Missouri anti-gay marriage const. amendment headed for victory

[dannubis]

why denying them the right to be married? are you denied the right to do anything because your narrowminded view on society?

i know... perhaps we should force homo sexuals to wear a stigma on their forehead so they'd be easily recognisable

[alva]

Hum, you don't think recognising (some ) gays is easy enough as it is?!
-

How about your sinful behaviour?

What sinfull behaviour...? Loving one another?

[Solly]

No-one is denying them the right to get married.

[Elok]

Like I said before, the idea of civil marriage at all is itself problematic IMO. In the wake of that SCOTUS ruling a year or two back striking down anti-sodomy laws, this kind of thing is just making it more clear how absurd and self-contradictory government-sponsored sexuality is, or has become. Marriage lost whatever "sanctity" it had when it got endorsed by the intern-bangers in Congress. So meh.

With that said, it's not like they're forcing gays to wear yellow patches with rainbow flags on them or anything. They're just banning gay marriage in Missouri, where I imagine, based on the landslide victory it got, it wasn't safe to be openly gay in the first place. I don't see how this is significant.

[ixnay]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
No-one is denying them the right to get married.

Oh jesus christ I'm sick of you f******** dragging out this argument thinking it makes you so clever.

No **** they aren't being denied the right to get married, but they are getting denied the right to marry the person that they love.

I doubt that you would think it was fair if you were in love with somebody and the state told you "Hey now, you can't marry them, but don't worry! Look at all these other people you can marry! See, we're not denying you any rights!"

[Boris Godunov]

Well now. Next time, tell us what you really feel.

[Gibsie]

Originally posted by ixnay
I doubt that you would think it was fair if you were in love with somebody and the state told you "Hey now, you can't marry them, but don't worry! Look at all these other people you can marry! See, we're not denying you any rights!"

I'm sure PA has been told many times he cannot marry a farmyard animal or family member that he wuvs very much.

[Boris Godunov]

Actually, I'm pretty sure his rejections are coming fast and furious from women.

[Solly]

"No **** they aren't being denied the right to get married, but they are getting denied the right to marry the person that they love."

Unfortunately, love is not an absolute necessity for marriage.

[Kuciwalker]

With PA's attitude, I'm sure he wouldn't mind heterosexual marriage being banned and gay marriage legalized - I mean, hey, he can just marry another guy!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I mean, hey, he can just marry another guy!

Theoretically, perhaps, but I bet he'd probably encounter the same amount of rejection, if not more.

[Solly]

I would back recognising "homosexual partnerships" if they were enshrined as part of a cohabiting person's piece of legislation.

Once you allow homosexual all kinds of special rights, what about those two sisters who have lived together for thirty years, or the three flat sharers who have shared for a decade? Or polygamists?

[ixnay]

SLIPPERY SLOPE

[Solly]

No, it's an ethical argument.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
I would back recognising "homosexual partnerships" if they were enshrined as part of a cohabiting person's piece of legislation.

Once you allow homosexual all kinds of special rights, what about those two sisters who have lived together for thirty years, or the three flat sharers who have shared for a decade? Or polygamists?

In fact, to guard against this, we should get rid of heterosexual marriages, too!