Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic For those of you who want to ban gay marriage... Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Baron Samedi Posted at 10:12 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Would you also support making it illegal to get a divorce? That would certainly protect the institution of marriage.  And, it would make sure the children had both of their parents around.  Think of the children. So, would you support banning divorce altogether?  Yes or no?

Replies Shogun villimax Posted at 4:01 pm on Nov. 20, 2008 I hate divorce but sometimes it has to be done or someone could get killed! [Is that how you want me to understand Gay marige?] draakprinses Posted at 10:39 am on Nov. 20, 2008 Post from this position was omitted due to content violations Aristocrat Posted at 10:33 am on Nov. 20, 2008 Quote: from draakprinses at 6:52 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 No harm? You disgust me. I disgust you not draaky. Seriously I don't support the banning of the interracial marriage since it is not immoral I am only against the same sex marriage. However, if the interracial was ban I wouldn't whine and cry about it that's all I am saying. I like all different kinds of beauty from all other races just like I enjoy interracting here with people who differ in views with me. football Posted at 9:14 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from runthespread at 10:09 am on Nov. 20, 2008 Quote: from football at 11:02 am on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from runthespread at 9:29 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from Savior at 10:12 pm on Nov. 17, 2008 Sure would!   You answer as if there are no possible domino effects. 50% divorce rate; those couples suddenly forced to stay married would lead to even more unfaithfulness, more unhappiness, more substance abuse, more psychological needs, more intoxicated driving, more abuse, more murders, etc. To imprison a person through the take away of rights is not always a good thing, even if it is following a religion.      Heaven forbid it lead to people taking more time to make sound, responsible decisions when it comes to getting married. That would be a positive result as well, good point. However, I'd say the majority of marriages begin without possible divorce intentions, as judgment is often clouded by the endorphins released by love. I would agree that more than 99% of marriages begin without the intention to divorce, but I think that people would think much longer and harder about it if it wasn't just an easy thing to get a divorce. If you actually had to show a court a good, legitimate reason before you could get a divorce, I bet there would be a lot less people wanting to get divorced to begin with. I think that would have a very positive effect on society, in the long run. There would of course be exceptions, where it caused some harm, but over all it would be an improvement. draakprinses Posted at 6:52 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from Aristocrat at 8:12 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from draakprinses at 5:48 pm on Nov. 19, 2008  So you think that a very slight majority of people that voted are power-hungry bigots, that makes it right? What if the 'majority' of citizens voted to legalize banning of interracial marriage. Would that make it 'right'?   I wouldn't say power hungry bigots just because I differ views with them. I mean if they don't want then fine but you still can do your thing without recognized as married couple but rather a partner couple. Even if they voted no interracial marriage then still there is no harm. People could still married within their own race is not like they won't find anyone else to marry within their race. You still have rights except you don't have the recognition of marriage or interracial marriage (if it existed) as long as no other discriminatory involve. No harm? You disgust me. whoisabs Posted at 6:36 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from draakprinses at 5:48 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 So you think that a very slight majority of people that voted are power-hungry bigots, that makes it right? What if the 'majority' of citizens voted to legalize banning of interracial marriage. Would that make it 'right'?[/quote Why do the power hungry bigots throw out strawmen such as interracial marriage? Aristocrat Posted at 6:12 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from draakprinses at 5:48 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 So you think that a very slight majority of people that voted are power-hungry bigots, that makes it right? What if the 'majority' of citizens voted to legalize banning of interracial marriage. Would that make it 'right'? I wouldn't say power hungry bigots just because I differ views with them.   I mean if they don't want then fine but you still can do your thing without recognized as married couple but rather a partner couple.  Even if they voted no interracial marriage then still there is no harm.  People could still married within their own race is not like they won't find anyone else to marry within their race.  You still have rights except you don't have the recognition of marriage or interracial marriage (if it existed) as long as no other discriminatory involve.   draakprinses Posted at 5:48 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from Aristocrat at 7:44 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from draakprinses at 4:49 pm on Nov. 19, 2008  The majority of the citizens still agreed with the actions. Without the citizens' and followers support, Hitler would have had no power.    Still full of fail. Seriously you never been in a country that is ruled by a theocratic system so you wouldn't understand it. Before yeah he won the hearts and minds of the people then when he gain fully control of the country he didn't care what the people think about the policy e.t.c. it was my way or the highway. Even now political people will just come to the camera say what you want to hear then do other things in close doors. Quote: from Summer08 at 5:08 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 You are wrong Aristocrat For a moment I thought you agreed with me quoting with out saying a word. On what ground am I wrong? So you think that a very slight majority of people that voted are power-hungry bigots, that makes it right? What if the 'majority' of citizens voted to legalize banning of interracial marriage. Would that make it 'right'? Aristocrat Posted at 5:44 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from draakprinses at 4:49 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 The majority of the citizens still agreed with the actions. Without the citizens' and followers support, Hitler would have had no power. Still full of fail. Seriously you never been in a country that is ruled by a theocratic system so you wouldn't understand it.  Before yeah he won the hearts and minds of the people then when he gain fully control of the country he didn't care what the people think about the policy e.t.c. it was my way or the highway.  Even now political people will just come to the camera say what you want to hear then do other things in close doors. Quote: from Summer08 at 5:08 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 You are wrong Aristocrat For a moment I thought you agreed with me quoting with out saying a word.   On what ground am I wrong? Summer08 Posted at 5:08 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 You are wrong Aristocrat draakprinses Posted at 4:49 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from Aristocrat at 6:38 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from draakprinses at 4:25 pm on Nov. 19, 2008  Ohhh, sort of like how the majority of citizens in Germany wanted those filthy Jews rounded up and experimented on or killed in the thirties and forties?    Full of FAIL. Not exactly. Remember that regime at that time was not a democratic country rather something else, and the citizens of that country were afraid of the leader since he was so powerful and all. The majority of the citizens still agreed with the actions. Without the citizens' and followers support, Hitler would have had no power. Still full of fail. Summer08 Posted at 4:47 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from Aristocrat at 4:38 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from draakprinses at 4:25 pm on Nov. 19, 2008  Ohhh, sort of like how the majority of citizens in Germany wanted those filthy Jews rounded up and experimented on or killed in the thirties and forties?    Full of FAIL. Not exactly. Remember that regime at that time was not a democratic country rather something else, and the citizens of that country were afraid of the leader since he was so powerful and all. Summer08 Posted at 4:38 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Well I think it is the people who should decide and not some judege.  No one can say it is unconstitutional because it is now part of the constitution.  This is an issue I am fighting with personally myself, cause I think I'm Bi, but irregardless I think a marriage should be one man, one woman.  I agree with what the people of California did, but I am very surprised that California actually did it.  Come on it's the land of liberal thinking. Aristocrat Posted at 4:38 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from draakprinses at 4:25 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Ohhh, sort of like how the majority of citizens in Germany wanted those filthy Jews rounded up and experimented on or killed in the thirties and forties? Full of FAIL. Not exactly.  Remember that regime at that time was not a democratic country rather something else, and the citizens of that country were afraid of the leader since he was so powerful and all. draakprinses Posted at 4:25 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from Aristocrat at 5:55 pm on Nov. 19, 2008 Quote: from runthespread at 1:29 am on Nov. 19, 2008 You answer as if there are no possible domino effects. 50% divorce rate; those couples suddenly forced to stay married would lead to even more unfaithfulness, more unhappiness, more substance abuse, more psychological needs, more intoxicated driving, more abuse, more murders, etc. To imprison a person through the take away of rights is not always a good thing, even if it is following a religion. The OP the above quote shall answer your question perfectly.   Quote: from greatescape11 at 12:13 am on Nov. 18, 2008 I was simply asking you to explain why you think legalizing it in CA was unconstitutional and so far you haven't come up with anything. It is unconstitutional because the Law did not recognize the gay marriage to begin with, so the supreme court just legalized it with out the vote or asking people whether they agreed to it or not.  The people of California already rejected once but the liberal judge inserted it again without the acceptance of its citizens.  The judge suppose to interpret the law not making one out of his/her pocket.  Since we live in a democratic country and democracy means do things as people want or satisfied with at least what the majority of the citizens want.   Ohhh, sort of like how the majority of citizens in Germany wanted those filthy Jews rounded up and experimented on or killed in the thirties and forties? Full of FAIL. Most recent 15 of 68 previous replies displayed.