Did you (or will you) vote today?

• Automatik

  

  Same, I just can't take anyone seriously when they are strongly against it. Considering the other issues, it's just ridiculous to me.
• justincredible

  

  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.
• like_that

  

  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.
• queencitybuckeye

  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.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  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.
• thavoice

  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.
• Automatik

  

  Religion has no place in government and lawmaking.
• thavoice

  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?
• justincredible

  

  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.
• justincredible

  

  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?
• Fab4Runner

  

  thavoice;1670798 wrote:Agreed.
  
  Government should stay out of defining marriage.
  
  We just need to go with the biblical explanation.

  
• Automatik

  

  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.
• queencitybuckeye

  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?
• thavoice

  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.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Lol the only idea worse then allowing politicians to define marriage is allowing religion to define marriage.
• queencitybuckeye

  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.
• Automatik

  

  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!!
• justincredible

  

  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?
• queencitybuckeye

  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.
• justincredible

  

  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.
• Heretic

  

  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.
• justincredible

  

  Buncha blasphemers up in here.
• thavoice

  justincredible;1670816 wrote:Buncha blasphemers up in here.

  No doubt.
• Con_Alma

  Voted.
• justincredible

  

  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.