Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 170
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by questionfear View Post
    I'm going to chime in here, though I'm worried I will regret it.
    I'll try and not make you regret it.

    All of these debates on the purpose of marriage and such aren't taking into account that all of the constitutional amendments in the states where they've passed have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There are no clauses that it is to further propagate the species or any other procreation strings attached. So the procreation theory is bull**** to me. Especially since elderly people can marry without having to justify their unions.
    Additionally, as food for thought here, please note that those same clauses also don't specify the need to actually be heterosexual either. As such, you (being a lesbian) and I (being a heterosexual) are perfectly legal in going and getting married--yet, despite that fact people still claim that such laws are anti-gay. Really? Seems like the people who made it a gay issue were . . . well, gays.

    So civil unions are created. The problem is that there is no uniform acceptance of civil unions even within the state. There have been a few high profile cases even here in NJ where a hospital refused to acknowledge a civil union, and a case where a police station did not want to extend survivor's benefits to the surviving partner of a lesbian police officer.
    Under the plan I have outlined previously, gay persons would get ALL of the same privileges and protections that heterosexual couples would. Even better, I--unlike virtually every single pro-same-sex marriage advocate--managed to adequately deal with the real crux of the problem . . . individual liberties. If you haven't read it over, please scroll back and review.

    I can't really explain it, but ever since Tuesday I've been incredibly angry.
    You and me both. It is absolutely ridiculous that pro-same-sex advocates would have the audacity to go out and vote in a poll and then claim shame on America for voting on what advocates perceive as a right.

    How about shame on those that voted in favor of same-sex marriage? They voted as well and then turned around and got upset because they participated in a vote and shamed America for the way they voted.

    In the real world, we call that hypocrisy.



    Hell, even I--a vociferous opponent of Obama--had the courtesy to congratulate Obama supporters for their win.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    And there it is....the real basis for your [DL.Cummings] argument. It isn't about the role of marriage or the ability to produce children, as those aren't limited to gay couples. It comes down to your feeling that gay couples are an abberation. Thanks for clearing that up.


    That is about right...
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  3. #83  
    Rather than read the entire thread, I'll just ask. Has a distinction been made between civil unions, which are matters of state (though whether they should be or not could be debated) and marriage - which is a religious concept?

    Civil unions could be roommates who are good platonic friends, but would want the other to receive death benefits, etc. They could include more than one person, regardless of what those people do at their house. It's definition could be separate from marriage, taking hold at a certain length of time living together, rather than an arbitrary ceremony (or defined by the voters of that region).

    At any rate, it just seems to me to be a cleaner solution.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by ****-richardson View Post
    Rather than read the entire thread, I'll just ask. Has a distinction been made between civil unions, which are matters of state (though whether they should be or not could be debated) and marriage - which is a religious concept?
    Yes.
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  5.    #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by questionfear View Post
    I'm going to chime in here, though I'm worried I will regret it.

    As far as I can tell from reading these posts, I haven't seen anyone who is affected by the civil union/marriage debate actually post. Deep apologies if I am wrong. So I decided to post and explain this from my point of view as a lesbian in America.

    All of these debates on the purpose of marriage and such aren't taking into account that all of the constitutional amendments in the states where they've passed have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There are no clauses that it is to further propagate the species or any other procreation strings attached. So the procreation theory is bull**** to me. Especially since elderly people can marry without having to justify their unions.

    So civil unions are created. The problem is that there is no uniform acceptance of civil unions even within the state. There have been a few high profile cases even here in NJ where a hospital refused to acknowledge a civil union, and a case where a police station did not want to extend survivor's benefits to the surviving partner of a lesbian police officer.

    I can't really explain it, but ever since Tuesday I've been incredibly angry. It's a failure of our society that we can't just be happy when two people fall in love. We did the same thing with interracial marriages as well. And it makes me even angrier, and sick to my stomach, that we have a country and a culture that allows the majority to dictate the rights of the minority. No one can give me a good reason why same-sex marriage would harm America that is not steeped deep in religion, specifically a religion that I don't even believe in (I'm jewish). So either we ban churches from mobilizing to stop gay marriage, or we all stop eating pork. If I have to follow your rules, you have to follow mine.

    There is absolutely nothing negative for society to legalize gay marriage. Massachusetts didn't fall off the map after they did. In fact, the Red Sox won the World Series the following year. If anything, it can incrementally add to the economy; it opens a wider group to potentially holding ceremonies, giving more business to florists, catering halls, etc. In MA many couples who had held commitment ceremonies years earlier held marriages once it became legal as well.

    And it is not up to anyone who does not know me, my girlfriend or my life to determine if we would make good parents someday. It's a civil rights issue, and it should never be left to the whims of a bigoted majority to determine if I am an equal citizen in this country.
    I am so glad you chimed in here. I started this thread to discuss a way forward and in doing so I hope you don't get the impression that I think your relationship is any less than the one I enjoy with my wife.

    But this thread has more or less confirmed why I feel strongly gay/lesbians should pursue an aggressive strategy to win civil unions at a federal level before worrying about being recognized as being "married" by society. Marriage and religion are inextricably bound. Marriage has a lot longer history as being a religious institution than it does a legally recognized union. And religion is why members of this forum call same-sex relationships an abberation.

    Yet, right here on this forum these same dissenting member(s) have said that civil unions and marriage are legally the same. If you do this on a national level you will force society and our government to re-examine the differences between civil unions and marriage and guess what? They won't have any leg to stand on but religion to support their bigoted view that gay/lesbian couples aren't "married".

    Our government's recognition of "marriage" by only some religions and not by others is tantamount to violating your constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion. So in short - turn their logic upside down by winning your deserved equal rights via civil unions. I stand with you today in your fight...truly I do. But you will not win this battle if you allow society to hide behind their religion(s)...and frankly, that is all they have left to hide behind.
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    Yes.
    Then whence the debate? The inclusion of the term 'marriage' in most state constitutions? If the problem is that the state constitution defines marriage without the right to do so, then why argue over what should constitute a state-sanctioned marriage and instead lobby for a change to the term 'civil union'? Then sexuality has nothing to do with it, and those who view it as sinful can go home and bang their wife all the while convinced that the sinners will burn in hell. They can go to church and surround themselves with like-minded individuals, while leaving law enforcement out of it - especially considering that no ones rights are being violated when two hot chicks make a video and put it up on <insert raunchy site here>.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by questionfear View Post
    ...So civil unions are created. The problem is that there is no uniform acceptance of civil unions even within the state. There have been a few high profile cases even here in NJ where a hospital refused to acknowledge a civil union, and a case where a police station did not want to extend survivor's benefits to the surviving partner of a lesbian police officer.
    That's where explaining that sex has no part in the definition of civil union would help.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    And religion is why members of this forum call same-sex relationships an abberation.
    Wow! Who said that? Please cite the actual post and words please.

    Yet, right here on this forum these same dissenting member(s) have said that civil unions and marriage are legally the same. If you do this on a national level you will force society and our government to re-examine the differences between civil unions and marriage and guess what? They won't have any leg to stand on but religion to support their bigoted view that gay/lesbian couples aren't "married".
    That's really weird because so far, not only have I not used any religious reasoning whatsoever, not one single person has shown where religion plays any role in my views.

    Please do show how you came to such a conclusion--I have a sneaky suspicion you made it all up.

    But you will not win this battle if you allow society to hide behind their religion(s)...and frankly, that is all they have left to hide behind.
    Please show your work.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  9.    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    Please show your work.
    You dug your hole, now climb yourself out.
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I feel strongly gay/lesbians should pursue an aggressive strategy to win civil unions at a federal level before worrying about being recognized as being "married" by society.
    That's not the purpose of the federal government. The federal government should be handling state issues, not personal ones. For example, should a civil union that's recognized in one state be recognized in another when it wouldn't otherwise have been granted?

    Note: I'm not trying to raise that issue, just pointing out where the federal government fits in relation to state and local rights in defining what constitutes a civil union.
    -Joshua
    I've decided to become enigmatic.
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    You dug your hole, now climb yourself out.
    Translation: I can't.


    Got it. You made the accusation, burden of proof is on you, not me.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  12.    #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by ****-richardson View Post
    That's not the purpose of the federal government. The federal government should be handling state issues, not personal ones. For example, should a civil union that's recognized in one state be recognized in another when it wouldn't otherwise have been granted?

    Note: I'm not trying to raise that issue, just pointing out where the federal government fits in relation to state and local rights in defining what constitutes a civil union.
    While I understand your point and agree with it to some degree, I don't see why the feds couldn't establish a definition of what constitutes a civil union between two people. I'm more inclined to let that happen at a state level of course, but this is no different than any other civil rights matter our country has faced before - and I believe in those cases the feds eventually needed to step up to insure ALL citizens of this great country were afforded the same civil rights.
  13. #93  
    I would be fine with a state-recognized civil union, and a church-recognized marriage. The problem is that advocates of same-sex marriage bans want state-recognized heterosexual-only marriage and civil unions for gays. Verbal gymnastics aside, it's a simple argument that separate (or different, for those on the forum who like to parse words) is, by definition, not equal.

    It simple reality that there is no legitimate argument against same-sex marriages related to having kids, propogating the species, etc. To take a criterion, such as "ability to create children together", and only to apply it to gay people and not straight people in the exact same situation, is by definition discriminatory.

    How about shame on those that voted in favor of same-sex marriage? They voted as well and then turned around and got upset because they participated in a vote and shamed America for the way they voted.

    In the real world, we call that hypocrisy.
    Protection of civil rights shouldn't necessarily come to a vote. If that were the case, I'd wager that there are areas of the country that would still segregate schools / water fountains / etc. That's not called hypocrisy at all - it's an attempt to prevent Tyranny of the Majority, in which a simple majority rule by one party / people allows for oppression of the minority party / people.
    Last edited by Bujin; 11/09/2008 at 02:41 PM.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  14. #94  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    I'll try and not make you regret it.

    Additionally, as food for thought here, please note that those same clauses also don't specify the need to actually be heterosexual either. As such, you (being a lesbian) and I (being a heterosexual) are perfectly legal in going and getting married--yet, despite that fact people still claim that such laws are anti-gay. Really? Seems like the people who made it a gay issue were . . . well, gays.
    Um...gee. I wonder why. Maybe because while you might be a very nice person, I have no desire to be tied to you in the legal sense? That's a ridiculous assertion, and it completely undermines the fact that I wish to have a lasting, legally recognized union with another person.



    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Under the plan I have outlined previously, gay persons would get ALL of the same privileges and protections that heterosexual couples would. Even better, I--unlike virtually every single pro-same-sex marriage advocate--managed to adequately deal with the real crux of the problem . . . individual liberties. If you haven't read it over, please scroll back and review.
    And that's great, but reality is unfortunately quite different.


    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    You and me both. It is absolutely ridiculous that pro-same-sex advocates would have the audacity to go out and vote in a poll and then claim shame on America for voting on what advocates perceive as a right.

    How about shame on those that voted in favor of same-sex marriage? They voted as well and then turned around and got upset because they participated in a vote and shamed America for the way they voted.

    In the real world, we call that hypocrisy.
    Really? In my world I call it rank bigotry. The court system of the State of California acknowledged there was no legal reason to not grant a right (marriage) to a group of people. The voters decided to say **** you to the constitution and change it.

    You clearly don't take the right of marriage for all people seriously if you think ANY same-sex marriage advocate should feel shamed. None of the advocates of same-sex marriage wanted that on the ballot. We were given a right in a state, and then people swooped in and vote it out, despite the fact that it in no way shape or form did it impact their lives. I have no idea why so many Americans believe that equal rights are fine and dandy as long as they are for straight people. As far as I am concerned, every single person who voted for Prop 8 is a homophobic bigot, plain and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post
    Hell, even I--a vociferous opponent of Obama--had the courtesy to congratulate Obama supporters for their win.
    Good for you. This isn't the same as a candidate getting elected or not getting elected. This is about equal rights. I don't need to back down or say I'm sorry or congratulations to the people who spread lies and false advertising about what same-sex marriage means. I don't need to congratulate people who think that my existence is a blot on the morality of society. This isn't a ****ing game of baseball, this is my ****ing life and other people get to tell me what rights I can and can't have in it. And that is as anti-American as it gets.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by questionfear View Post



    Really? In my world I call it rank bigotry. The court system of the State of California acknowledged there was no legal reason to not grant a right (marriage) to a group of people. The voters decided to say **** you to the constitution and change it.

    You clearly don't take the right of marriage for all people seriously if you think ANY same-sex marriage advocate should feel shamed. None of the advocates of same-sex marriage wanted that on the ballot. We were given a right in a state, and then people swooped in and vote it out, despite the fact that it in no way shape or form did it impact their lives. I have no idea why so many Americans believe that equal rights are fine and dandy as long as they are for straight people. As far as I am concerned, every single person who voted for Prop 8 is a homophobic bigot, plain and simple.
    What didn't get a lot of press is that, in response to the courts' approval of same sex marriage in my state (CT), there was an attempt to have a Constitutional Convention to change our constitution and over-rule this decision. Despite a great deal of advertising, it was resoundingly defeated.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  16. #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Well, it was considerably different: she was my actual parent, raising my since I was three. And, unlike my biological mother, she wasn't abusive. And, other than to clarify which one is which, I NEVER refer to her as my stepmother. She's my mom, pure and simple.
    Then in that case, how would a 'civil union' on paper be any lesser if the couple viewed and referred to each other as a 'marriage'?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    [...] Marriage and religion are inextricably bound.
    Only to the religious, and somewhat more specifically in the West.
    Marriage has a lot longer history as being a religious institution than it does a legally recognized union. [...]
    Unless you're counting all the way back to Adam and Eve or including 'pagan' religions, no, it doesn't.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by questionfear View Post
    [...] No one can give me a good reason why same-sex marriage would harm America [...]
    That would have been adequate, because there simply is no good reason. There is no good reason why any non-traditional form of marriage (at least as far as consenting adults are concerned) would harm America.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  19.    #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Only to the religious, and somewhat more specifically in the West.
    Agreed. Is America in the Western Hemisphere?

    Unless you're counting all the way back to Adam and Eve or including 'pagan' religions, no, it doesn't.
    Well that would be way back. But seriously, I would disagree for many reasons. Not the least in which is that we're a fairly young country yet one of the first to so prominently protect an individuals right to freedom of religion. Throughout much of documented history religion itself has been more often an integral part of government, more than it has not.
  20. #100  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Agreed. Is America in the Western Hemisphere?
    Sure, but people are always telling us that we should be more focused on acceptance and diversity. I'm a mutt, too.
    Well that would be way back. But seriously, I would disagree for many reasons. Not the least in which is that we're a fairly young country yet one of the first to so prominently protect an individuals right to freedom of religion. Throughout much of documented history religion itself has been more often an integral part of government, more than it has not.
    Well, what better way to perpetuate a system than to enforce it that way? Do you think God really carved 'honor thy father and mother' into stone tablets, or do you think that the older people taught that to more easily control the youth?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...

Posting Permissions