Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
CIVIL RIGHTS V. 3,000 YEAR-OLD BOOK; TOME WINS
Posts
Craze
View playlists
Close
You're going to burn effigies of nuclear families? You just keep up the hateful rhetoric, it makes your side look as silly as its stereotype.
If I am not mistaken, gay couples can get "civil unions" - however, it is not what they want. They want "marriage" because they want to obtain the same options that a female/male couple has. The debate is the definition of marriage being between a male and a female.
Personally, I don't really care. If two people who are mature adults really love each other (in a country of 50% divorce rates), sure.
Personally, I don't really care. If two people who are mature adults really love each other (in a country of 50% divorce rates), sure.
Drakonais
2787
I don't understand people who both:
a.) Don't want the government intervening in their affairs
b.) Want the government to make laws telling people what they can't do
There is either a mental disconnect or a willful double-standard.
a.) Don't want the government intervening in their affairs
b.) Want the government to make laws telling people what they can't do
There is either a mental disconnect or a willful double-standard.
Blitzen
3253
By that fancy "rational argument" it is no more morally abhorrent for gays to get married than it is for anyone to join the army, an institution where men are not all free or equal.
... just sayin'.
... just sayin'.
post=105681
I don't understand people who both:
a.) Don't want the government intervening in their affairs
b.) Want the government to make laws telling people what they can't do
There is either a mental disconnect or a willful double-standard.
This does not in any way reflect my views on this subject, but your statement is erroneous. There is no law stating that heterosexuals CAN marry. Marriage is a religious institution and the government has decided to recognize marriages between a male and a female, the necessary pieces of a family unit. It has also decided to recognize domestic partnerships between any two people. People need to get this whole "legal/illegal" mindset out of their heads, as well as the idea that judges "should do something about it." Judges don't make laws, because judges are not elected by people.
In essence, people who are pro gay marriage are demanding that the government intervene further, not less.
But the problem people have is that domestic partnerships are not equal to a marriage partnership. They do not have many of the same rights a married couple has (illness visitation and inheritance being just two things that come to mind off the top of my head). The issue here is they want to be treated as equals, given the same rights and having access to the same union, marriage, that heterosexuals do, not given some watered down version as if they were second-class citizens.
I am not opposed to saying the government should interfere more here. If citizens are not being treated as equals, which the Constitution calls for, that is something they should definitely try to fix.
I am not opposed to saying the government should interfere more here. If citizens are not being treated as equals, which the Constitution calls for, that is something they should definitely try to fix.
It is worth noting that many judges ARE elected officials, at least on the state level. Policy will vary state by state, however.
Federal judges are a whole different story, though. But yeah, just clarifying.
There are two pending cases in the federal courts related to gay marriage. I am not clear on the details but it will be interesting to see if the gay marriage ban is deemed unconstitutional(constitutional law overrides state law, meaning it would immediately be allowed in every state).
Really though, the best weapon the gays have is time. The kids of the 80s and 90s have a significantly more positive view of gay marriage then the previous decades.
Federal judges are a whole different story, though. But yeah, just clarifying.
There are two pending cases in the federal courts related to gay marriage. I am not clear on the details but it will be interesting to see if the gay marriage ban is deemed unconstitutional(constitutional law overrides state law, meaning it would immediately be allowed in every state).
Really though, the best weapon the gays have is time. The kids of the 80s and 90s have a significantly more positive view of gay marriage then the previous decades.
Will it be the equivalent of Roe v. Wade?
I remember reading about rights and morality and a few other things to do with gay marriage in a book called The Science of Good & Evil. I vaguely recall that I like the position the author put forth on it but I can't remember the specifics. I should dig that up. The gist of it though was that human rights trump human desire.
I remember reading about rights and morality and a few other things to do with gay marriage in a book called The Science of Good & Evil. I vaguely recall that I like the position the author put forth on it but I can't remember the specifics. I should dig that up. The gist of it though was that human rights trump human desire.
captainregal
1356
This is my simple take on the matter. Marriage is a religious institution. The government happens to recognize this institution. I am wholeheartedly in favor of a civil union or whatever you want to call it. That gives gay men or women who want to be legally joined together, the same rights as married people are. Most of the gay community as I understand it does not want anything besides Gay Marriage. If it is not called gay marriage they would suggest that it is some sort of discrimination on there human rights. I feel that calling it gay marriage indicates that the government and its people place gay marriage, on the same footing as marriage both morally and socially. Right now 52% of people do not think it is. So therefor it won't be. I believe that being gay or more specifically having gay sex is a sin. However no more a sin than me cohabiting with my girlfriend.
On a similar topic when supreme court judges make laws it infuriates me. That is not there job.
On a similar topic when supreme court judges make laws it infuriates me. That is not there job.
post=106656
On a similar topic when supreme court judges make laws it infuriates me. That is not there job.
They have never made a law in our history - only ruled on how it our laws are interpreted and applied, which is entirely their job.
post=105576
this is why I give up making decent topics on rmn
You should probably start making decent topics, then.
I find this to be a case of "I love democracy until it doesn't agree with me." The matter of fact here is that over a majority of people voted that homosexual marriage is not legal. You can't say it was due entirely to religious reasons (which Craze was so eager to jump on that it was) or any other. That is information you do not have and frankly doesn't matter. What does matter here is that more people say "no" than said "yes". That is democracy working.
My take on the matter is similar to Captain Regal's. I agree that there should be a "legal binding" between two people that gives them full legal benefits as marriage does today. Marriage will just be a form of that given out by religious process.
Marriage isn't a right, either.
post=106666post=105576You should probably start making decent topics, then.
this is why I give up making decent topics on rmn
k
Agreed, Jude. Nobody should be persecuted, attacked, etc. for their differing beliefs.
That doesn't mean they can gay marry.
That doesn't mean they can gay marry.
