Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
CommunitarianKevin

Marriage Amendment in Minnesota

5 posts in this topic

So I was reading the Star Tribune and found this little gem.

http://www.startribu...e/?id=175880161

Here is the main part of the short article...

"It went on to say that some restrictions on marriage are for good and obvious reasons. Who decides what is "good?" I don't think anyone wants to see people treated unjustly, but there is nothing being taken away when it wasn't there to begin with.

The editorial concluded by saying that we are basically fair people who believe in human rights. To that I would ask: Where is the outcry against the killing of unborn children?

The truth is that this is an issue of religious liberty and freedom of speech. If we consider what is truly good and moral, it should lead to a "yes" vote on the marriage amendment."

So apparently this person feels that gays are not being treated unjustly because NOTHING IS BEING TAKEN AWAY. Here is why I find this statement totally stupid and ignorant...

SHARI SWANSON, BUHL, MINN.

That is who wrote the above statements...

Man wouldn't it be nice if we were still back in the good old days, when America was great and women couldn't vote? Back in the good old days women could not vote, were not even close to equal, and did not even have a legal identity. When they were married, their identity became their husband's, so they did not have one of their own. It was also thought that women had no place in politics because they were too fragile or special to get involved in nasty politics...

Why can't we go back to the way it was? Why did we ever give women the right to vote? It's not like they were being treated unjustly, there was nothing taken away because it wasn't there to begin with...

I wonder if her tone would change if she lived in the 1800s...

Also this is not about religious liberty. Religious liberty does not mean you can discriminate against someone based on your beliefs...but I hardly expect her to understand that with her amazing knowlege of history and unquestionable logic...

Repubs constantly make me shake my head...

Edited by HuttonEtAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was reading the Star Tribune and found this little gem.

http://www.startribu...e/?id=175880161

Here is the main part of the short article...

"It went on to say that some restrictions on marriage are for good and obvious reasons. Who decides what is "good?" I don't think anyone wants to see people treated unjustly, but there is nothing being taken away when it wasn't there to begin with.

The editorial concluded by saying that we are basically fair people who believe in human rights. To that I would ask: Where is the outcry against the killing of unborn children?

The truth is that this is an issue of religious liberty and freedom of speech. If we consider what is truly good and moral, it should lead to a "yes" vote on the marriage amendment."

So apparently this person feels that gays are not being treated unjustly because NOTHING IS BEING TAKEN AWAY. Here is why I find this statement totally stupid and ignorant...

SHARI SWANSON, BUHL, MINN.

That is who wrote the above statements...

Man wouldn't it be nice if we were still back in the good old days, when America was great and women couldn't vote? Back in the good old days women could not vote, were not even close to equal, and did not even have a legal identity. When they were married, their identity became their husband's, so they did not have one of their own. It was also thought that women had no place in politics because they were too fragile or special to get involved in nasty politics...

Why can't we go back to the way it was? Why did we ever give women the right to vote? It's not like they were being treated unjustly, there was nothing taken away because it wasn't there to begin with...

I wonder if her tone would change if she lived in the 1800s...

Also this is not about religious liberty. Religious liberty does not mean you can discriminate against someone based on your beliefs...but I hardly expect her to understand that with her amazing knowlege of history and unquestionable logic...

Repubs constantly make me shake my head...

"It admitted that marriage is good for children, but missed the point that that each parent brings something unique to the childrearing."

For all the talk of how important having a mommy and daddy is for a child, what is rarely mentioned is "it is the quality of the parents" that matters more then the number or the sex. Just by the mere fact or default that a child has two parents isn't an automatic bonus if the parents suck. Being a good parent is available to anyone simply by educating themselves in the area of children.Truthfully, some of the finest kids I know have come from single mothers,single fathers, gay couples and now a days blended families.. I think the idea that parents are only good if they meet the traditional model is what is limited.

Edited by Sherapy
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids will do fine with anyone that treats them right and loves them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is gay marriage the biggest issue withe everyone? its important ya but come on now that seems like its the main thing going on right now, that and abortion. which i feel should be lower on the chain of issues we have with are country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why is gay marriage the biggest issue withe everyone? its important ya but come on now that seems like its the main thing going on right now, that and abortion. which i feel should be lower on the chain of issues we have with are country.

It's because it's a safely contentious issue, as opposed to a simply contentious issue. It's something people can talk about, can make a stand on. have justifications for that stand and yet nothing really happens because of that stand. Unlike, say, Global Warming, it's not an issue that has the fate of the entire human race resting on it.

Edited by Wearer of Hats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.