Adam Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Well, what's wrong with it NOW is that anything you call it, the rabid opposition will just counter with "They're just trying to trick us by not calling it marriage. Good thing we're smarter than those crafty, evil faggots." Why is the government interfering at all? Just let the people get married and be happy....whats the big deal? So-called liberals think the government should handle healthcare but not enter into this, so-called conservatives think the opposite and neither think there should be a middle ground. Homosexual marriage doesn't hurt anybody, despite the zealots claims. A representative republic's government isn't there to blindly enforce the will of the majority, they are supposed to be there because they are smarter than the sheep who elect them.
DC Tom Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Why is the government interfering at all? Because marriage is a matter of civil law (which is why you have to get a marriage license to get married). Ergo, it is a government matter.
Chef Jim Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 The logical way around that is to eliminate marriage from state laws and call all unions legal partnerships. Marriages should be reserved if sanctioned by whatever clergy you choose, but as a legal matter they should be one and the same. That's why this debate is going longer than it should, by insisting on calling their unions marriage, gay groups are heading straight into the teeth of religious opposition. So, yes, the battle is over a word. Good point. If eliminating the words marriage and married from the legal aspect of a union would solve the whole problem I'm all for it. I don't need to use those words for my relationship with my wife.
keepthefaith Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Why is the government interfering at all? Just let the people get married and be happy....whats the big deal? So-called liberals think the government should handle healthcare but not enter into this, so-called conservatives think the opposite and neither think there should be a middle ground. Homosexual marriage doesn't hurt anybody, despite the zealots claims. A representative republic's government isn't there to blindly enforce the will of the majority, they are supposed to be there because they are smarter than the sheep who elect them. I have no problem with civil unions for gays. I have a much bigger problem that they grow up to be whiny liberal loons that cry for every lefty cause out there. Any man willing to insert his penis in another man's anus over and over should be tougher minded. Not everyone is tough enough to do that. Certainly not me.
Chef Jim Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 I have no problem with civil unions for gays. I have a much bigger problem that they grow up to be whiny liberal loons that cry for every lefty cause out there. Any man willing to insert his penis in another man's anus over and over should be tougher minded. Not everyone is tough enough to do that. Certainly not me. Try doing it with your eyes closed next time.
Typical TBD Guy Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 By everyone since the dawn of time. It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. And there you have it, folks. Religion: the last refuge for bigots.
LeviF Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 And there you have it, folks. Religion: the last refuge for bigots. Ah crap here we go again...
John Adams Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Exactly. Permit "marriage" to be granted only by religious institutions. Permit governmental authorities to grant "legal partnership" status. Problem solved. Really disappointing that vote was such a disaster. So many rights and privledges are attached to the word "marriage" and it is a shame that two people in a commitment relationship have such legal barriers, both on the Federal level (as Chef rightly points out) and on the state level. And many religions would (and do) provide marriages to same sex couples.
The Big Cat Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 By everyone since the dawn of time. It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Ah yes, how foolish to ignore history. Well documented, verifiable, concrete history. And a story that's exclusive to Christianity, no less. I guess feeding trolls can be fun.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 And there you have it, folks. Religion: the last refuge for bigots. Uh huh. Excepting that Jesus hung around with Samaritans, Prostitutes, Tax Collectors (love how they were villains even 2000 years ago) and Criminals. I think you should educate yourself before flinging stupidities like Donald. I'm not pro- gay marraige by any stretch. I'm definitely NOT pro- homosexual behavior. But if they keep it behind closed doors where it belongs, they're free to do whatever they wish. It's the same for me for hetero PDAs. Keep your business private. The rest of us don't need to see you and the bim of the week swapping spit.
/dev/null Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Uh huh. Excepting that Jesus hung around with Samaritans, Prostitutes, Tax Collectors (love how they were villains even 2000 years ago) and Criminals. Samaritans, Prostitutes, Tax Collectors, and Criminals... Jesus hung out with ACORN?
Adam Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 Good point. If eliminating the words marriage and married from the legal aspect of a union would solve the whole problem I'm all for it. I don't need to use those words for my relationship with my wife. For your sake, I hope she doesn't read this board
Joe Miner Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 IMO, the gov't needs to get out of the realm of marriage all together. The gov't should turn ALL legal marriages into Civil Unions. That way, the government can do whatever they want, and religions can do whatever they want. A legal union shouldn't have anything to do with a religion, and a marriage shouldn't have anything to do with the government. Let religions marry. Let the government license civil unions. Problem solved. Religious people don't need to feel pressured to change their beliefs and everyone gets equal treatment from the gov't. For some people, it doesn't matter what the gov't calls their marriage, it matters what God calls it. For many others, it doesn't matter what a god calls their marriage, it matters what the gov't calls it. Make it so you can be "married" without having a legally binding civil union and a legally binding civil union without being married. "Don't cross the streams...It would be bad." Just my $0.02.
bills_fan Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 And many religions would (and do) provide marriages to same sex couples. True, and I wish that all would. Unfortunately, I'm too cynical to ever think thats going to happen.
Boatdrinks Posted December 3, 2009 Posted December 3, 2009 That's one of the sillier points in the whole debate: the gay community could probably get all the legal rights they're asking for, if they hadn't decided to call it "marriage", with the religious overtones that has to so many people. Nobody has a monopoly on a word.Why shouldn't they call it that? It's a marriage, period. Regardless of the sex of the so joined. Marriage is a legal term, not a religious term. And who the F#@k cares what it "means" to someone else? It only matters what it means to those being married. People in this country really need to keep their noses out of others freakin' business.
DC Tom Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 Nobody has a monopoly on a word.Why shouldn't they call it that? It's a marriage, period. Regardless of the sex of the so joined. Marriage is a legal term, not a religious term. And who the F#@k cares what it "means" to someone else? It only matters what it means to those being married. People in this country really need to keep their noses out of others freakin' business. There's no reason they shouldn't...but as a turn of phrase guaranteed to make it a hot-button issue, it's needlessly divisive and inflammatory. Odds are that if you asked people "Should gay couples be allowed to have the same legal rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples", and "Should gay couples be allowed to marry", there'd be a significant difference in the responses. The gay activists' community is not doing themselves a whole lot of favors indulging a tactic that's guaranteed to piss people off.
EC-Bills Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 Try doing it with your eyes closed next time.
Adam Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 The people that want to "protect" marriage" probably would like the death penalty for cheating.......a very Christian thought....they are such good people. A bastion of america.....
OCinBuffalo Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 The logical way around that is to eliminate marriage from state laws and call all unions legal partnerships. Marriages should be reserved if sanctioned by whatever clergy you choose, but as a legal matter they should be one and the same. That's why this debate is going longer than it should, by insisting on calling their unions marriage, gay groups are heading straight into the teeth of religious opposition. So, yes, the battle is over a word. But this is the entire friggin reason they are doing this. Let's examine how we got here, shall we: 1. Far-left people decided they were gonna stick it to the far right. 2. So, they start out passing laws or, more likely, filing lawsuits, in liberal dominated states like Massachusetts and California that say it's ok for Steve to Marry Adam 3. The religious center and the far right counter, rally a groundswell of support, partly because of the matter itself, mostly because of the manner in which it was handled. 4. 40+ states pass anti-gay marriage laws, all the referendums defeat gay marriage, and now, even NYS says no. First of all, if I were gay, and interested in marriage, I'd be pissed right now. I went from: having a chance at one day getting married, to, no chance at all...but why? 1. Far-left people decided they were gonna stick it to the far right. You say that we are arguing over a word, and you come up with a perfectly rational/legal way to deal with this entire issue, yet it won't be adopted by anyone on the pro-gay marriage side. Why? 1. Far-left people decided they were gonna stick it to the far right. Alaska Darrin, etc. deride every "round the bend" Christian that shows up on this board, and that sentiment is shared by many, including myself, that there simply is no rational reason to deny anybody equal rights under the law....however, at the same time, in vote after vote, people choose the anti-gay marriage side, Why? Because we all know that this issue started with: 1. Far-left people decided they were gonna stick it to the far right. Just like on this board, the far left are going to do whatever they want and call you names if you don't agree with them. In fact, HOW DARE you disagree with them. They have laid claim to all morality, and since they deny religion, they are the sole arbiters of right and wrong and therefore disagreeing with them makes you immoral.... Ultimately, even if we generally agree with some form of civil union for gay people, we hate far-left people trying to push their out-of-control PC agenda on us far more. You said: by insisting on calling their unions marriage, gay groups are heading straight into the teeth of religious opposition. Yes, because this was never about simply allowing gays to marry, this was always about: 1. Far-left people decided they were gonna stick it to the far right.
OCinBuffalo Posted December 4, 2009 Posted December 4, 2009 Are there any legitimate arguments against homosexual marriage out there? I'm really curious. I have one that is not based on anything other than logic: P1. Gays can't control who the are attracted to, and whether causes that attraction is chemical, genetic, whatever. P2. The Constitution, in its current form, says/or at least implies, that we cannot pass one set of laws for one genetic group, and another set for another. Therefore, we must conclude that gay marriage cannot be legislated against, and, that traditional marriage cannot be made law if it excludes gays. That would be all well and good if that was how the world really was, but it's not. In fact: P1. It is true that some...most...whatever....gays say they can't control who they are attracted to P2. Bisexual people exist, and, if gays cannot control how their attraction works, then bisexual people have every right to claim the same thing. While we are at it, all sorts of bisexual relationships exist, with each person involved able to lay claims as defined in P1, or, we run into problems with P3. P3. The equal protection and civil rights amendments of the Constitution, etc. How can we pass laws for gay people, AND, part-time gay people, at the same time? Consider:a bisexual person says they want to be married to a gay person, but then decides to marry someone of the opposite sex as well. By definition, you cannot restrict the bisexual person's rights to marry two people, because they are using the same logic that was used to allow homosexual marriage = they can't control who they are attracted to, and therefore protected under P3. IF they claim to love and wish to be with 2 people in lasting marital bliss, and this is something that they, same as is defined for gays in P1, cannot control, then you can't move the goal posts on them just because they aren't 100% gay or straight. Now, we have two civil unions/marriages/whatever. Lets's say Adam is married to Steve, and married to Eve. If Steve wants a divorce, he gets some of Adam's stuff. However, that is not fair to Eve, since she also has an equal claim to some of Adam's stuff. This arrangement is not equitable in any way and therefore cannot be legal. If this arrangement cannot be legal, then, by definition, neither can gay marriage, or traditional marriage, because it denies as set of legal protections to one "genetic" group(s) and gives them to another. We are not going to remove/modify the concepts of traditional marriage any time soon, and, "alternative" marriage simply cannot be strictly defined the same as traditional marriage can be, therefore, legally impossible to codify. And there's my legitimate counter argument. Unless, all three of them were to enter into a partnership together....but is that marriage? Regardless, if a marriage/union, whatever...any contract is not equitable, both coming in, and going out, then it is not binding, and therefore, worthless.
Recommended Posts