No Gays Allowed?

[PAMFAM10]

When will it stop no blacks no interracial no gays no this no that. People will always find ways to keep us separated. Why can't we just accept that fact that everyone is different. And learn to love one another. 

[thetragichippy]

When will it stop no blacks no interracial no gays no this no that. People will always find ways to keep us separated. Why can't we just accept that fact that everyone is different. And learn to love one another. 

​Question, When will it stop?

A good question. While I do not think (and hope) bestiality will never be legal, what about multiple wives or husbands? That does not seem that far away. Who determined that a "couple" was the only way marriage could go? I will take that one step further, what if a man with 4 wives, or a woman with 4 husbands.....or 4 gay guys or 4 gay girls  moved in next door to you. Would you associate with them? Have them over for dinner?

Have we turned into a society where we have to accept everything, even if it conflicts with our heart and morals, or be considered bigots or haters?

 

 

[PAMFAM10]

When will it stop no blacks no interracial no gays no this no that. People will always find ways to keep us separated. Why can't we just accept that fact that everyone is different. And learn to love one another. 

Hippy

People already have multiple wives. And a animal cant agree to marriage. That's just a far cry to try to prove a point gays choose to marry. Its a big difference. 

[baddog]

When will it stop no blacks no interracial no gays no this no that. People will always find ways to keep us separated. Why can't we just accept that fact that everyone is different. And learn to love one another. 

Hippy

People already have multiple wives. And a animal cant agree to marriage. That's just a far cry to try to prove a point gays choose to marry. Its a big difference. 

Good dodge of the heart of Hippys post.

[thetragichippy]

When will it stop no blacks no interracial no gays no this no that. People will always find ways to keep us separated. Why can't we just accept that fact that everyone is different. And learn to love one another. 

Hippy

People already have multiple wives. And a animal cant agree to marriage. That's just a far cry to try to prove a point gays choose to marry. Its a big difference. 

​I didn't come here to gay bash or argue. I'm not sure how much softer and polite I would have needed to ask the questions I asked.

You avoided my question......Looks like you don't want to discuss this with me.

To everyone else......

I ask the same questions....there is no right or wrong answer:)

Could multiple partner marriages be next? It is being done already according to PamFam.....Could it extend to gay groups?  Are you ok with that?

 

P.S. I agreed with PAMFAM on the no marriage of animals......I brought that up to prove I was not going to the extreme.....he must of misunderstood. 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2015 by thetragichippy

[westend1]

​I didn't come here to gay bash or argue. I'm not sure how much softer and polite I would have needed to ask the questions I asked.

You avoided my question......Looks like you don't want to discuss this with me.

To everyone else......

I ask the same questions....there is no right or wrong answer:)

Could multiple partner marriages be next? It is being done already according to PamFam.....Could it extend to gay groups?  Are you ok with that?

 

P.S. I agreed with PAMFAM on the no marriage of animals......I brought that up to prove I was not going to the extreme.....he must of misunderstood. 

 

 

​I don't have a problem with multiple partner marriages, as long as they are all of age and know what they are getting in to.

[TxHoops]

​I don't have a problem with multiple partner marriages, as long as they are all of age and know what they are getting in to.

Ditto.  Especially when it is a basic principle of some religions, albeit one most fundamentalists disagree with.  And plural marriage definitely has a basis in the Bible.  You either have freedom of religion or you don't.

  When it involves underage girls, I think we all have problems with it.

[Hagar]

Since the SC doesn't care what I think (or what the Constitution says), I  can't see any reason multiple partners couldn't marry.  Having them for dinner is a problem.  Man w/3 wives, heck, four more mouths to feed.  If they're pleasant, I'd go to their house to eat.   I got principles but I can be bought. 

 

[TxHoops]

Since the SC doesn't care what I think (or what the Constitution says), I  can't see any reason multiple partners couldn't marry.  Having them for dinner is a problem.  Man w/3 wives, heck, four more mouths to feed.  If they're pleasant, I'd go to their house to eat.   I got principles but I can be bought. 

 

It's not the 3 wives that are expensive to feed.  Just don't let them bring their 27 kids. 

[thetragichippy]

Now for my opinion......

I could care less if multiple people marry......although I think it's weird.....not going to lie.....

and just because I think something is weird or wrong, does not mean I'm a hater, racist or bigot....It means I may (or may not) have a different opinion.......

Thanks for the discussion guys

[TxHoops]

Now for my opinion......

I could care less if multiple people marry......although I think it's weird.....not going to lie.....

and just because I think something is weird or wrong, does not mean I'm a hater, racist or bigot....It means I may (or may not) have a different opinion.......

Thanks for the discussion guys

No it doesn't make you any of those things.  

 

To be honest, I can barely keep one woman happy some of the time.  I have no earthly idea what would possess a man to attempt it with multiple women or why a woman would want to share a man with others.  And it makes no sense to me why it's okay in that culture for a man to have multiple wives but not for a wife to have multiple husbands.  

 

But to each his own if it works for them.  

[thetragichippy]

No it doesn't make you any of those things.  

 

To be honest, I can barely keep one woman happy some of the time.  I have no earthly idea what would possess a man to attempt it with multiple women or why a woman would want to share a man with others.  And it makes no sense to me why it's okay in that culture for a man to have multiple wives but not for a wife to have multiple husbands.  

 

But to each his own if it works for them.  

​About 20 years ago, in theory, before I was married, I would of signed up to have 10 wives.......

Now that I have been married.......I couldn't even handle one......lmao

 

[PAMFAM10]

I always keep my beliefs and religion out of politics if you ask me do I agree with gay marriage I'll say no. Ask me do I think gays should have right to get married I say yes. Why the contradiction because in the US our founding fathers agreed we should all pursue happiness without suppression from any religion.  So basing any policy strictly off religion is unAmerican in my opinion. We wouldn't want other groups forcing us to live like them because of there beliefs. To be free means to be free. If everyone in the world was gay except you(any of us). That still have no effect on you and your relationship with whom ever you believe in.

[77]

one of the big deals with gay marriage was the spousal  benefits. Now if one can have 3 or 4 spouses will they all get benefits? I say no way!

[smitty]

I always keep my beliefs and religion out of politics if you ask me do I agree with gay marriage I'll say no. Ask me do I think gays should have right to get married I say yes. Why the contradiction because in the US our founding fathers agreed we should all pursue happiness without suppression from any religion.  So basing any policy strictly off religion is unAmerican in my opinion. We wouldn't want other groups forcing us to live like them because of there beliefs. To be free means to be free. If everyone in the world was gay except you(any of us). That still have no effect on you and your relationship with whom ever you believe in.

​Are you sure about this?

[Hagar]

There's always another way of looking at stuff.  Another angle.  Like me not wanting to feed'em all, insurance providers wouldn't be happy with the extra baggage.  Good job 77. You stopped my quest before it started lol. 

[TxHoops]

​Are you sure about this?

History 101.  One of the biggest reasons this country was started...   In other news, I'm fairly certain the sky is blue....

[smitty]

History 101.  One of the biggest reasons this country was started...   In other news, I'm fairly certain the sky is blue....

​Remember, now-a-days, history is what people want it to be.  Just testing PAM on his knowledge of the Constitution and Federalist Papers.  But no, our country wasn't founded to keep religion out of government.  The 1st Amendment is only a response to the way England ruled.  That there would not be an "established religion" by the government as did England.  This strict wall of "separation of church and state" that the liberals like to talk about, well, it's not there in the Constitution.

[TxHoops]

​Remember, now-a-days, history is what people want it to be.  Just testing PAM on his knowledge of the Constitution and Federalist Papers.  But no, our country wasn't founded to keep religion out of government.  The 1st Amendment is only a response to the way England ruled.  That there would not be an "established religion" by the government as did England.  This strict wall of "separation of church and state" that the liberals like to talk about, well, it's not there in the Constitution.

I am well aware of the Constitution's position on religion and the reason for its inclusion in the document.  I studied the document under Charles Alan Wright, a conservative that most legal scholars would tell you was maybe the foremost Constitutional expert on the in the 20th century.  And he very much believed ithe separation of church and state was mandated by the Constitution of this great country.  I guess he missed the memo that this was a "liberal" idea.  

Edited July 3, 2015 by TxHoops

[TxHoops]

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

 

James Madison, "Father of the Constitution"

[thetragichippy]

I am well aware of the Constitution's position on religion and the reason for its inclusion in the document.  I studied the document under Charles Alan Wright, a conservative that most legal scholars would tell you was maybe the foremost Constitutional expert on the in the 20th century.  And he very much believed ithe separation of church and state was mandated by the Constitution of this great country.  I guess he missed the memo that this was a "liberal" idea.  

​You don't think it has been twisted a little to mean something different than originally written?  I mean, if they would of wanted true separation of Church and State, why mention God at all in the original constitution?

  "done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America."

[thetragichippy]

I always keep my beliefs and religion out of politics if you ask me do I agree with gay marriage I'll say no. Ask me do I think gays should have right to get married I say yes. Why the contradiction because in the US our founding fathers agreed we should all pursue happiness without suppression from any religion.  So basing any policy strictly off religion is unAmerican in my opinion. We wouldn't want other groups forcing us to live like them because of there beliefs. To be free means to be free. If everyone in the world was gay except you(any of us). That still have no effect on you and your relationship with whom ever you believe in.

​Thank you

I actually feel much the same way....

 

[TxHoops]

​You don't think it has been twisted a little to mean something different than originally written?  I mean, if they would of wanted true separation of Church and State, why mention God at all in the original constitution?

  "done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America."

​There is a difference in belief in "God" and the "separation of church and state."  I don't disagree that there is a great deal of interpretation that goes into any document.  And I certainly agree that words can be "twisted" or interpreted in different ways to support different positions.  But to propose that the "separation of church and state" is a concept invented by liberals to impose their agenda on the 1st amendment anti-establishment clause is preposterous (NOT talking about you here).

 

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." 

Who said this?  Again, James Madison - "Father of the Constitution"

[smitty]

​

I am well aware of the Constitution's position on religion and the reason for its inclusion in the document.  I studied the document under Charles Alan Wright, a conservative that most legal scholars would tell you was maybe the foremost Constitutional expert on the in the 20th century.  And he very much believed ithe separation of church and state was mandated by the Constitution of this great country.  I guess he missed the memo that this was a "liberal" idea.  

​

[smitty]

I am well aware of the Constitution's position on religion and the reason for its inclusion in the document.  I studied the document under Charles Alan Wright, a conservative that most legal scholars would tell you was maybe the foremost Constitutional expert on the in the 20th century.  And he very much believed ithe separation of church and state was mandated by the Constitution of this great country.  I guess he missed the memo that this was a "liberal" idea.  

​And I guess PAM studied the Constitution under Thurgood Marshall, that other notable conservative.  LOL!