Would this work?

[reo]

In light of the Chick-fil-a news, I figured I'd ask this question:

What if someone introduced a bill that would allow a marriage as long as it met these 3 requirements. First, its 2 people (no polygomy, no animals), of legal age defined by the state (no pedos), and of free will and sound mind (guess to say you can't forcibily marry). That's it. Leave it at, and nothing else. Due to seperation of church and state, the government shouldn't be able to force churches to perform gay weddings, so the church could just stfu since they don't have to perform the weddings. What this accomplishes it it gives gays the same benifits as married straight couples, which would be fair. It also makes it where the government doesn't decide yes or no to gay marriage, which I think is the reason this whole issue is blown out of proportion. It shouldn't be allowed to decide who can marry who based on sexual preference, period.

Anyways, I thought it would be hilarious if a conservative/Republican offered this to congress and stole all the LGBT votes from the Dems. I would do it just for that and that I feel it would be the right thing to do. No more of this empty promises for votes bullshit.

Depending on the responses for this I also have an idea to fix the immigration issue that would be interesting among a few other ideas.

-Eric

[YALE]

Sounds pretty honest. I'd vote for it.

[Forever_frost]

In light of the Chick-fil-a news, I figured I'd ask this question:

What if someone introduced a bill that would allow a marriage as long as it met these 3 requirements. First, its 2 people (no polygomy, no animals), of legal age defined by the state (no pedos), and of free will and sound mind (guess to say you can't forcibily marry). That's it. Leave it at, and nothing else. Due to seperation of church and state, the government shouldn't be able to force churches to perform gay weddings, so the church could just stfu since they don't have to perform the weddings. What this accomplishes it it gives gays the same benifits as married straight couples, which would be fair. It also makes it where the government doesn't decide yes or no to gay marriage, which I think is the reason this whole issue is blown out of proportion. It shouldn't be allowed to decide who can marry who based on sexual preference, period.

Anyways, I thought it would be hilarious if a conservative/Republican offered this to congress and stole all the LGBT votes from the Dems. I would do it just for that and that I feel it would be the right thing to do. No more of this empty promises for votes bullshit.

Depending on the responses for this I also have an idea to fix the immigration issue that would be interesting among a few other ideas.

-Eric

Where do you find separation of church and state in the constitution and where do you find the ability to say anything about marriage one way or the other in the Constitution?

[ELVIS]

is this dude coming out of the closet?

god bless.

[mstng86]

is this dude coming out of the closet?

god bless.

Maybe he wants to marry his dog.

[reo]

Where do you find separation of church and state in the constitution and where do you find the ability to say anything about marriage one way or the other in the Constitution?

Well, that is the problem, its not there. Since the masses want a ruling of some sort, give them one that is least instrusive. As far as seperation of church and state this would be one time the church could use it to their advantage.

The only reason I've even thought of this is my wife's brother is gay, and the whole debate has been upsetting her. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but apparently this country just can't let other citizens be without making them comply to whatever.

-Eric

[mstng86]

Well, that is the problem, its not there. Since the masses want a ruling of some sort, give them one that is least instrusive. As far as seperation of church and state this would be one time the church could use it to their advantage.

The only reason I've even thought of this is my wife's brother is gay, and the whole debate has been upsetting her. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but apparently this country just can't let other citizens be without making them comply to whatever.

-Eric

Why do you want to marry your dog if you are already married? Thats illegal.

[Forever_frost]

Well, that is the problem, its not there. Since the masses want a ruling of some sort, give them one that is least instrusive. As far as seperation of church and state this would be one time the church could use it to their advantage.

The only reason I've even thought of this is my wife's brother is gay, and the whole debate has been upsetting her. Personally, I don't care one way or the other, but apparently this country just can't let other citizens be without making them comply to whatever.

-Eric

Again, if it's not there, the Congress can't do it. The idea of "Least Intrusive" when there is no power to do or say anything is the problem. There is no separation of church and state. None.

You want gay marriage? Does she? Right, I'm going to tell you how to get it. Tell government they no longer have any power over marriage, one way or the other. Period. People can do as they please.

And what do you have against polygamy? Who are you to say it's wrong?

[ELVIS]

Why do you want to marry your dog if you are already married? Thats illegal.

dude, you thinking of the svo885 guy aint ya?

god bless.

[reo]

Again, if it's not there, the Congress can't do it. The idea of "Least Intrusive" when there is no power to do or say anything is the problem. There is no separation of church and state. None.

You want gay marriage? Does she? Right, I'm going to tell you how to get it. Tell government they no longer have any power over marriage, one way or the other. Period. People can do as they please.

And what do you have against polygamy? Who are you to say it's wrong?

You got a valid point. I just feel getting past the using people for votes would be a tremendous first step. Does it sound stupid that we have to pass a bill to limit gov't powers, yes. But I don't see any other way to get people to bring their mindset back to the fact that the gov't should not be allowed to tell us what to do or think.

As far as polygomy, I don't care if people do it or not, I just know that the moment you make it available it will kill any chance of the bill making it through. Call it a crappy compromise or whatnot, but you have to do something to make it happen.

What I want is for people to get back debating about crap that matters, not all this social bs. But as long as people are arguing over if gay is good or not, whether Paco should get a free green card, or whatever else is keeping the country from being ran properly we will continue to have problems. I'm tired of seeing people as nothing but pawns. I'm tired of this whole polarization of our country over stupid things such as "does the government have the authority to make you buy insurance". No, it doesn't, move the f* along. But as long as those who desire that have the LBGT and minority vote you won't get anywhere. So cut their support out from under them. Make good to the best of your ability the promises THEY made and see how the arguement will go away.

-Eric

[tazz007]

In light of the Chick-fil-a news, I figured I'd ask this question:

What if someone introduced a bill that would allow a marriage as long as it met these 3 requirements. First, its 2 people (no polygomy, no animals), of legal age defined by the state (no pedos), and of free will and sound mind (guess to say you can't forcibily marry). That's it. Leave it at, and nothing else. Due to seperation of church and state, the government shouldn't be able to force churches to perform gay weddings, so the church could just stfu since they don't have to perform the weddings. What this accomplishes it it gives gays the same benifits as married straight couples, which would be fair. It also makes it where the government doesn't decide yes or no to gay marriage, which I think is the reason this whole issue is blown out of proportion. It shouldn't be allowed to decide who can marry who based on sexual preference, period.

Anyways, I thought it would be hilarious if a conservative/Republican offered this to congress and stole all the LGBT votes from the Dems. I would do it just for that and that I feel it would be the right thing to do. No more of this empty promises for votes bullshit.

Depending on the responses for this I also have an idea to fix the immigration issue that would be interesting among a few other ideas.

-Eric

The most disturbing part about this. Some one is debating on ASKING PERMISSION, to do something that is non of anyone's business, let alone the governments! This mentality is exactly what wrong with this country. Free people DO NOT ask anyone's permission for ANYTHING, as long as it is not infringing on someone else rights,,,,,,,PERIOD!

[Forever_frost]

You got a valid point. I just feel getting past the using people for votes would be a tremendous first step. Does it sound stupid that we have to pass a bill to limit gov't powers, yes. But I don't see any other way to get people to bring their mindset back to the fact that the gov't should not be allowed to tell us what to do or think.

As far as polygomy, I don't care if people do it or not, I just know that the moment you make it available it will kill any chance of the bill making it through. Call it a crappy compromise or whatnot, but you have to do something to make it happen.

What I want is for people to get back debating about crap that matters, not all this social bs. But as long as people are arguing over if gay is good or not, whether Paco should get a free green card, or whatever else is keeping the country from being ran properly we will continue to have problems. I'm tired of seeing people as nothing but pawns. I'm tired of this whole polarization of our country over stupid things such as "does the government have the authority to make you buy insurance". No, it doesn't, move the f* along. But as long as those who desire that have the LBGT and minority vote you won't get anywhere. So cut their support out from under them. Make good to the best of your ability the promises THEY made and see how the arguement will go away.

-Eric

Again, you're asking the government to create a bill to exercise a power it doesn't possess. And we're not polarized enough. Until people are willing to force the Constitution to be enforced, we're not there.

It's already been proven that the LGBT crew are going to back dems, not because they actually want the rights (they already have them) but because it makes money and those at the top aren't gay. They want the power.

[reo]

Again, you're asking the government to create a bill to exercise a power it doesn't possess. And we're not polarized enough. Until people are willing to force the Constitution to be enforced, we're not there.

It's already been proven that the LGBT crew are going to back dems, not because they actually want the rights (they already have them) but because it makes money and those at the top aren't gay. They want the power.

If that's all the LGBTs want, something like this would undercut them would it not? I know your idea of what needs to be done would work just the same, different ways to go about it I guess. I'm just not sure we can go cold turkey on the issue of gov't power. Maybe try something like this, and if it cuts off those that want power and not rights gained by the constitution, then cool. If not, lets go cold turkey and start a revolution.

As far as not polarized enough, what is the end goal to that? Till we split into different countries and such? Or that one group tramples the other? I don't see either side simply going "ok, we need to come back to the middle now, this has gotten out of hand". Not saying I'm opposed to this (Texas secede), but more or less would it end any other way?

-Eric

[Forever_frost]

No, it wouldn't. Just like equal rights laws didn't shut up blacks from saying they were discriminated against. You don't give in and craft unconstitutional laws in hopes to shut people up. They wanted in the military, so they got it. Then they got openly in the military. Still didn't shut up. The DoD gave them a month of celebration and public recognition. Still bitching. You give an inch, they take a mile.

The end goal of that is that people pay attention, get involved and FORCE the government back into it's box. Too many people are asleep or apathetic.

[reo]

As I said before, you got a valid point, and I usually follow a uncompromising path, but was just wondering what others thought on the subject was. So far no one argued for the idea, so unless someone comes up with a reason it would work then I'd say that is that. I guess now the question would be will people wake up? Will they say they had enough? I know where you stand, and a few others and myself, but is it going to be enough? Is it even possible?

-Eric