RE: Gay marriage (Full Version)

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



Message

Clickofheels -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:50:03 PM)

I understand your mention of married people not testifying against each other in a court of law, Iamsemisweet.

But realistically, how often does that even happen? (shrugs) I am guessing not very often in relation to the number of legally married heteros there are in this country.

Respectfully,
Ms Click



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:52:17 PM)

http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/tax-considerations



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:52:54 PM)

It comes up all the time.  Think of all the legal actions going on in this country at any one time.
It is one of those things that may not seem important, until suddenly, it is.  
quote:

ORIGINAL: Clickofheels

I understand your mention of married people not testifying against each other in a court of law, Iamsemisweet.

But realistically, how often does that even happen? (shrugs) I am guessing not very often in relation to the number of legally married heteros there are in this country.

Respectfully,
Ms Click



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:53:53 PM)

quote:

The feds don't recognize civil unions for purposes of determining marital status for tax purposes.   


Yet if CU's were legally valid, federally, they would have to recognize it.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:55:11 PM)

Well sure.  But I don't think the feds are even contemplating a CU law, are they?  That is the type of thing that is generally left to the states.
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

The feds don't recognize civil unions for purposes of determining marital status for tax purposes.   


Yet if CU's were legally valid, federally, they would have to recognize it.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 4:58:11 PM)

quote:

Well sure.  But I don't think the feds are even contemplating a CU law, are they?  That is the type of thing that is generally left to the states.


Why arent they pushing for just that? Thats the part I dont get. Go after the legal.. worry about the label later.



Clickofheels -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:04:05 PM)

Lots of legal actions, Iamsemisweet... wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than should be.
But that doesn't mean they all COULD necessitate spouses testifying against each other if that were legal, either.

Umm Tazzy? That's not what I said nor what I was implying. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough. (I find it difficult in general sometimes to find the right words to make a point.) <sighs>

In a nutshell, I was trying to say that I believe the pope means:

The children within ALL families will no longer strictly be the result of men impregnating women (the old fashioned way) if you will, or adoption, if same-sex marriages are legally recognized and thus occurring.
I did not mean that



Clickofheels -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:10:53 PM)

(Damnable keyboard!!!!) Sorry I can't seem to get my posts finished.

Anyway, Tazzy...

I did not mean or mean to infer that a man or woman enduring sterility should not marry...not by any means.

Respectfully, (and still in total body armor waving a white flag)
Ms Click




LaTigresse -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:11:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

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


Basically this.

I read a poll recently that showed it to be fact. I am sorry in that, I don't remember where it was....but it was the same questions asked at two different times.....several years ago (10ish I believe) and current.

Two questions really stuck out for me....one was about faith and the other about gay marriage. The number of people that identify with any one organized religioun dropped dramatically over those 10 years and the number of people that support gays having equal marriage rights rose dramatically. Given my kids, and their friends, mind sets......and the values they are teaching their kids.....I have no reason to believe otherwise. Being gay, hanging out with gay people, accepting that they are not that different and want the same things as hetros, is becoming less of an issue.

I am very proud that I come from a backwards (in many ways) morally strong, little state that had some judges that had the courage to stand up for the constitution and the rights of ALL people........not just a few uptight bigots that feel their way is the right way. I honestly believe in my lifetime that it will be the country, not just a few states.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:12:45 PM)

Again, Click, I have to disagree.  I litigate cases.  I would LOVE to be able to grill the other side's spouse to find out what they talked about.  Who would be in a better position to know the other side's secrets than their spouse?  Alas, I cannot. 
It is one of those things that doesn't seem important, until you get sued or charged with a crime.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Clickofheels

Lots of legal actions, Iamsemisweet... wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy more than should be.
But that doesn't mean they all COULD necessitate spouses testifying against each other if that were legal, either.

Umm Tazzy? That's not what I said nor what I was implying. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear enough. (I find it difficult in general sometimes to find the right words to make a point.) <sighs>

In a nutshell, I was trying to say that I believe the pope means:

The children within ALL families will no longer strictly be the result of men impregnating women (the old fashioned way) if you will, or adoption, if same-sex marriages are legally recognized and thus occurring.
I did not mean that



searching4mysir -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:13:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

And speaking of the "be fruitful and multiply" equation


So if a woman, or man, cannot reproduce they should not marry?



The pope's message was a pro-life message far more than an anti-gay marriage message if you actually read the transcript of the speech. He spoke of the family as a whole and the basis of civilization.

As far as being unable to reproduce: as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, intent is part of it. A couple who CHOOSES not to reproduce is viewed differently from a couple who is UNABLE to reproduce, but every couple is given the benefit of the doubt. It isn't so much about the ability to conceive but that the act itself is open to procreation. So the Church would never say an elderly couple or a naturally infertile couple should never marry because "with God everything is possible" (with the caveat that God works within nature...i.e., he isn't going to have an embryo miraculously appear in someone's anus or throat...there still has to be both an egg and sperm).



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:17:25 PM)

quote:

Actually, he did not.
actually he did.



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:18:52 PM)

quote:

Nobody is talking about having separate facilities for gays and straights.
that is exactly what you are talking about. marriage for straights and something else "just like marriage, but not marriage" for gays.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:22:02 PM)

Matrimonial law is something that has traditionally been delegated to the states.  I am not even sure the feds have authority under the constitution to create a nationwide civil union law..  However, people ARE pushing for the feds to recognize same sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level. 
I do agree that civil unions and domestic partnerships are better than nothing.  However, not that many states even have that.  People fought tooth and nail against the domestic partnership law passed in Washington (by popular vote), so it isn't like civil unions are some kind of noncontroversial alternative..    
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Well sure.  But I don't think the feds are even contemplating a CU law, are they?  That is the type of thing that is generally left to the states.


Why arent they pushing for just that? Thats the part I dont get. Go after the legal.. worry about the label later.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:22:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Clickofheels

(Damnable keyboard!!!!) Sorry I can't seem to get my posts finished.

Anyway, Tazzy...

I did not mean or mean to infer that a man or woman enduring sterility should not marry...not by any means.

Respectfully, (and still in total body armor waving a white flag)
Ms Click




lol

Im not that bad! No matter what anyone else told you!

[8D]

But, I do get your point. We know the Pope is nuts. The population continues to rise. I dont believe humanity is in any way in danger.



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:24:26 PM)

quote:

As far as being unable to reproduce: as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, intent is part of it. A couple who CHOOSES not to reproduce is viewed differently from a couple who is UNABLE to reproduce, but every couple is given the benefit of the doubt. It isn't so much about the ability to conceive but that the act itself is open to procreation. So the Church would never say an elderly couple or a naturally infertile couple should never marry because "with God everything is possible" (with the caveat that God works within nature...i.e., he isn't going to


The Pope has no business in between my thighs anymore than the State does. [;)]



Miserlou -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:25:14 PM)

quote:

But realistically, how often does that even happen?
once is enough isn't it?



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:25:44 PM)

quote:

Matrimonial law is something that has traditionally been delegated to the states.  I am not even sure the feds have authority under the constitution to create a nationwide civil union law..  However, people ARE pushing for the feds to recognize same sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level. 


Why would they not? They made a law defining marriage. Why could they not make another defining civil unions?



Lucylastic -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:25:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

As far as being unable to reproduce: as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, intent is part of it. A couple who CHOOSES not to reproduce is viewed differently from a couple who is UNABLE to reproduce, but every couple is given the benefit of the doubt. It isn't so much about the ability to conceive but that the act itself is open to procreation. So the Church would never say an elderly couple or a naturally infertile couple should never marry because "with God everything is possible" (with the caveat that God works within nature...i.e., he isn't going to


The Pope has no business in between my thighs anymore than the State does. [;)]

THIS



tazzygirl -> RE: Gay marriage (1/12/2012 5:26:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Miserlou

quote:

Nobody is talking about having separate facilities for gays and straights.
that is exactly what you are talking about. marriage for straights and something else "just like marriage, but not marriage" for gays.


Actually, at this point, that is exactly what I am suggesting.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875