Tigers2B1 Wrote:

umbluegray Wrote:Each state already had their own Constitutions and the representative of each state had to comply with his respective state constitution.

That's not true. In fact the federal Constitution is the supreme fundamental law of the country. It says this right in the Federal Constitution itself at Article VI -- in the supremacy clause quoted here -

Quote:This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

While it's true that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is also true that the U.S. Constitution came into existence AFTER the various state constitutions, and that each representative had to comply with the oaths of office of those state constitutions in order to represent his state at the Constitutional Convention.

Tigers2B1 Wrote:

umbluegray Wrote:

Quote: For example - I'm a White male. With that information I doubt you can, with any validity, tell me anything about me as a person. Anything you say would be a sterotype about White males - and says absolutely nothing about me.

You're exactly right. All I can tell about you is that you are a white male.

If you stated that you're a white male who prefers females, who likes to drink, and likes fast cars, then I can begin to infer more about you based on stated behavioral characteristics. You may even state such a dislike for people of a certain group that you want to annihilate them.

Once we look at behavior we can determine much more about a person.

Ok - substitute "White" with "Gay" or "Black" ---- whats the difference. There is none that I can see.

White & black are characteristics not a behavior.

Gay is a behavior.

umbluegray Wrote:- 1 open Deist -- Dr. Franklin, who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.

* From M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company (NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. x.

Not that it matters one wit concerning the rights of these people regarding this issue -- but here

umbluegray Wrote:White & black are characteristics not a behavior.

Gay is a behavior.

What does that have to do with anything? Marriage is also a "behavior" by that measure. What are you getting at?

Quote:It is not uncommon for a homosexual to have had more than 500 different partners in their lifetime.

How did you come up with that number? 500?? PLus, who in the world would keep stats on that and how?

umbluegray Wrote:While it's true that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is also true that the U.S. Constitution came into existence AFTER the various state constitutions, and that each representative had to comply with the oaths of office of those state constitutions in order to represent his state at the Constitutional Convention.

So - it

[QUOTE]It is not uncommon for a homosexual to have had more than 500 different partners in their lifetime.[QUOTE]

You have got to back that up with some evidence. Nothing anecdotal either. I would like for you to show the study, a study, any study that says that that is true. Gay people are not more likely to be promiscuous or pedophiles or any of the other negative things that people spew as facts. Just like straight people, they can be in long-lasting, loving relationships and just like straight people, they can be sluts. So please do not try to use that argument.

If our founding fathers had known this would be an issue they would have written "thou shall not marry thy same sex", so let's get off that. This is a moral issue and those with morals are opposed and those without are for it. :D
Seriously I was married this past fall and although I am not Catholic my wife is, we were married in her church (St. Louis). We had to meet with the father at least six times to go over the catechism (the sanctity of matrimony). Which basically states that you are not only making a commitment to each other but also to god. I will quote another part :
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning he made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

I think that marriage is not just to be recognized by the state as legal partners, it is a commitment not only to each other but to god as well. Now if they want a civil union I have no problem with that. Just don't call it marriage!!

Touchdown ---

While I'm not sure the 'founding fathers' thought with one collective mind on any matter - and most likely never considered this one - we can look at what they did consider. They did consider the first 10 amendments to the Constitution and the 1st amendment's protection against government 'establishment of religion' and the counterbalancing 'free exercise' of religion. Certainly than, the government has no business involving itself in the religious institution of marriage under the free exercise clause. Yet - neither should the government allow itself to be persuaded by religious ideas regarding civil rights, including civil marriages (or civil unions if you like) under the establishment clause.

There was a recent Massachusetts Supreme Court decision regarding same sex marriage -- that speaks to this issue. That State Supreme Court has decided that its state law governing

Is it just me... or were the founding fathers trying to keep government from controlling religion, and not vice versa?

Memphis17 Wrote:Is it just me... or were the founding fathers trying to keep government from controlling religion, and not vice versa?

The founding fathers do not vote nor are they citizens of this country. I don't really care what their opinions would be on this matter. The government is (or should be) of the people and for the people of today, not 215 years ago. That's why new laws are made.

Memphis17 Wrote:Is it just me... or were the founding fathers trying to keep government from controlling religion, and not vice versa?

Note the words in the 1st amendment - [quote]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

:rolltide: :rolltide: :rolltide: :rolltide: :devil: :la: :la:


Man ---------> :redhead:

Butt :ecu:

If this looks good then enough is enough --> :moon:

RADFORD Wrote:I often get mad when churches try to impose their will on the government. With that said, I get equally mad when Government tries to impose their will on Churches.

John Kerry is going about it all wrong. He is trying to compromise by saying it's a state's rights issue. I'm sorry, but that's exactly how people tried to avoid the civil rights issue in the 60s. You can't give someone human rights in one state then deny them in the other.

The compromise is Civil Unions. What you are saying there is "we can not tell churches who they can and can't marry". But what we can do is give them equal rights in the eyes of the government.

A gay man can stop the bullet in Iraq as well as a straight man. They deserve equal rights in the country. Whether you believe Homosexuality is a sin or not, that doesn't matter when considering human rights. If it is a sin, it's no worse of a sin than lying, or the "babe of the day" board, or taking the Lord's name in vain when Antonio threw the ball away.

Unless you think homosexuals are less than you humans, you can't deny them this.

Yeah, what he said. Seriously, that was very well said.

"This is an issue that could tear our country apart."

Your joking! Personally I would like to keep the republicans out of my bedroom and the democrats out of my pocket book. Go ahead and marry your mother if thats what you want or your brother if thats what turns you on. The reason you don't marry your close relatives has to with mixing genes. You more likely to pick up bad traits.

How did you come up with that number? 500?? PLus, who in the world would keep stats on that and how?

Wilt Chamberlain said he had 20000 lovers. I guess they were all women.

TigerTommy Wrote:Like I said earlier. Who cares!

I care. If you don't stand for something you will stand for anything. So lets not care for this then lets not care for that. Soon we won't care about anything.

tiger paul- Why does it matter how many posts one has on this board? I responded to a very important issue to people on both sides of the aisle. If you think that the number of posts entitles you to more respect I ask you to look back on many irrelevant posts on the old board by many multi-posters. By the way if you think this is rediculous let me say a famous liberal saying to you- "you do not have to read(watch)!"

All I am saying is that it is kind of weird that the first post someone has the day after a loss is about gay marriage. Usually a person's first post goes something like this:

"Hey guys, long time reader first time poster. Go Tigers!!" or something along those lines. It was just strange reading a post about gay marriage. Political debates do not bother me at all, but just remember this is a sports forum, I'm sure there are political boards around that you can post on.

paul this person attends all tiger b-ball and football games. he reads this board often. just doesnt chime in. he decides to give his opinion of why he is against gay marriages and you question him. my only question about the whole deal is why the question of gay marriages is even on this forum at all? obviously he is not the only person here with an opinion on this topic. it seems to be the hottest topic on this board. to me that is sad....

Coolidge1 Wrote:

TigerTommy Wrote:Like I said earlier. Who cares!

I care. If you don't stand for something you will stand for anything. So lets not care for this then lets not care for that. Soon we won't care about anything.

The point was what business is it of yours. As long as they are not getting married in your church or whatever what does it have to do with you? How many marriages are ruined by infidelity or abuse? How many children's lives are ruined by that? I worry more about that than Jim and Joe hooking up down the street.