RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:27:17 AM)

I am certainly not advocating "everything but marriage" laws.  I thought it was a stupid law when they passed it, and they should have just allowed gay marriage.
However, the ebm law in my state has NOTHING to do with common law marriages, which are not recognized at all.  And, it truly is everything but marriage.  It includes the right for registered domestic partners to inherit by intestacy, extends community property laws, and even includes the spousal privileges in court testimony. 
The big difference I see, legally, is that a marriage is more likely to be recognized in other states.  The EBM only applies in this state. 
[
quote]ORIGINAL: Moonhead


(It's also worth mentioning that the marriage thing isn't purely a matter of religion: there are a few legal benefits married couples derive that common law couples don't.)
[/quote]



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 10:36:40 AM)

OK Kirata.  So, other than religious reasons, which I do not believe are valid, what is the reason that people feel that way?  Is there some rational basis that I am just not seeing?  Can't two men or two women have a "deeply special relationship"?

I am saying this as someone who believes deeply in marriage.  My love and I have been discussing this lately, and although we qualify to register as domestic partners (the ebm law also applies to hetero couples where one member is over 55) and that isn't good enough for me.  I see no reason to deprive others of something I believe also is a "deeply special relationship."  Maybe that is just me, though.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle



One also has to wonder about the motives of people who can't address the point and instead stuff the thread with irrelevant nonsense.

There are a great many people who are neither homophobes, nor in any way fundamentally opposed to civil rights for gays and lesbians, who nonetheless cherish a sincerely held belief in the sanctity of marriage as a deeply special relationship between a man and a woman. Taking the attitude that they need to get over it, that if they don't adopt a broader view of marriage then they are just a bunch of ignorant bigots, and pointing a long accusing finger at them when they react to that approach with hurt and anger, is not a plan likely to accomplish anything constructive.

And neither is whinging about reaping what you sow.

K.



Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 11:34:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

OK Kirata. So, other than religious reasons, which I do not believe are valid, what is the reason that people feel that way? Is there some rational basis that I am just not seeing? Can't two men or two women have a "deeply special relationship"?

Let's see if I can sum this up. You don't consider their beliefs valid. Unless they can give you a better reason for their feelings, you don't much give a fuck how they feel about it. And you don't understand why you should be having such a problem getting what you want.

Hmmm... I don't think I can help you.

K.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 11:52:56 AM)

I am assuming your belief is based on religion, then.  That is kind of what I suspected, and suspect of the legislators who are having a cow about this.  And you are right, I don't give a fuck about people's religious beliefs, and I certainly don't believe the legislature should be legislating on the basis of such beliefs.

Didn't know I was asking for your help, I was merely trying to understand your position. All I "wanted" was information.  But, never mind.  How typical of you.   
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet



Let's see if I can sum this up. You don't consider their beliefs valid. Unless they can give you a better reason for their feelings, you don't much give a fuck how they feel about it. And you don't understand why you should be having such a problem getting what you want.

Hmmm... I don't think I can help you.

K.




Lucylastic -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 12:01:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I used to be married to a girl that looked like Ibrahim Lincoln once, but she was mean, so I left her...

Yeah but you aint gay darlin...
You is allowed divorce too....



Moonhead -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 12:06:48 PM)

I feel really sorry for Gaye: has nobody thought of what the fact that nobody wants her to marry must be doing to the poor girl?



mnottertail -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 12:10:20 PM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bAekG9VwQc



Lucylastic -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 12:11:50 PM)

If ONLY marriage was a American Christian only concept.[8|]



LaTigresse -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 12:15:38 PM)

Exactly

Not to mention the whole separation of church and state. If indeed, marriage was ONLY a religious ceremony, there would be no issue. But it isn't, it is a legal ceremony that does not require any religious affiliation at all.



popeye1250 -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 12:49:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Yes, yet another gay marriage thread.
An interesting fight is shaping up in the state of Washington. The outgoing governor is insisting that the legislature take up the issue of gay marriage this session. She is doing this very publicly and insistently, and forcing them to take a stand.
The legislators, for their part, are bleating on about how they need to concentrate on budget issues ( guess they can only do one thing at a time) or, conversely, insisting that the issue needs to go to a vote of the people (we get to vote on other people's civil rights, now?).
Still others are screaming about what a slippery slope this is, since Washington passed an "everything but marriage law" just a few years ago. Allowing marriage among gays is just another step closer to the state sliding into hell.
I don't get it. Why are some, both repub and dem, so set on denying others their civil and legal rights? I know this is a pretty sex friendly crowd on here, but can anyone make an intelligent argument as to why gay marriage would be the end of life as we know it? The pope certainly couldn't, as evidenced by the other thread. Conversely, why isn't an "everything but marriage" law good enough?




Yeah, and denying gay people "happiness" too!
What do they want, a shitload of gay people going around burning cars and breaking windows?
And, theyd's lose "10%" of the vote too!
"Government" needs to stay out of the bedroom of consenting adults!



searching4mysir -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 12:55:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Exactly

Not to mention the whole separation of church and state. If indeed, marriage was ONLY a religious ceremony, there would be no issue. But it isn't, it is a legal ceremony that does not require any religious affiliation at all.



Some countries get around that by requiring a civil union ceremony in front of the gubberment and then if you want a religious marriage ceremony that is done separately. I would have no problem with that in the US. Get the government out of the "marriage" business and just require everyone to have a civil union.



ConfidencePlays -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 12:56:49 PM)

It really really bothers me, that the answer to this "issue" is so goddamn obvious, but nobody is willing to do what is both right, and utterly essential.

If it's a matter of the courts, then the courts must provide equal protection to all. Heterosexual, homosexual, it doesn't matter.

If it's a matter of religion, then isn't it up to each sect, each religion, each faith, or lack thereof, to decide for themselves and -NOT- for each other where they stand?

The courts have to allow the legally recognized unions, but they can't legislate the position of the churches. While the churches, which shouldn't be forced to perform ceremonies against their particular doctrine, absolutely must not decide issues of legal legislation.

The very same can be said of abortion, but that's another issue for another thread.



SorceressJ -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 1:01:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
"Government" needs to stay out of the bedroom of consenting adults!


THIS. End of story.



Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 1:04:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

I am assuming your belief is based on religion...

Then you are ASSuming entirely too much. I haven't said anything whatsoever about MY beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

I don't give a fuck about people's religious beliefs...

And I don't give a fuck whether you do or not. They're still human beings, and your attitude toward their feelings has a very low probability of having a constructive outcome.

K.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 1:17:17 PM)

Whatever.  I haven't heard a single convincing argument, secular or nonsecular, as to why gay marriage is going to be the apocalypse that some are screaming it will be.  I respectfully asked for your reasoning; you are either incapable or unwilling to give it.  No worries, I'll struggle by without your insight. 

And regardless of whether they are "human beings" or not, I have a huge problem with legislators basing their decisions on their personal religious beliefs.  THAT is unlikely to have a constructive outcome.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

I don't give a fuck about people's religious beliefs...


And I don't give a fuck whether you do or not. They're still human beings, and your attitude toward their feelings has a very low probability of having a constructive outcome.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:



Lucylastic -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 1:30:40 PM)

ooooh I get it, civil union isnt " as good as marriage"
Twue way weligion, YAY



Lucylastic -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 1:44:51 PM)

Interesting and troubling info on goings on concerning the situation in Canada
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/agenda-or-not-ottawas-undermining-gay-equality/article2300322/

For most Canadians, same-sex marriage is a settled issue and part of the landscape. Despite some people’s fears, Stephen Harper’s government hasn’t used its majority to reopen the marriage debate in Parliament. But in two recent cases, government lawyers are taking a position that is inconsistent with gay men’s and lesbians’ hard-fought equality. The government has no mandate to do so and should reverse course.
Work to do at home, it seems.



Kirata -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 1:51:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

I have a huge problem with legislators basing their decisions on their personal religious beliefs. THAT is unlikely to have a constructive outcome.

But it's not wholly a "religious" issue. It's a cultural issue. There are lots of people who do not attend services or consider themselves devout, who nevertheless were raised, along with their parents and grandparents, in a culture in which marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman. Changing attitudes takes time, and treating people's long honored traditions and deeply held feelings with utter disrespect is simply assholery.

K.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 2:00:41 PM)

I have often said that it will become law once the blue hairs die off.



GotSteel -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 2:07:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
If the goals of the gay and lesbian community were limited simply to gaining equal legal status for same-sex unions, I'm quite sure they could have had that long ago.

They are trying to gain equal legal status, separate but equal isn't equal.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625