|
|
Post by Cobra on Jun 3, 2009 22:19:22 GMT -5
new hampshire governor signed the bill to make same sex marriage legal. What a bunch of Fags, does that mean that everybody that lives in new hampshire is a fudge packer or carpet muncher? Will there new motto be " pack his cute, tongue her groove" instead of Live Free or Die?
|
|
|
|
Post by moonpuppy on Jun 8, 2009 14:08:15 GMT -5
Coworker is from New Hampshire, I asked him WTF has happened to the "Live Free or Die" state, he said they were invaded from vermont and other locations that harbor the leftist. He said they could see the effort as it was happening, the leftist were moving there in droves because of the low cost of living the Conservatives established. That's one reason he left.
|
|
|
|
Post by str8 on May 18, 2014 0:23:51 GMT -5
What 'GAY MARRIAGE' Did To Massachusetts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2014 11:58:57 GMT -5
new hampshire governor signed the bill to make same sex marriage legal. What a bunch of Fags, does that mean that everybody that lives in new hampshire is a fudge packer or carpet muncher? Will there new motto be " pack his cute, tongue her groove" instead of Live Free or Die? The original motto, Live Free or Die was actually reinforced the day same sex marriage became legal in New Hampshire. As a heterosexual one might think I do not have a dog in this fight. But they would be incorrect. Showing such unmitigated vitriol towards people to whom being attracted to the same sex as heterosexuals are attracted towards people of the opposite sex is indefensible. Marriage is a legal, economic and social contract which heterosexuals have been free to enter into without barriers...save the past laws against inter-racial marriages. Now the bans against same-sex marriages are falling like dominoes. As of now, Pennsylvania became the 25th state to knock down the ban, so the country is split even with the momentum obviously on the side of more and more bans being struck down until finally, you will not be able to live anywhere in the United States where there is such a ban. You are on the wrong side of history as the saying goes. I hope I live to see that last ban struck down. |
|
|
|
Post by dogbert1 on Jun 5, 2014 11:49:01 GMT -5
new hampshire governor signed the bill to make same sex marriage legal. What a bunch of Fags, does that mean that everybody that lives in new hampshire is a fudge packer or carpet muncher? Will there new motto be " pack his cute, tongue her groove" instead of Live Free or Die? The original motto, Live Free or Die was actually reinforced the day same sex marriage became legal in New Hampshire. As a heterosexual one might think I do not have a dog in this fight. But they would be incorrect. Showing such unmitigated vitriol towards people to whom being attracted to the same sex as heterosexuals are attracted towards people of the opposite sex is indefensible. Marriage is a legal, economic and social contract which heterosexuals have been free to enter into without barriers...save the past laws against inter-racial marriages. Now the bans against same-sex marriages are falling like dominoes. As of now, Pennsylvania became the 25th state to knock down the ban, so the country is split even with the momentum obviously on the side of more and more bans being struck down until finally, you will not be able to live anywhere in the United States where there is such a ban. You are on the wrong side of history as the saying goes. I hope I live to see that last ban struck down. I love my yellow lab can I marry her? Why can't I have two, three or four wives? I love my M4 can I marry it? The answer is no, no and no because marriage is the definition of the union of a man and women those other examples are not it is that simple. Gay couples should have civil unions to give them the legal rights and protections afforded to conventional married folks but we should not change the definitions of words to fit someone's lifestyle. It seems that if gays want to be accepted in society they shouldn't be so in your face about it. The PC backlash is building and it is getting ready to explode and there will be causalities. This is not wishful thinking or a wild idea it is fact. It could even result in revolution that could split the nation. It should be noted that "fly over" country has the farms, factories and most of the military bases where most of the soldiers that the left are counting on to put down the revolution parents live. When push comes to shove who do you think they end up pointing their weapons at? The northeast could end up as liberal concentration camp / country with the amount of people living there and lack of resources it will get very, very ugly real quick and they will need somebody to blame....opps! Yeah bummer huh? In time gradual change will take care of the problem forcing the issue will only result in something bad happening. In time society will or will not except this but forcing the issue will result in revolution that the left / progressive movement can't win and will pay a very heavy and unnecessary price.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 12:19:22 GMT -5
Oh, no, no, no.... There is no backlash growing, my friend. The momentum is obviously in the favor of same sex marriage. As I posted before, Pennsylvania just became the 25th state to strike down the ban on same sex marriage.
Your definition of marriage may be derived from your religious faith but there is this little doctrine called separation of church and state.
So, marriage in our society is defined by what the law says it is, and the law in half of the states now says marriage is between two people, whether they are of the same sex or of the opposite sex. As you wrote, bummer.
If anything is going to split our nation, IMO it will be the continuing widening of income and wealth between members of our society. People are far more concerned with feeding, sheltering, clothing, etc., their families than they are with this social issue. And as the baby boomers are hitting what used to be retirement age without nearly enough funds to retire on, this huge formerly privileged class of people is going to push the issue not just class warfare but generational warfare to the forefront.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 4:00:59 GMT -5
Pro & Con Arguments: "Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?"
PRO Gay Marriage
Same-sex couples should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment in the same way as heterosexual couples. [40] The Human Rights Campaign Foundation states that many same-sex couples "want the right to legally marry [and] honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer..."
Same-sex couples should have access to the same benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Many benefits are only available to married couples, such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [6] An Oct. 2, 2009 analysis by the New York Times estimates that a same-sex couple denied marriage benefits will incur an additional $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over their lifetime compared to a married heterosexual couple. [7]
The concept of "traditional marriage" being defined as one man and one woman is historically inaccurate. Given the prevalence of modern and ancient examples of family arrangements based on polygamy, communal child-rearing, the use of concubines and mistresses and the commonality of prostitution, heterosexual monogamy can be considered "unnatural” in evolutionary terms. [3]
Marriage is redefined as society's attitudes evolve, and the majority of Americans now support gay marriage. Interracial marriage was illegal in many US states until a 1967 Supreme Court decision. Coverture, where a woman's legal rights and economic identity were subsumed by her husband upon marriage, was commonplace in 19th century America. No-fault divorce has changed the institution of marriage since its introduction in California on Jan. 1, 1970. With a May 2013 Gallup poll showing 53% of Americans supporting gay marriage, it is time for the definition of marriage to evolve once again. [72]
Gay marriage is protected by the Constitution's commitments to liberty and equality. The US Supreme Court ruled in 1974’s Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause.” US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses." [41]
Denying same-sex couples the right to marry stigmatizes gay and lesbian families as inferior and sends the message that it is acceptable to discriminate against them. The Massachusetts Supreme Court wrote in an opinion to the state Senate on Feb. 3, 2004 that offering civil unions was not an acceptable alternative to gay marriage because "...it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status." [42]
Gay marriages can bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs. [4] The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the city’s economy and $184 million to the state’s economy over three years. [43]
Gay marriage would make it easier for same-sex couples to adopt, providing stable homes for children who would otherwise be left in foster care. [68] In the US, 100,000 children are waiting to be adopted. [44] A longitudinal study published in Pediatrics on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems. [45] A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents." [46] As Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein argues, "We should be begging gay couples to adopt children. We should see this as a great boon that gay marriage could bring to kids who need nothing more than two loving parents." [68]
Marriage provides both physical and psychological health benefits, and banning gay marriage increases rates of psychological disorders. [5] The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and others wrote in a Sep. 2007 amicus brief, "...allowing same-sex couples to marry would give them access to the social support that already facilitates and strengthens heterosexual marriages, with all of the psychological and physical health benefits associated with that support.” [47] A 2010 analysis published in the American Journal of Public Health found that after their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 248% increase in generalized anxiety disorders. [69]
Legalizing gay marriage will not harm heterosexual marriages or "family values," and society will continue to function successfully. A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock..." [48] The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association found that more than a century of research has shown "no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." [8]
Marriage is a secular institution which should not be limited by religious objections to gay marriage. Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that "[c]ivil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage" and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages only because the state has given them that authority. [41]
Gay marriage legalization is correlated with lower divorce rates, while gay marriage bans are correlated with higher divorce rates. Massachusetts, which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, which altered its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage. [2]
If the reason for marriage is strictly reproduction, infertile couples would not be allowed to marry. Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage. George Washington, often referred to as "the Father of Our Country,” did not have children with his wife Martha Custis, and neither did four other married US presidents have children with their wives. [9]
Same-sex marriage is a civil right. The 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man," [60] and same-sex marriages should receive the same protections given to interracial marriages by that ruling. The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), on May 19, 2012, named same-sex marriage as "one of the key civil rights struggles
|
|
