Same-sex marriages

[header]

Originally posted by 60FeetUnderWater
Crackle, let's take a look at a dictionary.com entry, shall we?

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

ahem...

[header]

Originally posted by 60FeetUnderWater


Header - I called your point \"stupid\", let's not misquote, sir. That would be bad press.

Any press is good press.

[60FeetUnderWater]

Originally posted by header

Originally posted by 60FeetUnderWater
Crackle, let's take a look at a dictionary.com entry, shall we?

mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.

The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

ahem...

AHEM. I bolded one section of the "marriage" definition for a reason; I felt that the rest of the definition was quite frankly...

an·ti·quat·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nt-kwtd)
adj.
Too old to be fashionable, suitable, or useful; outmoded. See Synonyms at old.
Very old; aged: “The antiquated Earth, as one might say,/Beat like the heart of Man” (William Wordsworth).

[header]

A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

[Topper Harley]

but the word marriage is used. Isn't this whole debate over whether to call it a civil union or a marriage. I don't see what the big deal is for lettings gays marry. Are people afraid of tarnishing the sanctity of marriage? That was gone a long time ago.

[60FeetUnderWater]

Well, yeah, I disagree with that part of the definition as well.

It's simple header, really it is.

Gays should have the same rights as straights, without DEVIATION or modification. They should have the right to marry or become "unified" (use whatever PC term deemed necessary to avoid religious fanatics from jumping off a precipice...not that I would mind if that happened.)

Period.

Bottom line.

Fuck what this or that religion says about it, it has no place in our law books.

PERIOD.

Marriage should be defined as "a union between two persons, under the premise of giving an everlasting commitment to one another."

I can't believe that you don't get it header. Then again, polls have shown that divide is definitely generational. The younger segment firmly supports gays having the right to "unify" while the older segment stands firmly against it.

Are you over the age of 60? Is that it? :tongue:

[Topper Harley]

what really bothers me is that some people still consider it a sin. Homosexuality is not something you do, it is a part of your being. How can it be a sin to be born a certain way?

I had a gay roommate in college (say whatever you want, fuckers) and he was unbelievably tormented with the fact that he was gay. He wanted to be straight so badly that eventually he couldn't take it anymore and commited suicide.

There is no reason for gays to be denied a right that is afforded to heterosexuals.

[header]

I can't believe that you don't get it header. Then again, polls have shown that divide is definitely generational. The younger segment firmly supports gays having the right to \"unify\" while the older segment stands firmly against it.

You're playing a semantical game here. I have no problem with unions. The problem is you give an inch and people want a mile. You just wait.

If a gay couple goes to San Fran gets married today and comes home to say New Jersey and attempts to get benefits through their employer, they will be denied. Then what are they going to do? File suit against their employer? They state of New Jersey? Should they have that right? Their marriage isn't recognized in this state only in California hell I don't even know if it is recognized outside the city of San Francisco do they? Should they? Should every state and furthermore they United States change their laws and recognize these things because some self righteous mayor in California decides to take it upon himself to start performing gay marriages?

Should this mayor be punished for breaking the law? Because he is.

Plain and simple it is against the law. If it wasn't it wouldn't have taken this long for someone to try and pioneer this frontier. As far as I know almost all states laws forbid it. Some states legalize creates confusion and maybe there is a loophole. Several states are pushing for a more clear language in their laws to strengthen their laws against it and close loop holes.

It's not the religiously driven Bush that is putting a stop to this. It should have never started to begin with. People talk about things like the patriot act and how it is unconstitutional and how we should protect these laws and whatnot. Well why not protect these laws forbiding gay marriage? Why can we change some and not others?

This is why the fears of some that I forwarded earlier in this thread are not totally unfounded. You open up the doors for something like this then everyone going to try and squeeze through. It's chaos theory. Maybe a little paranoid. But not totally unfounded.

I have no problem with gay people honestly. If you find someone that means that much to you that you want to spend the rest of your life together that's great. You're doing better than most other people already. And you should be given rights like benefits and next of kin etc etc. Why not take it at that?

Because if you want the whole deal then we are forcing churches to marry gay people which pretty much goes against their religion and negates their whole notion of marriage.

Then we are forcing boy scout troops to accept atheists and gay people in their organization.

There were both atheists and gay kids in my boy scout troop. It didn't bother me. We were accepting. At the same time the BSA is a private organization and just like any private establishment they reserve the right to let in and lock out whomever they wish.

Plain and simple.

If you unlock this seemingly innocent door of gay marriage you could be opening a whirlwind pandoras box and next thing you know we have thought police on this message board telling us we can't call QE Carson 'Owen Wilson with AIDS' because it's hate speech.

Once again kind of paranoid chaos theory fears but not totally unfounded.

I'm 26.

[60FeetUnderWater]

If a gay couple goes to San Fran gets married today and comes home to say New Jersey and attempts to get benefits through their employer, they will be denied. Then what are they going to do? File suit against their employer? They state of New Jersey? Should they have that right? Their marriage isn't recognized in this state only in California hell I don't even know if it is recognized outside the city of San Francisco do they? Should they? Should every state and furthermore they United States change their laws and recognize these things because some self righteous mayor in California decides to take it upon himself to start performing gay marriages?

Header, your concerns are fair but I must ask:

Are you basically saying that it would be too much of a pain in the ass to get all the states in cohoots on this issue?

Don't you think gays are acclimated to that very same pain? :tongue:

Seriously though, don't you think homosexuals are willing to put up with these current limitations until such a time that all states are on the same page and recognize gays as equals?

What the Mayor did may have been illegal at this point in time but it doesn't make his actions wrong, not in my estimation. Remember, at one point, it was illegal for blacks to vote.

Besides, "Without struggle, there can be no progress"

Also, just because I say gays should have the right to marry, that doesn't mean that churches should be FORCED to marry them. Uhh uhh. No way. A religious establishment has the right to maintain the traditions of their religion (as ignorant as those traditions may be). I don't plan on arguing that religions need to change to cater to homosexuals. Then again, any religion that doesn't accept ALL HUMANKIND (regardles of their sexual preferences) as a potential member is an awful religion and should be eradicated anyways. But thats just my opinion.

Pandoras Box opening? Sure, let it - if it means that gays will eventually become recognized as equals to heterosexuals in all aspects - GOOD.

The only difference we should deal with (and never force to change) about homosexuals is the fact that the guys like the kak and the females only prefer bearded (or neatly trimmed/shaved) clams.

Otherwise, let them live as freely as the rest of us.

[Crackle]

I'm not against gay marriages. I think it's much ado about nothing. Header does make some good points. What will be enough? Gays were given Civil Unions instead of marriage. Not good enough. OK, give gays marriage. Married by a judge or a clerk. Will that be good enough. Probably not. Then the move to get married in a church will it the fan. Even if the church considers it a sin, the church will be lambasted for denying gay marriages.

2 guys get married. Guy #2 is covered by Guy #1's employer supplied health insurance. Guy #2 wants a sex change operation. Should the employers health insurance cover this?


Oh, and just because some of you ( myself included ) don't believe in religion, doesn't make it wrong for others to believe.


edit;.60 you beat me while I was typing.