<p>
</p>
<p>BiggestFoot, The difference is VICTIMS. Cigarettes are harmful and addictive, and drugs like pot and heroin make people do horrible things. Seatbelts and helmets are for safety. Allowing a gay couple to have the same rights and yes, to use the word “marriage” just like a hetero couple HAS NO VICTIM.</p>
<p>On a completely unrelated note, I’d like to know: do you have a large foot? Also, since we’re on PSA-C, are you going/applying to a prep school? If so, where?</p>
<p>IzzyBB: Villanova Preparatory School. Size 14.</p>
<p>Where is the data that pot makes people do horrible things. Nor the peyote I took for my vision quest?</p>
<p>Skidad, he will resign or be impeached.</p>
<p>Almost there
We agree with each other. Gay Unions for civil purposes are ok, just not marriage. They have the right for equal protection under the law, they do not have the right to be “married”.</p>
<p>Sanford may resign or be impeached, but not because he committed adultery (which is illegal in SC, but even if he had violated the law within the state’s boarders it hasn’t been enforced in many decades). He left the state without being available or putting someone else in charge. For any chief executive officer, in the public sector or private, that level of irresponsibility is a firing offense. He may have also spent state money for personal purposes which would violate ethics standards. </p>
<p>The problem with “civil unions for civil purposes are OK, but gay marriage is not” is that many government recognized rights and benefits are reserved for those that are married. So it is absurd to say that there are equal rights under the law merely by providing a “civil union” alternative. However, if you are sincere in your belief in equal rights I have a solution that should be fine with you.</p>
<p>Your apparent objection is that first and foremost marriage is a sacred religious recognition (debateable, but let’s go with it for the moment). So, we should replace the word “marriage” in our laws with the term “civil unions” - after all, we shouldn’t even have government involved in sanctifying religious acts. Existing marriage licenses will be reissued as civil union licenses. All gay or straight couples may obtain such a license, which will be the only form of legal recognition. Churches will be free to issue “marriage licenses” to acceptable couples, but they will carry no legal weight whatsoever. Heterosexual couples will lose absolutely no legal rights and gays will be on an equal footing under the law.</p>
<p>Edit: By the way, judges that strike down legal restrictions are not “making law.” They are doing precisely what the Constitution (federal or state) says they are supposed to do. Furthermore, they are absolutely supposed to do that whether it is popular or not. It’s the reason the framers of our system of government were wise enough to put in multiple branches with checks and balances. They feared the ability of the many to infringe on the rights of the few. Society generally catches up to these instances of striking down un-Constitutional laws (here in CT a gay marriage bill was passed and signed by the governor after the court ruling). See Loving v. Virgina for just such an example. As a member of a married couple that would have been illegal under the interracial marriage law forgive me if I don’t find your believe that the opinion of the majority is somehow relevant to the rights of the minority to be very enlightened.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Admittedly, I know little of this particular situation, but from a cursory internet search, it appears that the likelihood of Sanford being impeached is low. Additionally, impeachment is not the same as being criminally charged and facing jail time. </p>
<p>So I ask: why are 7 out of the 10 commandments, God’s most important laws, not enforced by our laws? If it’s ok for 70% of the commandments to not be reflected in our laws, why must we arrange our social structures based on even lesser laws?</p>
<p>Also, just because a couple is gay does not mean that they are atheist or agnostic. There are gay churches and other places of worship. I think this subject follows along with abortion. Just because your beliefs/values say that gay marriage/abortion is wrong, does not mean that other people have those same beliefs and values. Why should a Christian government or party have a say on what is illegal or not based off the bible in a diverse America. Biggestfoot- I can see where you’re coming from, but your religion isn’t the only religion in the world. Gay people aren’t sinners. They are normal people who have an equal right to be unified with their<br>
partner as much as anyone in this nation. </p>
<p>Tomthecat- I understand you are from England. Are there gay marriage laws over there as well?</p>
<p>Quote:
“So I guess we should allow people to smoke pot and do heroin and allow them to not use seat belts or helmets or let kids buy cigarettes as it does not affect me and why should i deny them their rights?”</p>
<p>What? These have nothing to do with religion. The laws against these are SAFETY and HEALTH precautions. Mainly installed to keep our country semi-safe. Gay marriage in no which way is a threat to people. Marriage won’t kill you, give you lung cancer, or brain damage.</p>
<p>
I would bet there are equal deaths related to marriages (gsw, etc) then lung cancer.</p>
<p>I agree with marriage being a religious entity.</p>
<p>How could gay marriage (in particular) kill somebody directly? </p>
<p>You said that marriage was a religious entity. I personally know many non-believers who are married. Is it bad that they are not religious and does it mean they should not be able to marry?</p>
<p>Wow! If there are as many deaths related to marriage as there are from one of the worst medical scourges known to mankind (accounting for more than 150K deaths per year in the U.S. according to the CDC) then perhaps the institution has far bigger problems than the inclusion of gays. What actions are you taking to protect marriage from all of the killer heterosexuals?</p>
<p>If marriage is a religious entity then the government has no more reason to be involved in it than baptisms, communions, bar mitzvahs, etc. As long as the government is involved, however, it is a secular status which must be governed under the equal rights provisions of our Constitution. If you want it to be treated as a purely religious status you should be campaigning to get the government out of your religion (i.e. out of the marriage business). Why haven’t you?</p>
<p>^^ agree with Padre13. Laws against drugs are placed for our own safety, so I am assuming if marriage caused that many deaths, then people would be worried more about the concept of marriage.</p>
<p>What are your opinions of abortion?</p>
<p>Abortion?</p>
<p>I don’t like it. I don’t think anyone does. But I’m pro-choice.</p>
<p>Because if we were to make abortion illegal, yeah, the amount of abortions would go down, of course. But the death rate for women who perform abortions, which would be unsafe and potentially disastrous, would skyrocket. So I’m Pro-Choice, pro using birth control, pro not interrogating women about their choices.</p>
<p>On the subject of gay marriage – I’ve never understood the reasoning of quoting anti-gay passages from the bible. Okay, the bible condemns gay relationships. It also says that if you get divorced and get remarried or date, then you’re committing adultery. Is it illegal to get divorced in America? No. Bottom line, there are lots of things in the bible that we don’t agree with currently – why do we use it as an argument against gay marriage?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since when is it “pushing” it to ask for equal rights? Was it “pushing” it when black people asked for interracial marriage? And another question – why the quotation marks around the word people? With them, it seems like you’re insinuating that people who are homosexual are less than human – an idea so abhorrent that, literally, all I can do is shake my head in disbelief. Suddenly, another human being is less than another because of who they love?</p>
<p>I respect your opinion – and in my opinion, I don’t believe that asking for equal rights is wrong, and I certainly don’t believe that it won’t happen. What, four, six states have already legalized gay marriage? Seems like it’s happening to me.</p>
<p>And no, civil unions don’t grant the same rights as marriage – so we can discard that argument right now.</p>