New Gay Marriage Thread

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 6:12 pm

[quote=Hoss;1005115]

LOL, I'm voting for McCain/Palin and I'm doing like my dad and voting all other incumbents out of office. I vote no on all bond issues and I will vote Yes on 8 to protect marriage only between a man and a woman in the CA constitution. I'm against all other propositions on the ballot. *snip *
Why. I mean I understand you considering homosexuality a sin, but why would you restrict two consenting adults from forming a legal (not religious) bond with each other?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:02 pm

In the debate, and I rewound a number of times, it seemed to me that niether supported or had a big problem with "contracts and such" with same sex. Am I wrong?

ButterflyPrincess · Post by **ButterflyPrincess** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:13 pm

does it matter if its two guys-two girls- or a man & woman.. as long as they love each other, they are happy and they aren't hurting anyone.. what's the harm??

i have friends that like girls- they are girls.. i don't mind as long as it's not done in front of my daughter. they are very happy together and they have so much fun. just like a man and woman in a relationship do.. what people do behind closed doors is no ones business but theirs. :rolleyes: I also have a friend that i went to high school with. He's gay now. Again i don't mind- they are getting married in vegas and they invited us.. we will probably go.. they are happy and so in love.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:18 pm

Hoss;1006259 wrote: I think Palin was clear when she said she tolerated same sex contracts, but not same sex marriage, I heard Biden say the same thing, but I think the difference is Biden is saying, its marriage with everything but the name marriage. It's a subtle difference, but really just a decoy. It's appeasement and another step towards degrading the legal term 'marriage'. I don't think Palin was too much different, but she wanted to make it more clear that domestic partnership is not marriage.
Is there that much difference. Marriage is just a word, outside of religion. Inside of religion we can do as we please. Why should there be a problem outside of religion? They can call it a contract or a lease for all I care as long as they don't make me call it the same.

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:33 pm

I can't see why we can't let them get married either. What i don't want to happen is that Gays start putting pastors in jail and demand to work for Christian institutes...

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:40 pm

Hoss;1006290 wrote: Marriage is a legal term, that the states have recognized the union of a man and a woman for hundreds of years. It has a traditional definition and as such it should not change, make a new term, the word marriage and its traditional meaning mean a lot to me, to have it used by homosexuals as a legal fight to normalize their choice of behavior is something that offends me.

But by calling what they want marriage they attach to themselves the entire history of all legal precedents the term uses. Thatâ€™s not just, they don't have a marriage, and they are not following the traditional definition. What they have is something NEW, so the need to develop their own legal workings of what it is. What they are asking for is different than what marriage is.
Okay, let them call it a contract of marriage. Who really cares? Or lets say a marriage of non-conceptual possibility.. Just leave me and mine alone..:wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:52 pm

Marriage between gays and lesbians doesn't degrade or harm opposite sex marriage in any way shape or form. That is just christian dogma and I don't support that junk. If God made 'em gay that's good enough for me. I have gay and lesbian friends, I have been flattered enough to even have a few lesbian friends attracted to me, even though I'm straight. I didn't run in disgust and if I had kids I would expect them to treat gays and lesbians the same as anyone else because they *are* anyone else. This whole topic just makes me see red. Here we are in modern day and we still profess such ignorance. Leave it to the religious nuts because you can always go to a better, more educated church, but keep the politicians the heck out of it.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:00 pm

Hoss;1006311 wrote: Nope, no use of the word marriage. 'domestic partnership' is gender neutral and does not set any legal terms for them to change. Not 'Party A, or Party B' like in CA. If I were to get married in CA my marriage certificate would not read 'husband' or 'wife'. They have already succeeded in changing what I would be in a marriage contract. Homosexuals don't want equality; they want special recognition for being abnormal. They want to change the tradition of marriage to include their own choice of how they see themselves, but to do so they have to change what I am in a marriage license. That is not acceptable to me.
I understand completely, but how does it hurt you to use those letters in the word "marriage" . You in your own mind know what marriage means "in your own mind" so why waste the energy on the semantics? If you allow it to be a non issue then it has no bearing on your own relationship irregardless of how you feel.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:14 pm

Hoss;1006330 wrote: It harms everybody; it takes gender out of marriage completely. There is neither momma nor daddy, nor husband, or wife, it paves the way for all traditions to be destroyed and changed, it normalizes daddy and daddy, and momma and momma, or Ted and Ben, or Julie and Mona. The less those terms have legal meaning the easier they are to dispose of in society, they will be well on their way of being politically incorrect in a short time, then gone completely.
I gotta say that I am not as threatened by it. I am not homophobic but am very homo careful so to say. I can't see where it really hurts my way of life in any way, truthfully I would rather not see it or deal with it but it is there. As long as it is not shoved into my face I am happy. I realize that you are in the S.F bay area and it is a lot more prevalent but here in Kansas we deal with it a lot less.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:14 pm

So you think if we pretend no one is gay or that gay is bad, they'll just disappear? Do I have that right?

Your argument makes no sense to me but the one thing it has in common with so many other arguments I've heard from people in your camp is that A) it doesn't answer our question and B) it hides what it wants to say behind religious gobbledygook.

In short, can you give me a valid answer as to how gay marriage personally affects YOU? I want to hear something such as "my property value goes down, they crap on my lawn, i can't have sex with my wife," whatever; just give me something that actually sounds like a reason instead of "they harm society, it isn't right" etc.

And while we're at it, how does a two father or two mother home affect a child? Specifically. Not the bible says or whatever but a real reason. How is having love from two people of any gender going to mess that kid up?

I'll take a stab and say that behind all the dogma and blabla is the sole reason "I'm afraid my kid will be a fag."

I truly think that's what people are afraid of and are too chicken to say it.

Am I mistaken?

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:35 pm

RedGlitter;1006339 wrote: So you think if we pretend no one is gay or that gay is bad, they'll just disappear? Do I have that right?

Your argument makes no sense to me but the one thing it has in common with so many other arguments I've heard from people in your camp is that A) it doesn't answer our question and B) it hides what it wants to say behind religious gobbledygook.

In short, can you give me a valid answer as to how gay marriage personally affects YOU? I want to hear something such as "my property value goes down, they crap on my lawn, i can't have sex with my wife," whatever; just give me something that actually sounds like a reason instead of "they harm society, it isn't right" etc.

And while we're at it, how does a two father or two mother home affect a child? Specifically. Not the bible says or whatever but a real reason. How is having love from two people of any gender going to mess that kid up?

I'll take a stab and say that behind all the dogma and blabla is the sole reason "I'm afraid my kid will be a fag."

I truly think that's what people are afraid of and are too chicken to say it.

Am I mistaken?

Hoss;1006354 wrote: A: what was the question?

B: I have not mentioned word one about God, the bible nor have I quoted scripture.

Mark which camp I came from carefully, I speak for no one but myself and my own thoughts.

I already gave you my reasons:

1. Changes the traditional definition of marriage removing the roles of 'husband and wife' from the opposite sex partners that were the legal definition of marriage before domestic partnerships robbed the tradition.

2. Erodes the basic family structure by â€˜un-genderizingâ€™ roles that are very important to the development of children.

3. Transfers legal precedence of term marriage and invokes all privileges of the same precedents to a new party that has not developed the legal cases to develop such a term.

4. Normalizes a segment of society, forcing the common person to recognize same sex marriages as traditional marriages, giving special rights, to a class of person based on sexual choice that will lead to prosecution of anyone who openly speaks against homosexuals.

5. Demoralizes race rights that have taken decades to forge and allows a special class to step over the race rights that are granted based on true equality and not a choice.

I could go on, but I have to go to work.

The bolded line is a cheap shot. I expected better from you.

I'll answer your other question tomorrow.

To be honest, I'm not afraid to admit that I am afraid of my kid being "labeled different'. I would be suprised if anyone did. If you ask me if I would disown my kid for being different I would tell you "HELL NO" it's my kid and I love em.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:40 pm

I'm still seeing a lot of ignorant notions in what you're saying. When I say ignorant, I do not mean stupid, I mean for lack of awareness/lack of understanding.

It certainly should normalize "that" section of society as gay people with that one exception are no different from you or me.

I still do not understand how legalizing it takes the legality away from your marriage. In fact, it does no such thing. This is simply more misleading propaganda from people who want to ostracize gays.

It also does not harm children on an educational level. More propaganda.

I thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, even though we disagree. You may think my comment a cheap shot, but the fact remains that is what is secretly on the minds of many. It needs to be brought to the surface, addressed, redressed and eliminated. People should know that "gay" doesn't rub off.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:45 pm

RedGlitter;1006362 wrote: I'm still seeing a lot of ignorant notions in what you're saying. When I say ignorant, I do not mean stupid, I mean for lack of awareness/lack of understanding.

It certainly should normalize "that" section of society as gay people with that one exception are no different from you or me.

I still do not understand how legalizing it takes the legality away from your marriage. In fact, it does no such thing. This is simply more misleading propaganda from people who want to ostracize gays.

It also does not harm children on an educational level. More propaganda.

I thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, even though we disagree. You may think my comment a cheap shot, but the fact remains that is what is secretly on the minds of many. It needs to be brought to the surface, addressed, redressed and eliminated. People should know that "gay" doesn't rub off.
Oh xcrap!! I meant would not!! disown my kid. I would never disown my kid, I love then too much. Sorry..

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:23 pm

S'ok YZ, I think we knew what you meant. I'm sure you'd never disown your kid.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:44 am

Hoss;1006354 wrote: I already gave you my reasons:

1. Changes the traditional definition of marriage removing the roles of 'husband and wife' from the opposite sex partners that were the legal definition of marriage before domestic partnerships robbed the tradition.

2. Erodes the basic family structure by â€˜un-genderizingâ€™ roles that are very important to the development of children.

3. Transfers legal precedence of term marriage and invokes all privileges of the same precedents to a new party that has not developed the legal cases to develop such a term.

4. Normalizes a segment of society, forcing the common person to recognize same sex marriages as traditional marriages, giving special rights, to a class of person based on sexual choice that will lead to prosecution of anyone who openly speaks against homosexuals.

5. Demoralizes race rights that have taken decades to forge and allows a special class to step over the race rights that are granted based on true equality and not a choice.
Thanks for this summary, it saves me alot of time.

Can't argue this point

I don't agree. The couples don't designate one 'wife' and the other 'husband' as far as I know. Do you believe assigning roles based on gender is in the best interest of society?

legal precedents? I don't understand where you're coming from.

It Normalizes a segment of society that is doing nothing illegal. Problem?

Hospitals, landlords, and gov't would be forced to recognize the legal union, no one else. Many families refuse to recognize another family member's marriage unless it is blessed by their church. They don't seem to be forced to recognize anything.

No one in the USA can be prosecuted for speaking against anything they see is wrong.

Weird sentence but I think I get the gist. Calling a union 'marriage' in no way devalues black citizens' right to be free, women's right to vote, or any other group's hard-won rights. Your argument #5 is weakened to virtually zero if you acknowledge that homosexual couples deserve the rights granted by marriage so long as they use another term.

I congratulate you on successfully staying away from the morality question. :-6

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:06 am

[quote=Hoss;1005115]

Quote:

LOL, I'm voting for McCain/Palin and I'm doing like my dad and voting all other incumbents out of office. I vote no on all bond issues and I will vote Yes on 8 to protect marriage only between a man and a woman in the CA constitution. I'm against all other propositions on the ballot. *snip *

I apologize if this has already been addressed here but the glaring question in my mind is how in the world would a gay couple getting hitched be a threat to the more traditional marriage of a man and woman ?

What does one have to do with the other and how does preventing them from becoming married alter the reality of the existence of gay couples ?

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:10 am

like Kinky Freidman says, they have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

:wah:

I have no problem with what other adults choose to do together. :-6

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:19 pm

Hoss;1006300 wrote: LOL, I think thatâ€™s a fear tactic, don't worry about it. It could happen but I think we are a ways from it.

If 61% of the voters in liberal left wing whacked out CA already passed a no gay marriage proposition then we can get a constitutional amendment passed in CA.
It's happening in Canada... Preachers are thrown in jail for "hate crimes" meaning saying Homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit can get you thrown in jail. and schools who don't allow homosexuals in their universities may have their federal aide taken from them....

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:33 pm

Omni_Skittles;1007191 wrote: It's happening in Canada... Preachers are thrown in jail for "hate crimes" meaning saying Homosexuality is a sin from the pulpit can get you thrown in jail. and schools who don't allow homosexuals in their universities may have their federal aide taken from them....
Really? Do you have any sites you can link?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:57 pm

Hoss;1007506 wrote: After a lot of thought, I must decline to comment further on this subject. I appreciate the discussion, it's a valuable subject to discuss, but anything I say in rebuttal to this is going to be offensive.
It's an offensive subject. If you're worried about offending me, well, that kinda offends me so we're over that hump.

My aim is to get you to examine your stances to make sure you're on solid ground. Morally, you're airtight. The question is: is it right to legislate for others to fall in line with your moral beliefs. Traditions change. Easter wasn't always bunnies and painted breakfast littering the lawn.

If it'll help, I don't think there should be legal recognition of marriage at all anymore. It ceased being anything more than a tax shelter years and years ago.

The church (meaning religious institutions generally) has ceded, and continues to cede, too much of its responsibility to the government. Ya can't legislate morality, goodness, empathy. Law is only for restricting, not freeing. Even the emancipation laws - they didn't free slaves; they banned owning humans.

Deleting marriage from the lawbooks would not make anyone any less married. Civil unions aren't (or shouldn't be) sanctified by any church simply because of signatures on a paper. What it would do is make the gay marriage argument moot. It would also allow people to exercise their own definitions of marriage, or not, which is what happens now anyway. Holy matrimony would be left intact, only purer.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:28 pm

Hoss;1007508 wrote: Because in CA they have changed the marriage certificates already to read party A and party B, there is no more gender marriages in CA. Only party A and Party B marriages.

Homosexuals don't want to join the current definition of marriage, they want to change it to include them, but under their terms.

So, if they would be willing to designate one as husband and one as wife... would that be okay?

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:33 pm

What is your definition of men/women who live together, aren't married and have kids?

qsducks · Post by **qsducks** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:44 pm

I don't get it. So, a guy & a chick can live together unmarried and one of the partners can collect bennies from the working one, but gays/lesbians cannot collect the bennies? That is discrimination.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:22 pm

The God argument presumes that we all believe in the same one. We do not all do that. It also presumes that homosexuality is immoral. I don't believe that either. While I wouldnot try to change a person's beliefs about this aspect, I deeply resent those same people deciding on my behalf what my standards will be. By voting out gay marriage on any ground, that is what they are doing.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:59 pm

No. I certainly would not agree. Majority does not rule when it comes to this. That's silly.

I would tell you to live and let live.

I think we should all mind our OWN business when it comes to who other people love and choose to exchange body fluids with.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:56 pm

RedGlitter;1007653 wrote: No. I certainly would not agree. Majority does not rule when it comes to this. That's silly.

I would tell you to live and let live.

I think we should all mind our OWN business when it comes to who other people love and choose to exchange body fluids with.

Red;

That's Silly.

Can you tell us all just why a Majority does not rule ?

Do you live in a Democracy or a Republic?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 12:47 am

Hello BTS.

We're talking about who can love who and how they should be allowed to demonstrate it, secure their union.

It's wrong to make a law saying "we don't like gays, we're scared of you and you disgust us (which is what it is- all the rest is whitewash) so we're keeping marriage for ourselves because "our" God said that's as it should be!" My God says otherwise. My God says love all. Live and let live. Mind your own business. My God smiles down on any loving union, whether straight o rgay. I don't think my God is any more important than the anti-gay's God nor vice versa.

As for law, I tend to side with Accountable's opinion. That is, law stay out of it. Let individual churches decide what they're going to do. Don't like it? Try a different church that fits.

You don't get a majority rule when it comes to something like this quite honestly because what someone does with a consenting other is none of your concern. (You and your being used in a general sense, not necessarily you personally.)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:18 am

Hoss;1007575 wrote: It's so complicated it boggles my mind.We've made it that way, but we can simplify it.

Hoss wrote: Marriage is a tradition, as a tradition the definition is one man one woman. I morally disagree with homosexuals on all aspects, ( I know this will be offensive ) but homosexuality is reprehensible behavior to me. I try to set that aside for this discussion but it is impossible for me to do that.You have every right to believe as you do, to be offended, and even raise your children in that same light. But is it right to take that moral indignation into the legal arena? Is it right to make civil law to force others to obey your moral beliefs when they hold different moral beliefs?

Hoss wrote: If we totally did away with any legal definition of marriage than I would be even more offended that a very small group of immoral people ruined a tradition of human history. The very small group ruined nothing of importance, as you explain in the next part of your post.

Hoss wrote: Marriage isnâ€™t just a civil contract legally recognized by a government; it's a covenant between God and a husband and wife that he miraculously joins.I agree. And no civil law can ever change that. The only thing that can destroy that religious covenant is the church, by abandoning the tradition. We don't need law to establish tradition. Christmas is a legal holiday, Ash Wednesday is not, yet millions celebrate both.

Hoss wrote: Man has tried to mess with that for as long as marriage has been around and keeps messing it up every time he does. So in this case, with the history of mans interference in Marriage, I would say yes, that it is an issue important enough to legislate a standard over, since it directly impacts the stability of our society.Much of society ignores the tradition of marriage. Many religious people have religious marriage ceremonies without bothering with the civil license. The church (and God) still recognizes and blesses the union, and civil law recognizes it as common law marriage, I think.

Hoss wrote: We aren't legislating morality; we are mutually deciding what our standards will be. If we get the constitutional amendment established then it becomes the law of the land. It isnâ€™t saying its moral, or not.Standards? What kind of standards?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:47 am

Civil marriage gives perks to people who get married.

Married people get to pay less in taxes. This is unfair because two incomes bring in more money, so the net income is far higher than two people who cohabitate without marriage. The original purpose was to permit the wife to stay home with the kids (the tradition also saved on shoes since she stayed barefoot & pregnant.

) Married couples now have two incomes and pay for childcare, and many have no children at all. A fairer way to go would be to do away with joint filing and allow one spouse to file as head-of-household like single parents do.

If one spouse is hospitalized, the other has special visitation privileges, as do other blood relatives, if the patient is critically ill. This is unfair because other cohabitating people, such as two elderly ladies who move in together after their husbands have passed away, are not allowed the same privilege even though they may be the only family they have left. As a foster child, I've know many people who have quite large non-traditional familial connections. None of their family would be allowed to visit when they would be needed most. A fairer way to go would be to have a process applied to everyone to designate who would/should have "close kin" privileges in such situations.

Married people are automatically legally designated as each other's next of kin. If one spouse dies, the other automatically gains ownership in absense of a will. This is a privilege that the people I described in the previous bullet could not automatically enjoy. The automatic part is the key. Marriage grants special privileges where it is not deserved. A fairer way to go would be to take away this special privilege. Married individuals can file paperwork as easily as anyone else.

Let's not forget divorce. Long-time roommates that decide to move out might benefit from divorce-like laws to help decide who gets the furnture, but I think a fairer way to go would be for everyone to be treated the same. If there is no civil marriage there is no divorce.

Just my opinion

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:38 pm

Can we Constitutionally keep them from being married?

Omni_Skittles · Post by **Omni_Skittles** » Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:59 pm

Jester;1008627 wrote: I love it.

Hoss my boy, keep on keeping on.

Red, you crack me up. Majority does rule, thats why we vote, and when we vote we establish mutually agreed upon laws. We all have to abide by those laws or face prosecution. many laws i dont agree with but comply with because of the consequences and then many laws I think should be changed I wouldnâ€™t dream of complying with and am willing to face all punishments under the law for if I'm ever brought up on charges.

But you can't have it both ways same as I cant. If the CA constitution is changed to amend the fact that a majority wants marriage defined as one man and one woman then it becomes the final word in CA. Majority will have ruled.

Either your going to have to deal with it or I am. (if you lived near me)

Out of curiosity whats the AZ law on marriage?
against same sex marriages lol