Same Sex marriage - my view point

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Why? If it's about a word than why isn't "Civil Union" with the same rights good enough? Is it about the rights? Or is it about a statement? A word?

It was about equal rights, until the religious whacko nuts brought up the "sanctity of marriage" and the idea that the word "marriage" has solely religious connotations, which it does not.

 

[gingermeggs]

The legal definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Life is not fair, Nothing is equal and truth is stranger then fiction.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Craig234
xjohnx, the point you are missing is that bigots look for angles to get to be bigoted, often unaware that they are bigoted.

More of your self-righteous bullshit. I don't give a shit what gay's do, if they want to live together, visit each other in the hospital, get tax breaks, whatever. What I want to know is if they are really interested in their "rights" or just in pissing off the breeders.

I think they want equality.... total equality... they want the word Marriage to be universal for the same event under law.

Why? If it's about a word than why isn't "Civil Union" with the same rights good enough? Is it about the rights? Or is it about a statement? A word?

1. You proved Moonbeam right about you. I did waste time explaining to you, other than the fact that it established he was right.

2. The question isn't why the wor marriage matters to gays. It's why it matters to anyone who wants to DENY it to gays to treat them equally.

And the answer to that - whatever the excuse concocted - is bigotry.

So denying the word gays is important to the bigots, so they can maintain the claim that gays are second-class. "See, they're inferior, they can't have 'marriage', we can'.

And that's why it's important to gays - to not have society, in its laws, symbolically - the word - treating them as second-class.

The same way blacks fought 'separate but equal', when earlier bigots tried to maintain bigotry - separate - while having to pay lip service to equality - 'but equal'.

That lasted 60 years in our laws, and was good to change. Discrimination against gay marital equality has lasted longer, and is good to change.

You are what Moonbeam said, and that leaves you irrational in your not responding to the explanation I posted, and not understanding the issue with 'the word' is the bigots.

Race, and behaviour are not the same thing, no matter how many times you scream it. Never have been, never will be.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
[ Your daughters situation is not like yours, even if it was called marriage, it still wouldn't be.

Well, to me she is married... you call it what you want... She does have a Domestic Partnership agreement conferring all the rights of marriage and if the Federal Law is overturned then all the States must recognize it.. [Under full faith and credit clause].
But to her and I just got a text back from her... it is about being seen as not equal... not that she is not.. it is the Federal Law and the equality in all aspects... not sure what that means exactly but it is what she said...

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: BriGy86
They should do away with the term "marriage" in a legal sense. The term "marriage" should only apply to the religious ceremony. The state should then only recognize civil unions. Civil unions should be applicable to gay, straight, biracial people etc. Current marriages could be grandfathered in or simply relabeled as civil unions.

I would hope that should end the "gay marriage" debate.

That's just semantics. If it's the same as marriage except for the word, who gives a fuck what it's called?

If marriage has so much sanctity, I say prohibit divorce. That aught to shut everyone up.

People against gay marriage give a fuck what it's called (not sure why) Some people seem to think because gay people will be able to get "married" it invalidates their marriage for some reason.

Like I said it would hopefully put an end to the gay marriage debate, as well as further separate church and state like things should be.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: bfdd

For the brief while, while marriage between the same sex was legal in California a friend and I almost did that.

Hehehehehe I'd have gotten a chuckle out of it had you done it... I guess, I don't much care what folks do so long as I'm not directly affected adversely.
I'm a Christian, I guess cuz I believe Jesus died for my sins... he has them all... I'm pure as snow... But, less important is this here Earth place... this is Cesar's place and I'm about making all the citizens of Rome equal... and New York and maybe even right here is sunny Solana Beach... but I can't do that cuz there are poor people somewhere, I'm told... hehehehehehehehe But, not near to me anyhow..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
The legal definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Life is not fair, Nothing is equal and truth is stranger then fiction.

Them Bigoted Founders... Them near sighted nincompoops... Didn't they realize that some day folks would reject the notion that their god was god and accept that everyone's god is someone's god except for them non god watchamacallits...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Race, and behaviour are not the same thing, no matter how many times you scream it. Never have been, never will be.

The differences are irrelevant to the fact that bigotry against inter-racial marriage and gay marriage is the same type bigotry. But we've established explaining to you is a waste.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BriGy86
[People against gay marriage give a fuck what it's called (not sure why)

I'll repeat my previous post:

2. The question isn't why the wor marriage matters to gays. It's why it matters to anyone who wants to DENY it to gays to treat them equally.

And the answer to that - whatever the excuse concocted - is bigotry.

So denying the word gays is important to the bigots, so they can maintain the claim that gays are second-class. "See, they're inferior, they can't have 'marriage', we can'.
And that's why it's important to gays - to not have society, in its laws, symbolically - the word - treating them as second-class.

The same way blacks fought 'separate but equal', when earlier bigots tried to maintain bigotry - separate - while having to pay lip service to equality - 'but equal'.

That lasted 60 years in our laws, and was good to change. Discrimination against gay marital equality has lasted longer, and is good to change.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Race, and behaviour are not the same thing, no matter how many times you scream it. Never have been, never will be.

The differences are irrelevant to the fact that bigotry against inter-racial marriage and gay marriage is the same type bigotry. But Moonbeam was right about you.

I don't think I agree with the notion that a 5/4 SCOTUS opinion should carry the day... It is hard for me to see how so many can see the same thing using extremely similar minds but yet conclude differently... It must be some bias they carry which enables that and so to provide a more proper decision making process they shoud be forced to decide stuff while smoking MJ...
Additionally and more on point here... folks have bias toward stuff but can they see it? Do they opine and scream equality is what the majority says? What are fundamental rights of all folks? Should we codify them in an amendment to the US Constitution or let each State decide? I'm all for the States deciding but I'd want the rights of the minority protected by some means... There really has to be a compelling government interest to deny any right... No compelling interest in not unifying what marriage is... it is a contract twixt two people.. Or a Moonbeam and a person...

 

[JKing106]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Would the majority of gays be happy with civil unions that carried the same "rights" as a marriage?

Would biracial couples be?

Are they gay biracial couples? If not than waht's your point? Do you have one?

Why explain the point of something only a moron wouldn't get?

Go hate yourself in the corner troll.

I want to know if it's about the rights associated with marriage, or if it is agenda driven. If it's only about getting the same rights as those marriage brings, than fine, I support it, if it has to be called marriage than it is nothing more than agenda driven BS, and no, I don't. Other than that there is no reason whatsoever or the federal government to be involved.

It's agenda driven. It's specifically aimed at white people. They're trying to make your kids gay so they won't breed, and the white race will die out. BE VERY SCARED, WHITE MAN!

Seriously, gay couples want the same legal rights as a straight couple. Case closed.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JKing106

Seriously, gay couples want the same legal rights as a straight couple. Case closed.

If I were able to argue a case in court I'd use the term 'people'... Two people want the same rights, terms, and recognition as any other two people... What sex they are is not relevant... Fundamental rights are held by the person who then can choose to enjoy those rights as they see fit... I think it is that basic...

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard
Nope, keep it at the state level. Why should the federal gov't have anything to do marriage? It's bad enough that state gov'ts do. Why does everything ultimately involve the feds?

<-- supporter

Because some State governments are run by bigots and morons?

Think about South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi in the 1960's dealing with racial segregation, and you have your answer.

You are suggesting it is better to let individual states enforce the rights guaranteed under the US Constitution (since this is ultimately a provision of Equal Protection).

Italics = mine

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: classy
There is a basic instinct of survival built in all of us. Homosexuality challenges that instinct regardless of color, religion, or financial status. But instinct will continue to override that challenge until mankind has vanishes off this planet.

Actually it doesn't challenge that instinct, but you'd have to read into the biological causes for homosexuality to understand why. There is a reason numerous species have "gay" creatures.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JKing106

Seriously, gay couples want the same legal rights as a straight couple. Case closed.

If I were able to argue a case in court I'd use the term 'people'... Two people want the same rights, terms, and recognition as any other two people... What sex they are is not relevant... Fundamental rights are held by the person who then can choose to enjoy those rights as they see fit... I think it is that basic...

I agree, but that gets forgot by people on both sides of the argument.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: classy
There is a basic instinct of survival built in all of us. Homosexuality challenges that instinct regardless of color, religion, or financial status. But instinct will continue to override that challenge until mankind has vanishes off this planet.

Actually it doesn't challenge that instinct, but you'd have to read into the biological causes for homosexuality to understand why. There is a reason numerous species have "gay" creatures.

Classy is arguing nonssnse. Her implied argument is 'homosexuality reduces reproduction of the species which is against natural interests which imakes it ok to discriminate'.

First, our laws are not based on the same issue as natural selection. Indeed, it's our humanity that tends to make our laws counter that and 'care for the weak'.

If a person is born blind, we try to help them, we don't leave the infant to crawl blindly for food in the street or execute it.

Second, the issues involved in the morality of gay people deserving the same legal protections to have a partner as anyone else aren't affected by natural selection.

Her argument is bigotry pure and simple under the guise of blathering about natural selection.

Gays are people, and she tries to dehumanize them so they do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals.

 

[jackschmittusa]

gingermeggs

modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Where do you get that? I don't think you have a solid grasp of history.

Any Gospel quotes in the Declaration of Independence?

How many of the Bill of Rights amendments quote the Christian bible?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs
The legal definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Life is not fair, Nothing is equal and truth is stranger then fiction.

Ya right, traceable right back to the pagan Greeks and beyond to Hammurabi's Code.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
gingermeggs

modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Where do you get that? I don't think you have a solid grasp of history.

Any Gospel quotes in the Declaration of Independence?

How many of the Bill of Rights amendments quote the Christian bible?

How many Christians contributed to each? Religion determines many people's values and morals, which largely determine the law. Just because it wasn't directly cited doesn't mean it lacks influence. Christianity is indirectly responsible for large portions of Western culture.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
gingermeggs

modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Where do you get that? I don't think you have a solid grasp of history.

Any Gospel quotes in the Declaration of Independence?

How many of the Bill of Rights amendments quote the Christian bible?

How many Christians contributed to each? Religion determines many people's values and morals, which largely determine the law. Just because it wasn't directly cited doesn't mean it lacks influence. Christianity is indirectly responsible for large portions of Western culture.

All those founders' documents reek of the values of the Masons, No God named but a "Creator", equality of men, etc. Com'on do some research!

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
gingermeggs

modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Where do you get that? I don't think you have a solid grasp of history.

Any Gospel quotes in the Declaration of Independence?

How many of the Bill of Rights amendments quote the Christian bible?

How many Christians contributed to each? Religion determines many people's values and morals, which largely determine the law. Just because it wasn't directly cited doesn't mean it lacks influence. Christianity is indirectly responsible for large portions of Western culture.

All those founders' documents reek of the values of the Masons, No God named but a "Creator", equality of men, etc. Com'on do some research!

And beyond the founding documents, what was the governmental representation of Masons (many only "suspected") as opposed to Christians? US has been around for a while, and the predominant religion is some form of Christianity. That in large part determines everything about our governmental system. How people vote, what's considered right/wrong under the law, etc.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: Carmen813

Originally posted by: classy
There is a basic instinct of survival built in all of us. Homosexuality challenges that instinct regardless of color, religion, or financial status. But instinct will continue to override that challenge until mankind has vanishes off this planet.

Actually it doesn't challenge that instinct, but you'd have to read into the biological causes for homosexuality to understand why. There is a reason numerous species have "gay" creatures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...5Grxos&feature=related

This video pretty much destroys classy's argument. Many different species practice homosexuality and bisexuality...hasn't caused them to die off.

Gotta love uneducated bigots.

 

[Albus25]

Marriage can't give their happiness , but they deserve the right.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
gingermeggs

modern western law is founded on the christian bible, so hence now the argument of definition.

Where do you get that? I don't think you have a solid grasp of history.

Any Gospel quotes in the Declaration of Independence?

How many of the Bill of Rights amendments quote the Christian bible?

How many Christians contributed to each? Religion determines many people's values and morals, which largely determine the law. Just because it wasn't directly cited doesn't mean it lacks influence. Christianity is indirectly responsible for large portions of Western culture.

All those founders' documents reek of the values of the Masons, No God named but a "Creator", equality of men, etc. Com'on do some research!

And beyond the founding documents, what was the governmental representation of Masons (many only "suspected") as opposed to Christians? US has been around for a while, and the predominant religion is some form of Christianity. That in large part determines everything about our governmental system. How people vote, what's considered right/wrong under the law, etc.

Yeah, they believed in it so much that they found it necessary to guarantee us protection from that religion.

The bottom line is the government has no business being in the marriage business at all. I honestly don't understand why ANY religion would want the government controlling one of their sacraments. We have seen many times in history that what the government givith it can taketh away. Seriously, do you guys really want the government to have the power to deny you and your heterosexual spouse a marriage license for whatever reason they see fit? I guarantee yall will be screaming that the government needs to get out of your church and I agree.

Leave marriage up to the church where the church can make up any and all the rules they want. If the .gov sees fit to grant rights or privileges to consenting adults entering into a social contract then the government should not discriminate based on sex, religion, or race.

BTW, for the slow folk, this isn't about pedophilia or beastiality or any other dumb shit you want to try and associate with gays (ironically, almost every single news story I have read involving beastiality it was committed by a male in a heterosexual, traditional, church approved marriage). The conversation is about two consenting adults. If you have some urge to talk about boning animals this isn't the thread.

 

[piasabird]

First of all the Federal Government is always makeing laws concerning marriage. Look at the Federal Tax Code if you do not believe it. Then also are the rules that states are recognizing marriages and divorces performed in other states. States do not have to honor the laws of other states if Marriage is really controlled by the individual states.

This is a bit of Irony. States only have the right to tax and make their laws about how people can get married. When states start making a mockery of the meaning of marriage, this will cause some states not to honor marriages from other states.