Totally speechless

---

You have a point.. it shouldn't NEED a vote. What I do in my private life in none of your business or anyone elses business. Why should I have to get approval from people like you to marry the person I love?

Majority might be the proper word... but look at the final votes, Prop 8 didn't win by a huge margin in the scheme of things.Times are changing, slowly... but progress is progress.

Originally Posted By: NtroducingMyselfWhat I do in my private life in none of your business or anyone elses business. Marriage has always been considered a public issue...not a private one. Cerimonies can be private...but not the fact of the matter. Just look at a tax return. Quote:Why should I have to get approval from people like you to marry the person I love?You shouldn't have to, and don't have to. But I'm not the authority in this matter. Either you answer to the state or to God...whichever you think is higher.

I'm talking about legality thor. That's why Mormons aren't aloud to claim freedom of religion when they commit bigamy. It's because the separation of church and state that such laws as those restricting marriage are aloud to stand. In my opinion though, allowing such laws violates the equal protection clause.

We'll just agree to disagree. I think the roots of marriage are the very heart of the issue...without which, it has no meaning. Leave it alone, I say...and give the homosexuals their own civil union, if that's what they really want. But I'm sure there's a lot of them that won't stop until marriage and the family unit is in a shambles. "Traditional" has worked for thousands of years in the family...it takes one generation of ego-centric nincompoops to think they know better, and it'll take us a thousand years to clean up their mess if they succeed.

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing it's a matter of fact that the law views marriage as a contract. That is why the law claims the right to regulate it. That is why you don't need a preacher to get married.

Okey-pokey then, brace yourselves, this might be long.

Quote:

I could go on, but either you see what I'm talking about already, or you never will.

First of all, there's no need to get crabby, I am under no circumstances looking for an argument, I just asked a simple question.

Quote:

He received half of his $300,000,000.00 in campaign funds from undisclosed sources.

Did John McCain not allegedly accept illegal campaign contributions (from Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild)?

Quote:

His faith, if he really has any, is Muslim

Hold your horses! Whats wrong with being a Muslim? I noticed this point was dealt with by, I think, Grvtykllr earlier so I won't get into it.

Quote:

He's pro partial-birth abortion.

I'm not trying to get you riled up by what I'm about to say, so please don't take it the wrong way. I can't really comment on this as I don't even know myself where I stand with this issue.

I just threw in one or two little comments, as you can see. I'm not trying to convince you or anything, but Obama will do a lot of good:

1. Environmental policies: where John McCain believes in oil (promising oil companies a $4 billion tax break), Obama believes in renewable resources, which will in turn create jobs.
2. Health care: didn't McCain want to tax health benefits?

There's more of course (e.g. Iraq, senior citizens..ect. ect.), but I think you get the general idea.

Quote:Why should I have to get approval from people like you to marry the person I love?Right on!

Originally Posted By: OldFolksIt's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing it's a matter of fact that the law views marriage as a contract. That is why the law claims the right to regulate it. That is why you don't need a preacher to get married. Preachers were marrying folks long before this country was ever around to pass any laws regulating it. And regulating it is all that they do (so far). Where they have made homosexual marriage legal, they have gone past regulating it into the territory of defining it...which is what I argue against. That the laws view marriage as a contract does not limit the meaning of marriage from being nothing more than what is defined by that contract. It is more.

Originally Posted By: sunshine_baby

Did John McCain not allegedly accept illegal campaign contributions (from Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild)?

With McCain, there was no such thing as "alleged". You're buying into liberal propaganda. ALL of McCain's donations, even the ones under the $200.00 reporting requirement, were made public. Obama refused.

Quote:

Hold your horses! Whats wrong with being a Muslim?

All by itself, nothing. Coupled with the facts I mention (and others), it certainly brings into the question a conflict of interest. Is he more interested in holding up the US Constitution, or Sharia Law? Add to that open support by terrorist organizations and I think there is enough to make a case against having a Muslim president...at least for the present.

Quote:

I'm not trying to get you riled up by what I'm about to say, so please don't take it the wrong way. I can't really comment on this as I don't even know myself where I stand with this issue.

Don't worry...you couldn't get me riled up in the way you mean if you tried.

Quote:

1. Environmental policies: where John McCain believes in oil (promising oil companies a $4 billion tax break), Obama believes in renewable resources, which will in turn create jobs.

Where's Obama's plan? What is he going to do? Probably nothing McCain wouldn't have done, and likely less. Giving oil companies money doesn't mean one is not going to invest in alternative energy. That sounds like a liberal spin to me. Thing is, Obama, for all his hype, has no plan...that way, nobody can be critical of it. You just have to "believe in Obama!"

Quote:

2. Health care: didn't McCain want to tax health benefits?

There's more of course (e.g. Iraq, senior citizens..ect. ect.), but I think you get the general idea.

You misunderstand me, I'm beginning to see. I'm not pro-McCain...I'm anti-Obama, and I vote for McCain only to keep Obama out of office.

Thank you for your detailed reply, I respect your views wholeheartedly: not pro-McCain, but anti-Obama. Two details:
Quote:
Giving oil companies money doesn't mean one is not going to invest in alternative energy. That sounds like a liberal spin to me.
John McCain has repeatedly opposed renewable and alternative energy proposals, by either literally voting against them or skipping the vote. For example in 2005[he voted ''Nay''][0] to establish a [renewable portfolio standard][1].
Quote:
Where's Obama's plan? What is he going to do? Probably nothing McCain wouldn't have done, and likely less.
What Obama is going to do, will be completely different from what McCain would have done. They are two different people with polar opposite policies. As for his plan, I will PM it you as it is too long to post and people might get a tad annoyed!
[0]: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00141
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Portfolio_Standard

Originally Posted By: thorIf you wanted a socialist nation, then, yes, your hopes should go way up (move over France).And what's wrong with Socialism?

Well yeah!The are better off in an institution than turning them gay.

Cost of living IS rather high in CA... Generally, the more money you make the more you spend on your lifestyle. That's what I've seen with myself. I would assume it's similar with others.

Quote:...unless you stop and consider that without the church there would BE no such thing as marriage.I'm trying to understand what you are thinking when you say that, thor. Do you believe people didn't marry in pre-Christian times - in the Roman Republic, or imperial China, or in Old Testament Israel? Do you believe non-Christians now don't marry, or that they only know how to marry because the Christian church taught them how to?Or do you believe, rather, that only Christian weddings are valid? That would a valid religious belief, but should the state's laws on spouses only apply to Christian weddings? Would that not be unconsitutional? And if you can swallow the state treating as spouses those you believe are not validly married, because according to their own beliefs they are married, why not be consistent about it?

One would think so, but you don't know her particular situation. But insurance should be a given no matter what.

Chancey boo boo I missed you!! hugsI don't care how unmanly and girly girl that sentence sounded. Deal with it! The biggest impact on me is that Obama has opened the door for not just blacks but every minority and it's just like... unreal but so cool. I agree with you Steph, I hope he doesn't get assassinated. Then again presidents are always the main target.

I kinda like how the Mormans were such huge supporters of the "1 man + 1 woman" campagn

Shouldn't it be 1 Man + n Women?

exactly