Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Coming Scrap Over Gay Marriage

I'm not disagreeing, just asking��.so if POS #1 knocks up POS #2 and neither want or can afford to take care of the kid��..the state gets stuck with the bill��..happens all the time��

What is the solution??

Two general observations -

Homosexuals and lesbians may get the legal right to a government sanctioned and administered union, but it will never be a "marriage". Words have meanings, and the definition of marriage has been well established for hundreds of years as the union between a man and a woman. As far as I'm concerned, hack judges and and self serving politicians have no power to change that fact. I will never refer to what gays are doing as a "marriage".

Second, the implementation of the homosexual agenda IS infringing on the rights of heterosexuals. For example, it is widely recognized that it is inappropriate for women to have to work in a sexually hostile workplace. Accordingly, women traditionally have been provided with gender specific changing areas and sleeping, bathing and toilet facilities. This was done in respect for women's sexual modesty, and so that women in intimate settings would not be exposed to unwanted sexual observation by males. However, under the homosexual agenda, heterosexual women are required to endure the presence of lesbians in the most intimate of settings, even though the same principles of sexual attraction and unwanted observation apply.

This political policy of infringing the privacy rights of heterosexuals now been officially adopted by the military. Women in the military are not required share changing facilities, sleeping quarters, and showers with men, but heterosexual men must share these intimate facilities with homosexual men.

Plenty of other examples are out there.

Miles

Do you believe it is in man's "nature" to be monogamous?

Charities? Orphanages? Give them to the CIA and train them as assassins? [bleep] if I know. [bleep] if I care.

I just know it is none of the government's business and not one cent of my tax money should be going toward paying a judge, case worker, stenographer, clerk, or any other state employee because Mercedez and Tyrone couldn't work things out.



Flave 2016!

NO! And, I believe females are inclusive in the term man's. I believe that men and women can be monogamous. I believe that no religion has done much good in creating monogamy in the United States. In my opinion people are not usually good at selecting mates that will be compatible (good) mates for the rest of their lives because they really have had too little time to sort themselves out when they select a mate. Their reproductive life span is far shorter than their actual lifespan now. A life long mate now is something far different than when a lifespan might be 30 years f you're lucky. All animals have very strong inbred instincts for mate selection that are very heavily influenced by the prospect of progeny.

People responsible for people, what a concept.

That's the reason for family and church, not state.

I seriously doubt this will amount to much of an issue. Right now, my wife and I are married. We are married in whichever state I choose to live in and do no need to be "remarried" if I move to say Wisconsin or Utah or anywhere else. International law has the same provisions. We do not need to remarry should we move to another country.

Homosexual marriage is now legal and fully equal to heterosexual marriage in something like seventeen states. It will almost certainly be legal in more than half of the states within ten years. Utah and any other state prohibiting homosexual marriage without a doubt have married homosexuals living in those states. Legally married homosexuals married in other states. The states wishing to bar homosexual marriage will have to overcome equal protection and full faith and credit in order to continue to bar homosexual marriage.

In order to do that the states will have to show a rational reason to be allowed to continue to do so. When half of the country manages to remain undamaged by homosexual marriage, that bar will be virtually impossible to meet.

In my opinion, even the number of states allowing homosexual marriage at this time presents a bar so high as to be effectively impossible. I'd bet the battle is already lost. It seems very, very unlikely that there is a way to reverse the states allowing at this time. That is about what states wishing to ban will have to accomplish in order to continue. They will have to present a compelling reason backed up by clearly demonstrated harm to hold their ground.

Even claiming intrusion on religious belief will provide no sanctuary. Marriage may be a religious tenet, but it is a legal construct and thus subject to constitutional law. The answer for religious objection is simply not forcing the religious entity(s) to adopt the practice. Something wholly different than barring a religious entity from engaging in a practice. Look to miscegenation statutes and religious practice for examples of BTDT and got the T shirt. That example took place quite recently.

He who made kittens put snakes in the grass...

Not to sidetrack this thread, but I'd like to hear how you explain people who from their earliest memories have known their gender did not match their body parts. Those same children were often, perhaps usually observed as exhibiting cross gender behavior from the very nearly birth.

To me it would seem a particularly perverse god who created a child of incorrect gender and then expected that child to follow a religion's teachings and and behave sexually in diametrical conflict to his god given instincts.

Will someone please explain how a same sex couple adversely effects their neighbors. Try as I might, I just cannot see what the big deal is.

Interesting���then I guess you would also say it's "particularly perverse" of God to create man so that he is NOT, by nature, monogamous��.yet require him to act that way??

Yep, but God doesn't require kittens to be anything but kittens or snakes to be anything but snakes���