RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


LotusSong -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 3:30:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SlaveAkasha

quote:

ToGiveDevine:My thanks to the people who responded from proving my point that if you get up in someone else's business, they're going to push back.



Why shouldn't someone push back if they feel they aren't able to live their lives with the same rights as everyone else?  Are they expected to just deal with the way things are, and not want them to change?
 
I don't think anyone should when it comes to civil rights for homosexuals anymore than so many did for African American rights, and Womens Rights.  As long as people are persucuted, they have a right to fight back and want their voices heard. 
 
It will be a sad world when they all just shut up and let things be, so that others don't get their panties in a wad.
 
Akasha


True.  I just voted to allow Gay unions in Arizona.
 
I think what the big problem is for most is semantics.  Marriage has always been between a male and female.
 
I have no problem giving same sex unions the exact same rights as het marriage.  I just hate to give up the word that defined a het marriage.  Maybe we hets need to think up a different word for our unions then.  It's a thought. 
 
I'm thinking.... "A-vowed" or something...




Emperor1956 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 3:36:15 PM)

quote:

LaTigress:  I wonder what, ohhhhhhh let's say Martin Luther King, would have said had someone asked him "is it really worth the fight in the long run"


I don't know for sure, but I think he'd say: 

Cowardice asks the question - is it safe?
Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
But conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.

 
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.




WyrdRich -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 3:38:02 PM)

      Personally, I think gay marriage is a jobs program for divorce lawyers, but I have no strong moral objections and would vote for it.

      What is wrong with just using "husband" and "wife" along traditional gender lines?  In whatever way seems appropriate to a given couple? 




LadyEllen -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 4:09:20 PM)

OK - lets throw this little hand grenade into the thread and see what happens.........? Not "homosexual marriage" as such, but it makes things interesting (I hope);

In the UK, we now have the Gender Recognition Act (we are the last country in Europe to have one except Albania or some such place, which says a lot about us).

The Act basically allows transsexual people to change their entire legal identity to that of their adopted sex. It was always possible until the Act to change a lot of documents and change one's name etc, but critically the Act included for the first time, the right to change one's Birth Certificate.

Where this impacts on marriage, is that it was and remains illegal for a male to marry a male (or a female to marry a female) - we have Civil Partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, which are legally alike with Marriages, but are not Marriages. Until the Act, one's sex (male or female) was determined for marriage purposes, by the Birth Certificate. With the changes the Act has brought in though, a person born in the male sex (for instance) but with female gender identity who adopts a female identity, legally becomes female and can marry a male.

Now, where it gets interesting! In order to change the sex on one's Birth Certificate, there are two methods. In the more usual method, the transsexual person will be permitted to change the sex on the certificate, after having had sex reassignment surgery and treatment etc. Fair enough, the reasonable will conclude - the male born person is now female, so there is no reason to forbid her marrying a man and becoming his wife in exactly the same way and to the same extent as any natural female could.

The other method though is more controversial, even for the more reasonable people in the UK - as I have found in limited anecdotal experience at least. The second method allows the Birth Certificate to be changed, without the surgery and treatment, as long as the person can prove that they have lived in the adopted gender for a certain period. Of course, they will have the female gender identity in this case (for instance), but will retain the full physical features of their male birth sex. However, with the Birth Certificate changed - it is quite legal for this person to also marry a man and become his wife in the same way and to the same extent as any natural woman.

I wondered what the reaction to this would be, amongst CM members? Especially the gay men and lesbian women who are forbidden a Marriage proper and forbidden legally to be husband / wife even if they choose to use those titles?

E




Level -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 4:17:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

two human beings that love one another and wish to commit  to spending the rest of their life together


Well said and absolutely true. Being homosexual does not remove a person's humanity, and love does not discriminate.




cuddleheart50 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 4:39:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreSwank

Either a really clean, well-decorated house, or synchronized menstration.



LMFAO




SlaveAkasha -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 4:41:37 PM)

Very good question, Lady Ellen, I had no idea any of this was going on.
 
The way I look at it is this, if the person has the surgery and becomes the other sex totally, in all ways, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.  I do consider it a gender identity disorder and something that can't be helped by them.  They don't, and probably haven't ever felt like the sex they were born in to.
 
Now when it comes to someone that had lived as the other sex, but doesn't plan on having the surgery, I really don't think that falls in the same category for me.  It's nothing against them, but I do feel a line must be drawn someplace.  

I think it's just a very tricky line, and it's hard to stand on either side and not feel like you aren't being fair to someone.  I will think about this a bit more, but the above was my initial reaction, and opinion.
 
Akasha




LadyEllen -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 4:49:01 PM)

Hi Akasha - yes, understood.

It puzzled me too to be honest - but apparently the reason for the second method, is for those too frail (for whatever reason) to have the surgery.

Does this make a difference to anyone's opinions?

E




SlaveAkasha -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 4:56:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Hi Akasha - yes, understood.

It puzzled me too to be honest - but apparently the reason for the second method, is for those too frail (for whatever reason) to have the surgery.

Does this make a difference to anyone's opinions?

E


Hmmm, I am not sure.  I guess if they could prove they couldn't handle the surgery for medical reasons, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  I think I am just against people abusing it, like happens with so many exceptions to things.
 
As a person that couldn't get married when they wanted to, I think it would bother me a lot.  I don't want to deny anyone though, if they could figure out a way to be happy.  It's just something I can't say I would agree, or disagree on.  Perhaps it should be decided on a case by case basis, rather than written as a blanket law.
 
Akasha




Dollbecky -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 5:35:06 PM)

Church and State (in my humble opinion) need to be seperate. You folks in the US might like to see if you can get you country to try it a while.
If a church has some belief against gay couples, M/S couples, mixed race couples ...whatever you find a nice sane church that will marry you.
The state just records the changes to the tax and medical records.
New Zealand has a way to go yet we have civil unions for same sex couple all the right etc of marriage  but not the "m" word ....this to will change in time.
Oh and Spouse is term on the NewZealand forms for everyone





spanklette -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 6:14:56 PM)

My response to the entire post: Call them whatever they would like to be called. When in doubt, ask.
 
As far as not challenging religious institutions, because they don't want homosexuals...neither did the segregated South. And, everyone knows that ending segregation toppled the system. [8|]
 
And as long as we're all focused on gay marriage, we won't see the oil execs and lobbyists sneaking out of the back.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 6:25:55 PM)

Not.  The plural of mouse is mice.  The plural of louse is lice.  Hence the plural of spouse is spice.  I think a marriage between two lesbians would have spice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

I don't know...maybe Spouses?




HollyS -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 7:22:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Not.  The plural of mouse is mice.  The plural of louse is lice.  Hence the plural of spouse is spice.  I think a marriage between two lesbians would have spice.


Whoa dude, you rock! I'm all in favor of gay marriage...  as long as both chicks are hot.  Or both dudes -- I'm an equal opportunity letch.

*wicked grin*

~Holly




Sinergy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 7:52:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreSwank

Either a really clean, well-decorated house, or synchronized menstration.


So what I am reading is that men do not menstruate.

And women do not know how to clean or decorate their house.

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy




Sinergy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 7:58:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dollbecky

Church and State (in my humble opinion) need to be seperate. You folks in the US might like to see if you can get you country to try it a while.
If a church has some belief against gay couples, M/S couples, mixed race couples ...whatever you find a nice sane church that will marry you.
The state just records the changes to the tax and medical records.
New Zealand has a way to go yet we have civil unions for same sex couple all the right etc of marriage  but not the "m" word ....this to will change in time.
Oh and Spouse is term on the NewZealand forms for everyone




Hello,

I hate to micturate in anybodies corn flakes, but the issue here is deeper than what the hell you call the people in a homosexual coupling.

If I marry somebody with XX chromosomes, I pay less taxes, I can put her on my benefits plan at work (and vice versa), I can do all sorts of financially wonderful things.

If I marry somebody with XY chromosomes, none of the above happens.

Because of this, I think any law opposing gay marraige, and I have only seen religious groups in opposition, violates the separation of church and state clause in the United States constitution.

This is my own opinion here, but I really do NOT care who a person wants to settle down with and make a life with. I am stridently opposed to a government agency looking between their legs and determine what they need to file taxes as.  I am also opposed to the idea that two XX or XY people living together cannot claim the other person on their benefits.  Either you make it so nobody can, or you make it so everybody can.

Just me, could be wrong, but there you go.

Sinergy




Archer -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 8:00:27 PM)

The trouble is people want to see someone fighting for equality as going against them. Since if the person is equal in all respects then you can't keep that hidden little superiority idea in the back of your mind. Homosexuality is the acceptable bigotry of the moment, used to be ethnicity was acceptable. Whatever the latest round of immigrants, and even they could secretly or not so secret;y say at least they were not black. Now that ethnicity is no longer an acceptable superiority view they have moved on to sexual orientation. That is also headed to the graveyard though far too slowly.

Marriage has a religious connotation, but not every religion restricts it to male to female there are a few who recognize gneder as a mentality as opposed to a physical state.

Personally I'd like to see the "State" get out of the marriage business entirely, issue civil union licenses to everyone gay or straight, and let each church/ denomination decide for themselves if they will perform a marriage rite for the couple in question.

As to the proper pronouns, titles to give each party, I'll just follow suit, whatever the people use. (but gender identity tends to be the most common in the circles I've traveled)




Invictus754 -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 8:10:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy


This is my own opinion here, but I really do NOT care who a person wants to settle down with and make a life with. I am stridently opposed to a government agency looking between their legs and determine what they need to file taxes as.  I am also opposed to the idea that two XX or XY people living together cannot claim the other person on their benefits.  Either you make it so nobody can, or you make it so everybody can.
Sinergy


Exactly!  We should take away the tax benefit from marriages because that is a religious ceremony, and SHOULD have nothing to do with whether you pay less taxes or not. 
 
And there SHOULD be a tax on loud, obnoxious children in public too (which is exponentially a function of the number of L.O.C.).




cloudboy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/17/2006 8:58:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Not. The plural of mouse is mice. The plural of louse is lice. Hence the plural of spouse is spice. I think a marriage between two lesbians would have spice.


I'm officially impressed.




twicehappy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 4:23:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine

quote:

ORIGINAL: twicehappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

two human beings that love one another and wish to commit  to spending the rest of their life together


That is exactly how i feel!
 
Jewel's daughter and her life partner have to go to Cananda to get married and i think that is just wrong.


Marriage is a religious sacrament and homosexuality is not approved by the major religions.  So, if religion doesn't approve of your lifestyle then why would you want to be joined by a sacrament of the disapproving religion?


To begin with what they would be getting in Canada is a civil union.
 
On the subject of religion, i am druid, born and raised that way, we never had an issue with uniting any who were in love, with the exception of their not continuing the natural order of things by procreating.
 
This is solved in a number of easy ways, by adopting, by one of the couple providing a child to a member of the opposite sex outside the relationship or by a family member offering a child to be considered their own (think godparent here) prior to or at the joining.
 
While not a Christian by any means i do believe the commandments were rewritten by Jesus Christ to simply state "Love one another". I am still waiting for all the major Christian religions to provide the codicil to that written by Jesus where he states "except for you Gay/lesbian perverts".
 
 




twicehappy -> RE: Homosexual’s marriages… (10/18/2006 4:31:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ToGiveDivine

I'm just saying what it is - you don't stop a train on a dime and you don't change 4,000 years of religious beliefs in a day.

Is it really worth the fight in the long run?


Women fought for the right to vote and won, enslaved races through out history fought for the right to be free and won, too many battles for major social changes to name that were for the good  were fought and won; were they worth it? 
 
Oh no, Oh my, if we allow gay marriage what will be next?
 
Poly marriage?
 
I sure as hell hope so.




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125