or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bush Back Gay Marriage Amendment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush Back Gay Marriage Amendment - Page 3  

post #81 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by thuh Freak
a question from the ignorant: what benefits does marriage [presently] grant [the afflicted] from the government? a consise list would be appreciated.

Good question - I've wondered about that too. And I'm married. Here's a rundown.

Quote:
Tax Benefits

Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.

Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.



Estate Planning Benefits

Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.

Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes_and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.

Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.

Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouses behalf.



Government Benefits

Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.

Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.

Receiving public assistance benefits.



Employment Benefits

Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.

Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.

Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.

Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouses close relatives dies.



Medical Benefits

Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.

Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.



Death Benefits

Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.

Making burial or other final arrangements.



Family Benefits

Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.

Applying for joint foster care rights.

Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.

Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.



Housing Benefits

Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."

Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.



Consumer Benefits

Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.

Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.

Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.



Other Legal Benefits and Protections

Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium_(loss of intimacy).

Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).

Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court cant force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.

Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.

Obtaining domestic violence protection orders.

Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.

Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
post #82 of 162
When I balance the sanctity of marriage versus the sanctity of the Constitution, the Constitution wins in my mind.

It's amazing to me that as some people are realizing that the Constitution already says gays can marry, they actually believe their views are 'better' than the Constitution. That's astounding. I mean, the Constitution isn't perfect, but to believe it's a positive act to remove individual rights via the Constitution is fascist.

And it's doubly sad knowing that Nazi era Germany was probably the last western society that attempted to outlaw homosexuality. Put yourself in that company and enjoy it.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #83 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Crusader
I don't support gay marriage. Do I hate gays? No. Do I believe a marriage is between a man and a women? Yes.

The main point should be that the government should not be dealing with marriage at all! Marriage should be a religious rite, and ultimately a bond between two consenting partners gay or straight, to declare undying love.

Unfortunately, the government has always been involved in marriage. Marriage between a man and a women. It seems to me that providing all the benefits to the married couple is simply the government's way of encouraging a couple to raise children in a safe and secure environment. Does it work all the time? No. But it helps guarantee the strength of the country in tomorrows world. The children will always be the future, and to that extent the government has used marriage to promote a strong union between a man and a women, so children can be raised appropriately. A homosexual couple cannot produce offspring. It's basic biology. I've lost my train of thought now. Oh well...

Okay, in your religion, don't let gays marry. Simple. (Tell them they're going to hell, too. That's fun.)

Don't like it that the US Government uses the same term as you do for the institution of a life-long couple-hood? Then lets add an amendment that makes courthouse marriage the same as a civil union, retaining the civil union name.

Your beloved institution is still holy, and the Government can still grant the protections of marriage to all lifelong couples.

Or, we could all just grow up, and realize that the same term can be used concurrently without the APOCALYPSE coming.
Kappa Rho Alpha Theta Zeta Omega Nu Epsilon
Kappa Rho Alpha Theta Zeta Omega Nu Epsilon
post #84 of 162
Ooh, teetering on invocation of Godwin's Law.

While the US Constitution obviously addresses individual rights and responsibilities in the Amendments, those, it would seem to me, are about restricting abuse of the government in those areas. They're obviously phrased in a way that addresses the impact on the citizen, but that's how I've always looked at them. I think we've lost our way with what the Constitution is for and who it is for. It is to limit government, not for the government to limit others.

Anyway, we should probably just dump the whole marriage thing as far as the government's concerned.
post #85 of 162
It's a joke because it shouldn't be a national issue. The states should make their own decisions and that should be it.

<Damn, if it were only that simple>
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
post #86 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Crusader
It's a joke because it shouldn't be a national issue. The states should make their own decisions and that should be it.

<Damn, if it were only that simple>

It's at the national level because the US Government has a special status for Marriage, and apparantly neither Bush nor you can handle the fact that the religious and legal institutions are named the same. Just capitalize one and not the other... That works for God/god why not Marriage
Kappa Rho Alpha Theta Zeta Omega Nu Epsilon
Kappa Rho Alpha Theta Zeta Omega Nu Epsilon
post #87 of 162
Ya know what? The more I think about this issue, the more I come to realize that Jefferson was right. We all have "...certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"(Thomas Jefferson). So whatever make you happy, as long as it doesn't endanger me or my family is fine by me. Go get married, be happy.

Ok that's it, I am saying no more on this topic.
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
post #88 of 162
just for a bit more perspective. the sister of my good friend got married in the san fran marriage-a-thon. here's a picture.



if you can't be happy for them, i just don't know who you can be happy for.

p.s. if you're wondering, that cell phone was "broadcasting" the service live to my friend in ohio, who then taped it off his speakerphone and ripped it to mp3.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
post #89 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Well I should have known this would become a "pile on Bush" like every other thread does.

As I said, I'm not sure about an amendment. But, polling shows that 2/3 of the country (at least) opposes gay marriage. As for an amendment, it's pretty much a dead heat, poll-wise.

As for Bush being stupid to do this, I couldn't disagree more. From a political standpoint, this will further solidify his grasp on the Religous Right and the Bible Belt. It won't lose him any votes because anyone so opposed to this wouldn't have voted for Bush anyway. Yes, there may be those who like Bush otherwise and disagree with him here, but that's going to be a small number. Do you hoenstly think Karl Rove hasn't done the math on that one? It's a smart political move. Secondly, he now has put Kerry and Edwards on the defensive, forcing them to respond to his position rather than stake their own. They'll either have to be for or against, and I'm thinking Kerry will flop AGAIN and come out as "opposed" to the amendment. He pretty much has to if he's to get any of the more left-leaning liberal Democrats out there.

And finally, whether you think gays should be able to marry or not, what's with all the name calling? I oppose gay marriage, but that doesn't make me a "gay hater". It's just that I feel we need certain social standards, and this is one of them. Gays should be able (and ARE able) to live their lives and be together...they just can't be married. Comparing this to things like Jim Crow is patently absurd.


Well I'm sorry but this will work exactly the opposite of the way you think it will.

The thing is I thought republicans were against big government? Well what the hell is this?

The act of a desparate man.

Nope SDW, this is just another log on the fire.

By the way your predictions so far aren't exactly batting a thousand.

" Bush wins all 50 states! "

Not much chance of that now.


Also about this : " he now has put Kerry and Edwards on the defensive ".

All Bush has done is make himself look bad ( again ).

I imagine there's a parallel universe out there where events follow the course you expect. Not in this one however.

If you put this all together with the other things plus " where's the WOMD? " it looks pretty bad for dubbya.

I'm sorry but people just don't like to be told how they must run their lives. In this case unfair discrimination.

More than ever :

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #90 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by HOM
You're spot on with this. The sub-24 group overwhelmingly supports gay marriage, something in the range of 70%. The GOP may win themselves some elections now on this issue, but they are most definitely shooting themselves in the foot for the long haul.

i wish i could totally agree with this, but the right-wing religious conservatives do have very strong family units, by and large (well, okay, that's my own personal observation from deep in the loosest buckle of the bible belt), and those same strong beliefs are passed down to their children 100%. i cannot tell you how many disturbing conversations i have been within earshot of in the rural areas around here with the sub-24 crowd. as the saying goes, it's how they were brought up. the only positive is that's it's better than it was 10 and 20 years ago. also, the times are a-changing, where anyone who is terribly off-center with their policies during campaigns get suspicion cast their way and then not elected. the middle of the road (but keep your opinions to yourself until you're actually in office) will be a popular stance for a very long time to come.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
post #91 of 162
Well, I recognize this argument from my teenage days:

Come on dad, why can't I go to the party? You just want to oppress me! You hate me! Why can't I go? All my friends are going?

I am not really sure why gays want to marry? Isn't this the age of "just living togethers is good enough" and "It's just a piece of paper"? Haven't liberals been mocking the whole marriage thing... like forever? Why now is it so important to be married? They can't really be religious, at least no religion that follows the bible as a guide. Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the bible. It has to be a purely secular reason, I would think.

Does it mean that they just want the monetary benefits (yeah right) of marriage? Seems very superficial. Do they just want to prove gays can divorce at the same rate as straights?

Anyway, why is the whole country paying any attention to this tiny minority? I don't think anyone would care what they do, but they just keep making such a big deal about everything. It seems that this small minority will not be happy until they can freely and openly demonstrate the mating habits of the gay man. What ever happened to just living a quiet and happy life?

I mean really, how many times do you and I run into some kind of unfairness? I would submit that it happens several times a day. I don't know about you, I just find another way to get what I want done. I don't waste everyone else's time and bitch about how unfair life is. I don't form a support group and lobby congress on behalf of the many unfairnesses. I don't run to media and claim that I and others are being treated unfairly.

In my small hometown, when I was growing up there was a couple of gay couples. Everyone knew it. No-one hated them. No-one ridiculed them. They did not flaunt it. They lived like everyone else. They knew in order to live in peace they had to be peaceable and sensible, just like everyone else.

Now let me say something really controversial:

I don't hate anyone, I do however condemn homosexual behavior. I, as many feel it is a sin. Just like infidelity, stealing, lying, fornication and so on. Does that mean that I should mistreat those who choose that lifestyle? Or should I not interact with them at all? Or not be courteous toward them? No, that is not what it means. It means that I just don't accept that kind of behavior. As long as they treat me with respect, I will do the same.

It's the behavior, not the person. I would think that is fairly easy to understand. So don't label me as a hater. That just proves your argument weak, in my opinion.
post #92 of 162
wow. i am stunned by the preceding post and the depths of its ignorance.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
post #93 of 162
So, scum exists in Florida. And sometimes it posts at AppleInsider. This is unsurprising.
post #94 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It's the behavior, not the person. I would think that is fairly easy to understand. So don't label me as a hater. That just proves your argument weak, in my opinion.

Then why punish the person if you simply don't like their behavior? I really don't like the behavior of a lot of religious people, but it doesn't effect me so I don't condemn it. I certainly don't try and stop it.

How can you justify limiting the actions of someone who doesn't effect you in any way?

As for your questions about WHY gays might want to marry, BRussell just put out a great list of reasons why they would want to marry. Please read it and comment on why you're justified in limiting access to the items in that list from homosexuals.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #95 of 162
reading this thread is starting to turn into the equivalent of eggs throwing themselves onto a pan

probably a little obscure of an analogy, but it just seems like people keep standing up and being shot down again by the same infallible argument

for the record, I support gay rights, I don't have any issues with gays, and see no reason to hold them back.
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #96 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It's the behavior, not the person. I would think that is fairly easy to understand. So don't label me as a hater. That just proves your argument weak, in my opinion.

Why would it be controversial? I think most of us, from the moderate republicans(or ex Reps like myself) to the more liberal posters can see what an ignorant and close minded post that was. Are there more like you where you're from?

Trying to ammend the Constitution over gay marriage just proves one more time(anyone out there keeping count?) how ass backwards Bush and his administration are.

And to think I voted for DUHbya over the inventor of the internet. I apologize to the rest of the planet for that.
post #97 of 162
I have to agree with NaplesX (and I was thinking the very same things right as I started reading his/her post). I need an explanation.

On one hand, I hear gays and straights alike saying that gays who want to get married want to do it completely separate from a religious union or event. In that case, I wonder: why is a Civil Union not good enough? Many here have agreed that marriage historically has been a religious ritual given legal rights by the government. If you give it no religous meaning, then it's not REALLY a marriage is it -- even if it is legally called that? That goes for straight or gay couples.

On the other hand, I have heard many gays talk about how their relationship doesn't feel complete without the term "marriage" attached to it. They're not doing it for the legal/financial responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but to just "be married." Often, they want it to be a religious ritual. In this case, I would certainly think that the couple realizes that (at least in Christianity) the Bible speaks against homosexuality. How can this union be considered unsinful in the eyes of God?

So...why the discrepancy between the two paragraphs above? I'm genuinely asking because I'm confused on the whole thing. In all fairness, many straight couples love each other deeply but don't require legal or religious backing for their relationship to continue, so they never get married. Hell, look at Oprah. She and Stedman (sp?) have been together a very long time but have never gotten married and never will.

I'll also echo NaplesX's comments about separating the ACT from the PERSON. I don't agree with homosexuality. I believe in what the Bible says about a man being with a woman. That said, I know and respect gays and lesbians for the people they are and feel that God calls me to love them in spite of their sin because He loves me in spite of mine.

Do I hate the *idea* of homosexuality? I guess you could say that.
Do I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not.

In both answers, my responses are based on what I feel I'm called to believe as a Christian. PLEASE don't immediately jump out and condemn me and hate me for believing this way. For one it's not any better than what you're accusing others of, and secondly I'm trying to be sensitive to both sides of the issue. If you can't see that I'm sorry.

EDIT: BTW and FWIW, I do NOT support a Constitutional Amendment on this. It's too broad and far-reaching to be any sort of an appropriate way to resolve this debate.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
post #98 of 162
You've nailed it, NaplesX! Gays don't want to be married.

Look at those two women, not eve close to being happy. They probably secretly hate each other.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #99 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I have to agree with NaplesX (and I was thinking the very same things right as I started reading his/her post). I need an explanation.

On one hand, I hear gays and straights alike saying that gays who want to get married want to do it completely separate from a religious union or event. In that case, I wonder: why is a Civil Union not good enough? Many here have agreed that marriage historically has been a religious ritual given legal rights by the government. If you give it no religous meaning, then it's not REALLY a marriage is it -- even if it is legally called that? That goes for straight or gay couples.

On the other hand, I have heard many gays talk about how their relationship doesn't feel complete without the term "marriage" attached to it. They're not doing it for the legal/financial responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but to just "be married." Often, they want it to be a religious ritual. In this case, I would certainly think that the couple realizes that (at least in Christianity) the Bible speaks against homosexuality. How can this union be considered unsinful in the eyes of God?

So...why the discrepancy between the two paragraphs above? I'm genuinely asking because I'm confused on the whole thing. In all fairness, many straight couples love each other deeply but don't require legal or religious backing for their relationship to continue, so they never get married. Hell, look at Oprah. She and Stedman (sp?) have been together a very long time but have never gotten married and never will.

I'll also echo NaplesX's comments about separating the ACT from the PERSON. I don't agree with homosexuality. I believe in what the Bible says about a man being with a woman. That said, I know and respect gays and lesbians for the people they are and feel that God calls me to love them in spite of their sin because He loves me in spite of mine.

Do I hate the *idea* of homosexuality? I guess you could say that.
Do I hate homosexuals? Absolutely not.

In both answers, my responses are based on what I feel I'm called to believe as a Christian. PLEASE don't immediately jump out and condemn me and hate me for believing this way. For one it's not any better than what you're accusing others of, and secondly I'm trying to be sensitive to both sides of the issue. If you can't see that I'm sorry.

EDIT: BTW and FWIW, I do NOT support a Constitutional Amendment on this. It's too broad and far-reaching to be any sort of an appropriate way to resolve this debate.

As far as "Why do they want to get married" goes: because homosexuals are people. They are Americans, conservatives, faithful church goers, tradition lovers, romantics, foolish, naive, hopeful, and look good in white. They want to grow old together with the blessings of their communities. Someone dared them. It's a lark. It's the most important day of their lives.

They are our friends and sisters and uncles and teachers and grocers and the angry unemployed and the well to do and the apathetic and the engaged and the doomed.

They are exactly like you. There is no such thing as "they".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #100 of 162
Where in my post did you see that i say to limit freedoms of anyone?

I don't care what the government does as far as gay marriage goes, I still will condemn homosexual behavior based on my beliefs. That won't change. Just like I don't expect everyone else to accept everything I do or believe. It is an easy concept to grasp. You go your way, I'll go mine. What is so hard to get about that?

Do I have to have a "Gay Day" at my house to prove that I am tolerant?

I can tolerate just about anybody. But I do not accept what I feel is bad behavior. I hope all of you would do the same whichever way you lean on this issue.
post #101 of 162
If marriage is exclusively religiouse
and we live in a country with many different religions
then why can't my religion also be one that supports Gay Marriage?

simply because yours does not doesn't mean that mine shouldn't be able to
and if my religion cannot practice its sacred rite:
that rite being the marriage between two loving people
then the state would be infringing on my religious freedoms...
no?
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #102 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
You've nailed it, NaplesX! Gays don't want to be married.

Look at those two women, not eve close to being happy. They probably secretly hate each other.

I didn't imply that they did not want to get married. I said I am not sure why they want to? You see the difference? These posts are about words. Read them, please.

The bible encourages people to pursue happiness. It also remind people that they will be accountable for their action when whatever judgment day you believe in comes. So it is up to each person to make the right choices based on what they see right and wrong. From a biblical standpoint this is very basic.
post #103 of 162
"Do I have to have a "Gay Day" at my house to prove that I am tolerant?"

No one is interested in your tolerance, or lack thereof, at this point.

Gay people want to marry their partners for the same fvcking reasons that straight people do...so that would be a *million* reasons, some good and others bad.

I'll tell you this: the gay couples who've suffered for this simple right will, through the winnowing process of enduring people's hatred, probaby be better couples than many straight couples who haven't had to endure this.

If this amendment wasn't about bigotry and hatred we'd be talking about no-fault divorce. I don't even see that on the fvcking table.
post #104 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
I have to agree with NaplesX (and I was thinking the very same things right as I started reading his/her post). I need an explanation.

On one hand, I hear gays and straights alike saying that gays who want to get married want to do it completely separate from a religious union or event. In that case, I wonder: why is a Civil Union not good enough? Many here have agreed that marriage historically has been a religious ritual given legal rights by the government. If you give it no religous meaning, then it's not REALLY a marriage is it -- even if it is legally called that? That goes for straight or gay couples.

On the other hand, I have heard many gays talk about how their relationship doesn't feel complete without the term "marriage" attached to it. They're not doing it for the legal/financial responsibilities and rights that come along with it, but to just "be married."

Often, they want it to be a religious ritual. In this case, I would certainly think that the couple realizes that (at least in Christianity) the Bible speaks against homosexuality. How can this union be considered unsinful in the eyes of God?

Recently, the Mass. Supreme Court ruled that the idea of a civil union is akin to the 'separate but equal' that prevailed the century before 1954. The entire concept of the civil union is a legal convention that is trying to emulate marriage.

Moreover, there are churches that accept homosexuals as members. However, many homosexuals have been driven too far away from the Church for this to even be an option. This is perhaps the greatest travesty of this entire 'debate.'

Additionally, if there is a difference between hetero- and homo-sexual marriages legally, I could imagine that it would feel invalidating... that my relationship is less important than another. So, it is not that they only want the paperwork. I would imagine if the rights were the same, but the legal convention was not legally called a marriage, many homosexuals would be pleased. They could still get legal validation as well as the religious confirmation from portions of the church if they so desired.

As far as how Christians can reconcile homosexuality with the Bible, consider how you reconcile many Old Testament passages. There are countless passages that are now disregarded due to cultural and theological differences. Moreover, the condemnations in the Bible are, ironically enough, often in the context of un-monogamous relationships. By allowing the institution of marriage, you are supporting monogamy in all types of relationships.

Quote:
In all fairness, many straight couples love each other deeply but don't require legal or religious backing for their relationship to continue, so they never get married. Hell, look at Oprah. She and Stedman (sp?) have been together a very long time but have never gotten married and never will.

And that's just fine for them, but most heterosexuals desire the ritual and conventions of marriage to support thier relationship. Would you want to be limited to the step below marriage because you had always been told you were different?
Kappa Rho Alpha Theta Zeta Omega Nu Epsilon
Kappa Rho Alpha Theta Zeta Omega Nu Epsilon
post #105 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Where in my post did you see that i say to limit freedoms of anyone?

Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Anyway, why is the whole country paying any attention to this tiny minority? I don't think anyone would care what they do, but they just keep making such a big deal about everything. It seems that this small minority will not be happy until they can freely and openly demonstrate the mating habits of the gay man. What ever happened to just living a quiet and happy life?

You're essentially saying that people can be gay as long as you can't tell that they're gay. That's certainly limiting their freedoms and if you can't see that you really need to reevaluate yourself.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #106 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I didn't imply that they did not want to get married. I said I am not sure why they want to? You see the difference? These posts are about words. Read them, please.

And please read the posts that came before your posts did. BRussell detailed very clearly some of the reasons why gay people might want to be married. Read them, please.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
post #107 of 162
The problem here, I think, is that the Gay community and it's supporters, cannot accept societal limits on behavior and acceptability of behavior.

Society, (the majority of the people in this country) does not support or accept homosexual behavior. They tolerate it, realizing that freedom means freedom to love and be with who you want. They accept that it exists.

Homosexuals tend to gather where they are accepted (much like everyone else) and, I think, cannot understand why the whole country does not feel the way they do. I have been to key west many times, and saying that it is like nowhere else I have been, is an understatement. I don't think that I would be wrong to say that such behavior is outside the realm of accepted behavior in the real world.

Am I saying that gays can't be good and responsible citizens? Of course I am not saying that. There are many. What I will say is that the gay community is pushing harder and harder for the rest of the world to not only accept but embrace their ever increasing flamboyance and demands. It is reaching a breaking point and it will backlash on the homosexual community, In my opinion.
post #108 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
And please read the posts that came before your posts did. BRussell detailed very clearly some of the reasons why gay people might want to be married. Read them, please.

I did. Thanks.

Is BR the resident authority on everything?
post #109 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I did. Thanks.

Is BR the resident authority on everything?

BR is, not BRussel though
orange you just glad?
orange you just glad?
post #110 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The problem here, I think, is that the Gay community and it's supporters, cannot accept societal limits on behavior and acceptability of behavior.

Society, (the majority of the people in this country) does not support or accept homosexual behavior. They tolerate it, realizing that freedom means freedom to love and be with who you want. They accept that it exists.

Homosexuals tend to gather where they are accepted (much like everyone else) and, I think, cannot understand why the whole country does not feel the way they do. I have been to key west many times, and saying that it is like nowhere else I have been, is an understatement. I don't think that I would be wrong to say that such behavior is outside the realm of accepted behavior in the real world.

Am I saying that gays can't be good and responsible citizens? Of course I am not saying that. There are many. What I will say is that the gay community is pushing harder and harder for the rest of the world to not only accept but embrace their ever increasing flamboyance and demands. It is reaching a breaking point and it will backlash on the homosexual community, In my opinion.

Ever been to Las Vegas? Many heterosexuals gather there and behave in a manner outside the realm of acceptance in the real world. Ever been to a strip club? Hooters?

But guess what. The fact that I can name places where straight people like to dress up and push the limits of propriety says exactly nothing about the "straight community". If you think Key West tells you all you need to know about gays in America, you are tragically ignorant.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #111 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
You're essentially saying that people can be gay as long as you can't tell that they're gay. That's certainly limiting their freedoms and if you can't see that you really need to reevaluate yourself.

Bunge...?
I did not and would not imply that.

I was sitiing at the bar at the Hooters in Ft. Lauderdale. My then business partner and I would go their when we were in that area. A guy came over to the bar and sat down. We all talked for a long time. he and I seemed to have a lot in common. Out of the blue, he asked me out on a date. Based on your view of me, what do you think i did?

Your probably wrong.

I took a deep breath and tried to put myself in his shoes and I said "I appreciate the offer and am somewhat flattered, but my gate does not swing that way." I offered to buy him another beer with no hard feelings. he accepted and not another word was said about it, and we continued to have a good time talking about life and business for about another hour.

I knew he was gay, and I do not care. I did not impose my beliefs on him nor him on me, we got along fine.

Give me a break, no all of us a break. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Thanks
post #112 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Ever been to Las Vegas? Many heterosexuals gather there and behave in a manner outside the realm of acceptance in the real world. Ever been to a strip club? Hooters?

But guess what. The fact that I can name places where straight people like to dress up and push the limits of propriety says exactly nothing about the "straight community". If you think Key West tells you all you need to know about gays in America, you are tragically ignorant.

Hey I agree with you. I do not accept that behavior either.

You did not read my post. I fully understand that such places are not representative of every homosexual.
post #113 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
BR is, not BRussel though

I mean BRussel. Just made it short.
post #114 of 162
You mean you actually SPOKE to a gay man?!?!?

Did you get any on you?
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #115 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by bauman
Recently, the Mass. Supreme Court ruled that the idea of a civil union is akin to the 'separate but equal' that prevailed the century before 1954. The entire concept of the civil union is a legal convention that is trying to emulate marriage.

*snip*

I would imagine if the rights were the same, but the legal convention was not legally called a marriage, many homosexuals would be pleased. They could still get legal validation as well as the religious confirmation from portions of the church if they so desired.

EXCELLENT POST! I believe that many of us who are opposed to gay "marriage" are okay with this principle. I would never agree to setting up a Civil Union to be anything legally different from Marriage. The rights should not at all be different, and the legislation should be written so that they shall always be parallel. Straight and homosexual couples alike could consider the option of Civil Union while the legal designation of "marriage" would be reserved for the historically traditional union of a man and woman as given by a church. If a church desired to marry gays, that would be their prerogative without that designation being put into legal records. Would this be a fair compromise on this issue?

I think the main sticking point for religous folk like myself is that for centuries the word "marriage" has defined a religious union between a man and a woman. Since the state was often run by the church, legal rights were associated with said union. For that to officially change now is intimidating and against what society has been based on for our entire scope of history. I'd say that we just feel that something needs to be put in place to ensure that that "traditional" designation stays. As I said before, I don't feel a Constitutional Amendment is an appropriate way of doing this. Of the choices, I guess letting the states do this is the best option -- and many have exercised it already.

I just also want to convey that I don't claim to have all the answers. It's foolish for anyone to claim that, in my opinion. I'm just trying to figure out a way where an acceptable compromise can be found for both sides of this. I think that's all any of us can ask for.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
post #116 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
EXCELLENT POST! I believe that many of us who are opposed to gay "marriage" are okay with this principle. I would never agree to setting up a Civil Union to be anything legally different from Marriage. The rights should not at all be different, and the legislation should be written so that they shall always be parallel. Straight and homosexual couples alike could consider the option of Civil Union while the legal designation of "marriage" would be reserved for the historically traditional union of a man and woman as given by a church. If a church desired to marry gays, that would be their prerogative without that designation being put into legal records. Would this be a fair compromise on this issue?

I think the main sticking point for religous folk like myself is that for centuries the word "marriage" has defined a religious union between a man and a woman. Since the state was often run by the church, legal rights were associated with said union. For that to officially change now is intimidating and against what society has been based on for our entire scope of history. I'd say that we just feel that something needs to be put in place to ensure that that "traditional" designation stays. As I said before, I don't feel a Constitutional Amendment is an appropriate way of doing this. Of the choices, I guess letting the states do this is the best option -- and many have exercised it already.

I just also want to convey that I don't claim to have all the answers. It's foolish for anyone to claim that, in my opinion. I'm just trying to figure out a way where an acceptable compromise can be found for both sides of this. I think that's all any of us can ask for.

A well put post. Very diplomatic.
post #117 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
[ . . . . ].

That's just plain stupid . . . it's diplomatic idiocy . . . If my church marries gays then it "marries" gays . . . it names it as such and they, and my church, have a right to retain that name.

If there are churches that exist that marry gay couples then whether or not your church likes it is irrelevant
They don't need to beleve in that kind of love . . . they can keep it out of their church
but the state would impinge on Gay-positive church's rights and freedom of religion (denying a sacred rite) if it did not allow that name
besides the individual's right to pursue their freedom of religious expression.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #118 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
the state would impinge on Gay-positive church's rights and freedom of religion (denying a sacred rite) if it did not allow that name
besides the individual's right to pursue their freedom of religious expression.

No. The state would not deny the "Gay-positive" church from calling the couple "married." The state would disallow that designation to be in the official legal record of the state.

Your church may designate you as a chicken, but the state sure as hell isn't going to call you a chicken. That's not an impingement of rights.

I just thought of something: If the state allows gay marriage, and then a minister denies that couple the right to be married in his/her church (because it is against that church's beliefs), is that minister breaking the law? What are the legal implications of this?
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
post #119 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
EXCELLENT POST! I believe that many of us who are opposed to gay "marriage" are okay with this principle. I would never agree to setting up a Civil Union to be anything legally different from Marriage.

But you're bigotted enough that a word, eight stupid letters, is worth more to you than the decency of equality for all human beings? You're a sad specimen.

Separate can never, ever be equal. The Fundie Trash know this, which is why they want us to rot in civil unions, so that they can cling to the word "marriage" and pretend like their relationship is somehow "better" than mine. It's not.

Quote:
Straight and homosexual couples alike could consider the option of Civil Union while the legal designation of "marriage" would be reserved for the historically traditional union of a man and woman as given by a church.

And if my Church wants to marry me? Why should your church be able to use this term and mine not?

Kirk
post #120 of 162
Quote:
Originally posted by bauman
Moreover, there are churches that accept homosexuals as members. However, many homosexuals have been driven too far away from the Church for this to even be an option. This is perhaps the greatest travesty of this entire 'debate.'

Ironically, I had just in recent weeks been able to move beyond flying into a seething rage at the Christian religion, to the point that I was attending services at a gay-friendly church again.

It's a struggle not to let the bigoted filth poison the entire concept of God, the way they cling to their idolatrous obsession with the words of the Bible. Like Bush's conservatism, there is no compassion in these peoples' Christianity.

Let them bar the way to Jesus. God will throw them in a special Hell.

Kirk
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Bush Back Gay Marriage Amendment