• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Tennessee county wants to ban gays..

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
BuckeyeSoldier said:
now for the issue, if the christian or islamic or any other church refuses to marry two men then thats fine, but to deny them legal rights is absurd.. please show me any non religious reason why they cant be together..
Click to expand...

The only people who are saying they can't be together are these people in Tennesee. Just because you are not married does not mean you are "not together".

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the definition of marriage, always has been, at least in our culture. If you allow gays to "marry", it's not marriage any more. That's a fact.

I personally wish the government would not be involved in liscenisng marriage at all. But as long as they are, the people of the United States have the right to decide who will be eligible to get married.

If gay marriage, why not polygomy? After all, the man and his 3 wives, they all love each other. Who are you to deny them the right to be together? What makes a relationship between 2 men acceptable and one between 1 man and 2 woman not? How can you argue against polygamy without religion or morality, which you want to eliminate?
 
Upvote 0
I guess I just don't feel strongly one way or the other. I mean, Gay Marriage is an issue for the states to decide individually, but if one state decides to allow it, then married gays can settle in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, but that state will have to recognize the marriage is legal under the constitution. That being said, I don't think there should be a constitutional amendment over this.

As for this Tennessee county. They are basically making it illegal to be gay. There is no way such a law can be constitutionally upheld.

Overall, this issue will be pushed by both the gay community and the religious right during the election, and it will only serve to distract from the much more important issues.
 
Upvote 0
Well then why not support a Constitutional Amendment that would eliminate full faith and credit on the issue of marriage? It is proposterous that Ohio should have to have gay marriage because Vermont wants it.
 
Upvote 0
As far as marriage is concerned, I belive that it exists in the heart. It isn't the state of New York that makes me married to mt wife, it is our commitment to each other. I don't need a governmental agency to decide that I'm married. You can be married without governmental sanction.

The fact that they do recognize our marriage gives us certain legal rights and responcibilities to each other. That means to me that the real issue lies in the contractual obligation part of a marriage. And while I'm not a constitutional expert I believe that is a matter for states to decide for themselves, not for the Federal Government to decide.
 
Upvote 0
Off Topic:

I challenge you to name me one--just one--culture, nation, race, creed, group, tribe, anything, anywhere, from any timeframe in history, where same-sex marriage was practiced.
Click to expand...

While I don't know the specific names off the top of my head, I do know that there have been societies that have condoned and even encouraged same-sex marriages (some of them are tribes in South America). The situations behind them were complex (they did not have sex with there wives or husbands). I even know of one African tribe that marries their cows (once again, they don't have sex with the cow, well not unless it's a real pretty cow). When you study how different societies have treated marriage it's amazing how many differences there actually are.

I don't think any of this has any bearing on our present situation. I'm just showing off that I didn't sleep in every class.
 
Upvote 0
Those of you who say religion has no place in this debate are way off base. Marriage IS a religious ceremony, officiated by a religious leader. Read up on your history, gentlemen. Mili is dead on when he says that there is no religion, culture, tribe, or whatever, anywhere, anytime, that sanctions same sex marriage. Unless of course you believe the Bible, in which Sodom and Gomorrah allowed it, and were consequently wiped off the face of the earth.

I firmly believe that homosexuality is NOT "normal". People are going to have differing opinions on this, but I think facts are facts. Men provide the sperm, women provide the egg. I've never heard of any other animal, mammal or otherwise (exluding asexual creatures obviously), that practices any type of same-sex bonding or mating. I have never heard any facts that would even make me think twice about whether homosexuality is "normal". Theories are prevalent, but never supported by cold, hard facts.
 
Upvote 0
FKAGobucks877 said:
Those of you who say religion has no place in this debate are way off base. Marriage IS a religious ceremony, officiated by a religious leader. Read up on your history, gentlemen. Mili is dead on when he says that there is no religion, culture, tribe, or whatever, anywhere, anytime, that sanctions same sex marriage. Unless of course you believe the Bible, in which Sodom and Gomorrah allowed it, and were consequently wiped off the face of the earth.

I firmly believe that homosexuality is NOT "normal". People are going to have differing opinions on this, but I think facts are facts. Men provide the sperm, women provide the egg. I've never heard of any other animal, mammal or otherwise (exluding asexual creatures obviously), that practices any type of same-sex bonding or mating. I have never heard any facts that would even make me think twice about whether homosexuality is "normal". Theories are prevalent, but never supported by cold, hard facts.
Click to expand...
I agree with you when it comes to marriage in a church, but marriage in this country is a civil contract. You don't need a marriage recognized by any church in order to be valid. You have to get your license from your local government. You can't just show up at the church and have the preacher marry you without a license. In fact, you don't need a religious officiator to marry you at all. A justice of the peace, mayor, or sea captain can marry you, if you so desire.

Also there is evidence of homosexual behavior in animals see the following link:

http://www.lawrence.com/forum/community_forum/msg/85030927
 
Upvote 0
Amending the constitution to stop one state from imposing its will on the other 49 is not a "knee jerk reaction to an unpopular idea". It would be an attempt to maintaing the right of the people of Ohio, Texas, and South Dakota to make laws for the states of Ohio, Texas, and South Dakota. The way it is now, Vermont could make laws for us or worse yet, the Massachuetts Superme Court's twisted interpretation of its constitution could make laws for us.
 
Upvote 0
If the Constitution of the state of Massachusetts called for gay marriage, gay marriage would have been legal in Massachusetts when the writers of that constitution were alive. You can make words on a piece of paper say almost anything you want them to when you insert your own personal bias into your interpretation. That's why most conservatives believe in strict constructionism.

Besides, why should the opinion on the Massachusetts constitution of as few as five judges in Massachusetts set the marriage laws for the rest of the United States?
 
Upvote 0
Ah, but the reverse also holds true. If a state doesn't want to let gays marry, they should have said "Gays shouldn't marry" Also, why should Mass. suffer because Ohio legislators don't want to allow gay marriages?

Again, it's not as simple as it seems.
 
Upvote 0
Nobody in 1800 would have ever dreamed that homosexuality would ever be socially acceptable, let alone think that gays should marry. Does the fact that the Ohio Constitution not ban murder mean that murder should be legal in Ohio? The constitution sets the framework for government and codifies basic rights--it does not contain all of the laws of the state.

And how would Mass. suffer because Ohio doesn't allow gay marriages? Ohio is Ohio and Mass is Mass. If you are talking about the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that would be the entire US making that decision, not just Ohio. But as it stands now, Massachusetts can impose it's will on Ohio.
 
Upvote 0
Today the county in Tenn. decided to reverse their ban of gay people. They said that it was meant to show support for the ban on gay marriage, and that they didn't intend for it to cause the "wildfire reaction" that came from it.

DUH!?! What the hell did they think was going to happen after passing a law like that??
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top