Did you (or will you) vote today?

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Serious Business ▸ Did you (or will you) vote today?
Automatik's avatar

Automatik

Senior Member

14,632 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:01 PM
Same, I just can't take anyone seriously when they are strongly against it. Considering the other issues, it's just ridiculous to me.
Nov 4, 2014 4:01pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:05 PM
It's ridiculous to me that the government is in the business of defining "marriage" in the first place. As long as it is consensual the government should mind their own damn business.
Nov 4, 2014 4:05pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:07 PM
justincredible;1670794 wrote:It's ridiculous to me that the government is in the business of defining "marriage" in the first place. As long as it is consensual the government should mind their own damn business.
Agreed.
Nov 4, 2014 4:07pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:08 PM
Automatik;1670792 wrote:Same, I just can't take anyone seriously when they are strongly against it. Considering the other issues, it's just ridiculous to me.
I'm just not sure why it matters when it's not his call to make, one way or the other.
Nov 4, 2014 4:08pm
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:12 PM
justincredible;1670794 wrote:It's ridiculous to me that the government is in the business of defining "marriage" in the first place. As long as it is consensual the government should mind their own damn business.
It's for tax purposes. That's the govts business.
Nov 4, 2014 4:12pm
T

thavoice

Senior Member

14,376 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:17 PM
justincredible;1670794 wrote:It's ridiculous to me that the government is in the business of defining "marriage" in the first place. As long as it is consensual the government should mind their own damn business.
Agreed.

Government should stay out of defining marriage.

We just need to go with the biblical explanation.
Nov 4, 2014 4:17pm
Automatik's avatar

Automatik

Senior Member

14,632 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:21 PM
Religion has no place in government and lawmaking.
Nov 4, 2014 4:21pm
T

thavoice

Senior Member

14,376 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:23 PM
Automatik;1670799 wrote:Religion has no place in government and lawmaking.
So religon should have no say in it, and the government shouldnt have a say in it then whom is defining marriage?
Nov 4, 2014 4:23pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:24 PM
ernest_t_bass;1670797 wrote:It's for tax purposes. That's the govts business.
A simpler tax code would end the need for that.
Nov 4, 2014 4:24pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:25 PM
thavoice;1670801 wrote:So religon should have no say in it, and the government shouldnt have a say in it then whom is defining marriage?
The couples that are entering in to the agreement, maybe?
Nov 4, 2014 4:25pm
Fab4Runner's avatar

Fab4Runner

Tits McGee

6,196 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:26 PM
thavoice;1670798 wrote:Agreed.

Government should stay out of defining marriage.

We just need to go with the biblical explanation.
Nov 4, 2014 4:26pm
Automatik's avatar

Automatik

Senior Member

14,632 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:27 PM
That's a good question, one I don't have an answer to regarding who should define marriage. I do know know thing, a book of fairy tales shouldn't be used as a reference for anything in regards to the passing of bills, but that is another forum/discussion.
Nov 4, 2014 4:27pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:28 PM
thavoice;1670801 wrote:So religon should have no say in it, and the government shouldnt have a say in it then whom is defining marriage?
The definition of marriage should be an individual one. If you belong to a religion that teaches that a marriage is between a man and woman, that's fine for you to believe. If someone believes otherwise, that's fine as well. How does someone having a different opinion from yours make necessary a law to decide the issue? Why doesn't "live and let live" rule the day?
Nov 4, 2014 4:28pm
T

thavoice

Senior Member

14,376 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:28 PM
justincredible;1670803 wrote:The couples that are entering in to the agreement, maybe?
So whatever people want to do they should be allowed to do is what you are saying?

Maybe the state should vote on if they should amend what marriage is considered.

Oh, we did in 2004.

It didnt pass.
Nov 4, 2014 4:28pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:31 PM
Lol the only idea worse then allowing politicians to define marriage is allowing religion to define marriage.
Nov 4, 2014 4:31pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:34 PM
thavoice;1670807 wrote:So whatever people want to do they should be allowed to do is what you are saying?
Laws should not exist in areas where uninvolved parties aren't affected. If you feel your marriage is somehow demeaned by a couple of the same sex marrying, that's not a society problem, that's a you problem.
Nov 4, 2014 4:34pm
Automatik's avatar

Automatik

Senior Member

14,632 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:35 PM
SportsAndLady;1670808 wrote:Lol the only idea worse then allowing politicians to define marriage is allowing religion to define marriage.
It's mostly a cover for the homophobes i.e. thavoice. But, but....the bible says this!!
Nov 4, 2014 4:35pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:36 PM
thavoice;1670807 wrote:So whatever people want to do they should be allowed to do is what you are saying?
As long as they aren't infringing on the right of anyone else, of course they should. Are you one of those slippery-slope "but then people will start marrying animals and children!" nut jobs?
Nov 4, 2014 4:36pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:36 PM
SportsAndLady;1670808 wrote:Lol the only idea worse then allowing politicians to define marriage is allowing religion to define marriage.
The only reason it's better is that one can opt out of any or all religions, and form their own definition.
Nov 4, 2014 4:36pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:36 PM
queencitybuckeye;1670806 wrote:The definition of marriage should be an individual one. If you belong to a religion that teaches that a marriage is between a man and woman, that's fine for you to believe. If someone believes otherwise, that's fine as well. How does someone having a different opinion from yours make necessary a law to decide the issue? Why doesn't "live and let live" rule the day?
Bing. Go.
Nov 4, 2014 4:36pm
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:37 PM
thavoice;1670798 wrote:We just need to go with the biblical explanation.
A book of Grimm's Faerie Tales would have as much significance as any other book of folklore, like the bible.
Nov 4, 2014 4:37pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:38 PM
Buncha blasphemers up in here.
Nov 4, 2014 4:38pm
T

thavoice

Senior Member

14,376 posts
Nov 4, 2014 4:39 PM
justincredible;1670816 wrote:Buncha blasphemers up in here.
No doubt.
Nov 4, 2014 4:39pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Nov 4, 2014 6:27 PM
Voted.
Nov 4, 2014 6:27pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Nov 4, 2014 6:40 PM
I actually did end up voting today. Voted for three state offices, unfortunately only one office had the availability to do a write-in (wrote "no"), and all of the local tax levy's.
Nov 4, 2014 6:40pm