• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Yep. Another one of them polls.

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
Personally, I think that it is wrong..... but what is it any of my (or the governments) business. If you, as a guy, want to be in a sexual relationship with another, consenting adult, guy (or girl on girl) then it isn't hurting me at all. They shouldn't have to "legalize" gay marriage and it is troubling me that our government even thinks it should have that right.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Marriage period isn't a right, but if the government is going to recognize heterosexual marriage, then it also needs to recognize homosexual marriage.
 
Last edited:

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Not much on freedom of association and free markets eh?
Unless I am mistaken, the issue with gay marriage is not that they will be arrested for getting married, but that the governments will not recognize their marriage. Without that recognition, marriage is nothing more than symbolic gesture written out on a piece of paper. This is what I refer to.

I could be wrong, though. But that doesn't change my stance that it is inappropriate for governments to recognize one marriage but not another.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Unless I am mistaken, the issue with gay marriage is not that they will be arrested for getting married, but that the governments will not recognize their marriage. Without that recognition, marriage is nothing more than symbolic gesture written out on a piece of paper. This is what I refer to.

I could be wrong, though. But that doesn't change my stance that it is inappropriate for governments to recognize one marriage but not another.

ah, seems I was mistaken.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I voted "not sure" because there wasn't an option to "keep the government the hell out of marriage". Marriage should be up to the individual. Have it in church, make a contract or don't make a contract, I don't care. Furthermore, I don't think the government should give out any special privileges to those who are married.
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I voted "not sure" because there wasn't an option to "keep the government the hell out of marriage". Marriage should be up to the individual. Have it in church, make a contract or don't make a contract, I don't care. Furthermore, I don't think the government should give out any special privileges to those who are married.

Likewise.
 
Last edited:

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
I voted "not sure" because there wasn't an option to "keep the government the hell out of marriage". Marriage should be up to the individual. Have it in church, make a contract or don't make a contract, I don't care. Furthermore, I don't think the government should give out any special privileges to those who are married.

I agree wholeheartedly. Maybe the government should issue a "Certificate of Marriage" after the wedding instead of a "Marriage License" before the wedding.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
I voted "not sure" because there wasn't an option to "keep the government the hell out of marriage". Marriage should be up to the individual. Have it in church, make a contract or don't make a contract, I don't care. Furthermore, I don't think the government should give out any special privileges to those who are married.

But penalties are ok right?
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,764
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Personal opinion: There are two kinds of marriage. One is the religious ceremony and should be none of the government's business unless the two parties want to get a license. The other is a civil contract between two consenting adults and should be without regard to gender.

The civil contract should never be constrained by the religious definition of "marriage".

The religious ceremony should be up to the particular sect as to whether it can be a same-sex union.

That said, all an employer or insurer should be required to recognize is the civil contract or the religious ceremony if done with the government license.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Wow, really? I had no idea the tendrils of political correctness had so thoroughly infected OCDO.

So much for the United States of America and the principles upon which she was founded. Crap, if you people can't get the basics right, there's no hope of preserving our right to keep and bear arms.
 

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
Wow, really? I had no idea the tendrils of political correctness had so thoroughly infected OCDO.

So much for the United States of America and the principles upon which she was founded. Crap, if you people can't get the basics right, there's no hope of preserving our right to keep and bear arms.

Agreed.
 

Jack House

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
I80, USA
Wow, really? I had no idea the tendrils of political correctness had so thoroughly infected OCDO.

So much for the United States of America and the principles upon which she was founded. Crap, if you people can't get the basics right, there's no hope of preserving our right to keep and bear arms.
You mean equality and freedom? I'm probably the least politically correct person here.
 

Fisherman

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
160
Location
45R
Equality and freedoms are for people. Not preferences. It's in their jeans and not their genes. It's a perversion and they need to get back in the closet or clean it. Want to do that kind of crap? Don't do it in public. Sorry, I don't do PC. Must not be "enlightened".
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
I agree with those who say the government should not be involved at all in relationships and should not provide benefits to married people. And I also agree with Jack. If the government recognizes one, they should recognize the other.

Equality and freedoms are for people. Not preferences. It's in their jeans and not their genes. It's a perversion and they need to get back in the closet or clean it. Want to do that kind of crap? Don't do it in public. Sorry, I don't do PC. Must not be "enlightened".

Freedom isn't about preferences? What about the preference to open carry? Should we keep guns hidden because they disturb some people?
 
Last edited:
Top