• 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.

Americans increasingly in favor of gay marriage, gun rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
i dont think that piece is entirely accurate.

i do believe that more americans support the right to gay marriage than any time in american history. however, when states vote on the issue either through legislatures or initiatives the vast majority are against same sex marriage.

personally i am not in favor of gay marriage but i am opposed to government involvement in marriage.
 

mahkagari

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
, ,
i do believe that more americans support the right to gay marriage than any time in american history. however, when states vote on the issue either through legislatures or initiatives the vast majority are against same sex marriage.

I wouldn't say "vast". Depending on the state, it's been close, just like gun control. What the article is pointing out is that the trend is more and more toward getting government out of either.

I'm against gay marriage as well. At least for me. Even if Clay Aiken finally answers my letters, I don't don't need him keeping me from Renee Olstead. I don't care what anyone else does.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Some of us have realized that loving our neighbors and treating others as we want to be treated means granting everybody an equal shake at the whole "marriage" business. Simultaneously, those same people recognize there are those who are angry that others might enjoy equality and would violently seek to oppress those of different beliefs. We see that the only way to stand against such oppression is by being our own defenders.

So yeah, not too surprising to see marriage equality and the right to self-defense come together. Delicious.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Some of us have realized that loving our neighbors and treating others as we want to be treated means granting everybody an equal shake at the whole "marriage" business. Simultaneously, those same people recognize there are those who are angry that others might enjoy equality and would violently seek to oppress those of different beliefs. We see that the only way to stand against such oppression is by being our own defenders.

So yeah, not too surprising to see marriage equality and the right to self-defense come together. Delicious.

As usual you manage to be inflamatory and come to the incorrect conclusion.
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,293
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
I'm a conservative person and I fully support the right of two people to marry, regardless of gender. It's not my lifestyle, but who am I to tell two people that they can't or shouldn't live their lives in a way that maximizes their happiness. Two men or two women being legally married, has ZERO impact on anyone. As conservatives, we owe it to our integrity to uphold our principal value, the pursuit of freedom from government intervention in our personal lives, and defend everyone's right to equal access to the institution of marriage. To do otherwise is contrary to everything we believe in.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
As usual you manage to be inflamatory and come to the incorrect conclusion.

What conclusion is incorrect, and what's inflammatory about stating how we view equality? Marriage is a word used in two contexts, with two meanings. One is civil marriage, the other is religious. Nothing legally prevents a same-sex couple from being religiously married in the status quo. Civilly, however, is a different story.

People have taken their religious views and voted to impose them upon society, preventing loving couples in long-term relationships from enjoying the civil protections and status of marriage. Ironically, these people are voting based on their religious views, and are usually the same people who would cry out "Sharia!" the moment a Muslim voted to enforce their religious views upon the public.

So, what's the incorrect conclusion? That denying someone a civil marriage because your religion says no or because it makes you feel squicky is denying people equal treatment under the law? That some have acted violently towards gays, including gay bashing and other forms of targeted battery? That self-defense is the only option in many of these cases? As the pink pistols put it: "Armed gays don't get bashed." What's incorrect about those conclusions, and why is expressing them inflammatory?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
28% think gay marriage is important to their vote? What a crock of crappola ... "back up the trucks boys ! We got another load of s**t to dispose of !"
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Well, it's Kalifornia, so.. there's going to be a slant/bias, of course...

Do keep in mind that the PRK put it to a vote and banned gay marriage. The bay area, in particular SF, is extremely mature sexually, but that doesn't apply to the rest of the "state."
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Well, when they, the cops, start hassling gay couples who happen to be married like the OCer get hassled, then gay folks will know what it is like to be oppressed by the state.
 

osmanobma

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
52
Location
Missouri
i want to start my post by saying i want government out of the marriage business.

now, i am also against gay marriage, its wrong, its immoral and just plane weird.

but if the pro-gay marriage crowd what to be consistant and have a shred of credibility in their argument, they have to be for

polygamy and incest marriage. if you have the "right" to marry the same gender, surely you have the right to marry multiple people of the same gender,
you have the right to marry your brothers, sisters, heck even your mom and dad. or even all of them at the same time.
i will even extend it to you should be able to marry minors. who are you to say that 14 year old cant marry a 60 year old. if they consent, why not.
we currently have a very arbitrary age of 18. but why 18, can people not make the decision to get married at 17, or 16, 15, 14, etc.

people have sex before 18 all the time, get pregnant too, should we throw them all in jail? but they cant get married.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Government should stay out of the business of marriage, all of it. That means who marries who, or how many. Separation of church and state, and all that jazz.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
the bolded appears no where in the constitution

You missed the part about freedom of religion?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
the bolded appears no where in the constitution

Nor does typing as a form of speech, but we can read the words of the first amendment and understand them in the context of how they are meant to function. Considering the very men who wrote or were contemporaries of the constitution writers described the first amendment as establishing a wall of separation between church and state, is it really that much of a stretch to mention that?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Nor does typing as a form of speech, but we can read the words of the first amendment and understand them in the context of how they are meant to function. Considering the very men who wrote or were contemporaries of the constitution writers described the first amendment as establishing a wall of separation between church and state, is it really that much of a stretch to mention that?

You know I never thought we would agree on anything.:shocker:
 

osmanobma

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
52
Location
Missouri
Nor does typing as a form of speech, but we can read the words of the first amendment and understand them in the context of how they are meant to function. Considering the very men who wrote or were contemporaries of the constitution writers described the first amendment as establishing a wall of separation between church and state, is it really that much of a stretch to mention that?


this is what the amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

yeah nothing about separation of church and state. it clearly mean they cant make a law promoting a religion. like they cant pass a law saying everyone has to be baptist or you go to jail.


you do realize they used to hold church services in congress right?

and im sure you are invoking Thomas jefferson's letter mentioning a "wall of separation". well first of all, seeing as letters written by people who didnt write the constitution, has never been considered considered law, let alone constitutional law, it really has no bearing on public policy. 2nd that very man, thomas jefferson often lead congress in church and prayer inside of the congress building. so much for separation of church and state. you cant get much more conjoined than that.

the intent of the amendment was never to meant to eliminate religion from the public sphere.
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You seem to have missed the bold part of the First Admendment...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top