate what the federal government cannot. Still, it flies in the face of freedom to tell any who, what, when, where, and why they can marry anyone.

I agree with most of the above posts about getting rid of governmental regulation in this area. All people are created equal, and are to be treated as such, regardless of sexual preference.

Guns are here to stay. I dont think the people are going to put up with much more of this over reach of the government. And, in the unfortunate event of the .gov trying to rid us of our arms, there will be war.

Venator · May 11, 2012

Tucker6900 said:
The Constitution does neither. So, per the 10th amendment, the power to regulate goes to the state. The states have the power to regulate what the federal government cannot. Still, it flies in the face of freedom to tell any who, what, when, where, and why they can marry anyone.

I agree with most of the above posts about getting rid of governmental regulation in this area. All people are created equal, and are to be treated as such, regardless of sexual preference.

Guns are here to stay. I dont think the people are going to put up with much more of this over reach of the government. And, in the unfortunate event of the .gov trying to rid us of our arms, there will be war.

Homosexuality will be here to stay as well. It has been around since animals have had sex organs.

If the church doesn't want to perform gay marriages then they don't have to. But please keep your religious beliefs out of government and peoples private lives. If states want to marry gays in a civil ceremony then so be it.

ramkatral · May 11, 2012

Doesn't matter to me. I live in NC and we passed amendment one. We have answered the question in our state, far as I'm concerned.

Spirit4earth · May 12, 2012

I live in NC, too, and I'm very sure that the fight for equal rights for EVERYONE isn't over yet.

ramkatral · May 12, 2012

If you say so.

Mark 1911 · May 19, 2012

I have been CCing since 1989. Have only started OCing this year. I figure if proponents of gay marriage, abortion, contraception, euthansia, and every other flavor of immorality are doing their best to infringe on the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of Americans, including our own president (worst in US history), then I have no right to complain about it unless I am just as willing to stand up for what I believe in. Not trying to start a political debate here, just saying that I don't support any of that stuff and I don't like being called a bigot simply because I don't. I started OCing precisely because of the radical direction our society is taking. Everything is being twisted by the liberals. Traditional Americans are being called every vile name in the book, being accused of bigotry and hate, but it's all backwards and distorted. The bigotry and hatred is really coming from the other side. It's high time to stand up for traditional values. Besides, it's getting too hot outside to CC.

Big Gay Al · Jun 9, 2012

Venator said:
I was hoping people would dwell on the gun part and ignore the gay stuff, but I should have known.

Yes, you should have known.

I hope I don't have to tell all of you where I stand on both positions.

I've always said the LGBT community has the right to be just as miserable as the straight community.

Sent from my LG-VM701 using Tapatalk 2

SFCRetired · Jun 9, 2012

Now I shall expose myself to the virtual tarring and feathering that usually comes with this subject:

1. The right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right, and the amendment says, "shall not be infringed". One aspect of marriage is a privilege and one aspect is a right.

2. There are two aspects of marriage. Most people either do not realize or do not recognize that.

3. The first aspect is a civil contract. It is in the interest of the state (society) to regulate the forming of civil contracts. Were it not a civil contract, there would be no need for courts specifically to dissolve that contract. Religion has no business whatsoever meddling in that arena. This is the aspect that I believe is a privilege because the state requires a permit for it.

4. The second aspect is a religious ceremony or sacrament. The state has no business meddling in that area and a license should not be required for that sacrament. However, if a license is obtained, then the rules for a civil contract also apply. It should be left up to the particular denomination whether or not it chooses to perform same-sex marriages. This aspect is, I believe, a right as it comes under the heading of "Freedom of Religion".

For the record: I am an old, straight male who is happily married. We were married twice, once by a probate judge and once by two ministers (one Chinese and one American).

Big Gay Al · Jun 9, 2012

SFCRetired said:
Now I shall expose myself to the virtual tarring and feathering that usually comes with this subject:

1. The right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right, and the amendment says, "shall not be infringed". One aspect of marriage is a privilege and one aspect is a right.

2. There are two aspects of marriage. Most people either do not realize or do not recognize that.

3. The first aspect is a civil contract. It is in the interest of the state (society) to regulate the forming of civil contracts. Were it not a civil contract, there would be no need for courts specifically to dissolve that contract. Religion has no business whatsoever meddling in that arena. This is the aspect that I believe is a privilege because the state requires a permit for it.

4. The second aspect is a religious ceremony or sacrament. The state has no business meddling in that area and a license should not be required for that sacrament. However, if a license is obtained, then the rules for a civil contract also apply. It should be left up to the particular denomination whether or not it chooses to perform same-sex marriages. This aspect is, I believe, a right as it comes under the heading of "Freedom of Religion".

For the record: I am an old, straight male who is happily married. We were married twice, once by a probate judge and once by two ministers (one Chinese and one American).

I have no problem with that at all. Makes perfect sense to me.

Super Trucker · Jun 9, 2012

So am I to understand that homos can not make a will, living will, power of attorney giving their buddy the ability to pull the plug if needed, to get their assets after death, or any other "legal" need?
Would that not eliminate the need for them to contaminate the definition of marriage and everybody could live happily ever after.

Big Gay Al · Jun 9, 2012

Super Trucker said:
So am I to understand that homos can not make a will, living will, power of attorney giving their buddy the ability to pull the plug if needed, to get their assets after death, or any other "legal" need?
Would that not eliminate the need for them to contaminate the definition of marriage and everybody could live happily ever after.

No, it wouldn't. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

budlight · Jun 9, 2012

SFCRetired said:
Now I shall expose myself to the virtual tarring and feathering that usually comes with this subject:

1. The right to keep and bear arms is just that, a right, and the amendment says, "shall not be infringed". One aspect of marriage is a privilege and one aspect is a right.

2. There are two aspects of marriage. Most people either do not realize or do not recognize that.

3. The first aspect is a civil contract. It is in the interest of the state (society) to regulate the forming of civil contracts. Were it not a civil contract, there would be no need for courts specifically to dissolve that contract. Religion has no business whatsoever meddling in that arena. This is the aspect that I believe is a privilege because the state requires a permit for it.

4. The second aspect is a religious ceremony or sacrament. The state has no business meddling in that area and a license should not be required for that sacrament. However, if a license is obtained, then the rules for a civil contract also apply. It should be left up to the particular denomination whether or not it chooses to perform same-sex marriages. This aspect is, I believe, a right as it comes under the heading of "Freedom of Religion".

For the record: I am an old, straight male who is happily married. We were married twice, once by a probate judge and once by two ministers (one Chinese and one American).

+1...well explained!

Super Trucker · Jun 9, 2012

Big Gay Al said:
No, it wouldn't. :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

Care to explain why it wouldn't?

Big Gay Al · Jun 9, 2012

Super Trucker said:
Care to explain why it wouldn't?

Income tax, health insurance, inheritance rights in case there's no will. And probably a dozen other things I haven't thought about.

Oh, and how about just plain old common courtesy. Or is that asking too much?

twoskinsonemanns · Jun 10, 2012

Thanks everyone. The most important thing is to bicker over the trivial %2 of stuff that matters. Don't leave any energy or fight let over for the stuff like bloated federal, civil right stealing, big government that both parties yearn for.

STUDY finds: More Support for Gun Rights, Gay Marriage than in 2008, 2004

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member

Regular Member

Michigan Moderator

Regular Member