PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriage



Mr Ingrate
01-27-2005, 01:21 PM
In Canada, as in the US, the question of Gay marriage is being hotly debated. One of the favorite quips I heard was, "Why not, let them be as miserable as the rest of us."

I think this is a question that can be resolved by reasonable people if they can grasp two basic concepts.

1. Religion has no place in Government.
2. Government has no place in Religion.

The government should get out of the marriage business and the law of the land should be based on a "civil union" concept. All marriages would automatically be qualified as civil unions provided they met the civil union criteria. Civil unions could be performed by a justice of the peace. All civil unions would have basic legal requirements, such as minimum age and same species.

Being "married" means you have a civil union with a person of the opposite sex.

Being "joined" means your civil union doesn't meet the traditional marriage definition.

But "married" or "joined", you have the same rights and privileges under the law.

Comments??

wolfdancer
01-27-2005, 02:10 PM
Gay marriage will also mean gay divorce..wait'll
that 60 yr old successful businessman, finds out
how much that "walk on the wild side", 6 mo. fling
with the 20 yr old surfer costs him. He'll feel
like he was con-joined.
However, it'll never happen here, under our present
oligarchy, and the code of "Bush Id Oh"

Gayle in MD
01-27-2005, 02:42 PM
I totally agree with statements 1 and 2.

I really will never understand why anyone cares if those folks get married. If it makes them happy, who are they hurting? Life is hard enough for them if you ask me, without the religeous right, Bush, rekindleing anti-gay philosophies by making an issue over gay marriage.

We had made some progress on this for awhile, I thought, but we seem to be regressing back to the era of hate crimes against gays.

I don't get it, of all the things we need to focus on, why make an issue out of something so benign in its consequences? All because of a book written thousands of years ago?

Gayle in Md

DavidMorris
01-27-2005, 03:08 PM
I agree and have ZERO problem with calling it a "civil union" and offering the exact same benefits and rights as married couples. I just have a hangup on the word "marriage" because it's been ingrained in me as being a holy union and has a religious connotation. And based on some national surveys I read back when this topic was at it's peak here in the states, most Americans agree, i.e. let 'em get hitched and give 'em everything we married folks have, let's just not call it "marriage."

Yeah, I know, it's just a word. But symantics and words can be important to a lot of people. Simple words can carry and convey a lot of emotion and attachment. I'd be surprised if the majority of Americans would have a problem with the term "civil union" that granted every legal right of marriage. It seems to me the biggest hangups are in calling it "marriage."

wolfdancer
01-27-2005, 03:24 PM
Dave, while off the topic, your posts keep bringing up religion, in a disparaging way.....which as an ordained Minister in the Universal Life Churh...causes me to worry about your soul.
I suggest that you read Descartes "The Third Meditation....The Existance of God".....
and don't forget to tithe.....you can seperate Religion and Government, but we need the $$ to spread the word. Might I suggest my own small ministry as a recpient of your largesse?

Mr Ingrate
01-27-2005, 04:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Dave, while off the topic, your posts keep bringing up religion, in a disparaging way.....which as an ordained Minister in the Universal Life Churh...causes me to worry about your soul.
I suggest that you read Descartes "The Third Meditation....The Existance of God".....
and don't forget to tithe.....you can seperate Religion and Government, but we need the $$ to spread the word. Might I suggest my own small ministry as a recpient of your largesse? <hr /></blockquote>
Hi Jack,

I didn't realize that my post was off topic /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif. I thought that since I started the topic I was on topic.

However I am guilty of displaying a certain bit of skepticism when it comes to the subject of Religion and perhaps should not be so vocal. I find Religion to be incomprehensible and unbelievable.

Obviously, I'm not running for public office otherwise I would just put on my hypocrite face and tell everyone what they want to hear.

As I've said before, I DO believe in a creator, I just don't believe any religion's definition of God.

My wife and I were married in a Unitarian Church. My kind of Church because they could care less what you believe or don't believe in.

I checked out your ULC (http://www.ulc.org/) on the web and now I"M worried about YOUR soul. I fear with competition from over 400,000 ordained ministers I may be your only supporter. This would certainly try anyone's soul.

Their prices do seem reasonable, Wedding Business Kit $119 and Ministry in a Box $139. Does that have anything to do with Mortuaries?

Perhaps you should start your own Church in your area. You could call it "The Little Church of the Raconteur". I'll send you a small donation when you break ground. Good luck in bringing your message to the heathen.

I read the words of Brother Daniel Zimmerman on the ULC website.

"I am here for you each day and I recall a Scripture which says "there is a friend, which sticketh closer than a brother" and I wish to be that friend to you. What would I need to do for you for you to be that type of friend to me?"

Just who is "stickething" who.

wolfdancer
01-27-2005, 05:36 PM
Dave, I haven't laughed so hard at a post here, since the one you wrote in reply to Rackmup. You have missed your calling sir
...comedy, based on social commentary, is obviously your forte

hondo
01-28-2005, 07:33 AM
I don't get it either. I like women a little too
much for my wife's liking but I still say whatever
floats your boat. I feel that most gay bashers are
closet cases hiding behind religion &amp; morality.



<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I totally agree with statements 1 and 2.

I really will never understand why anyone cares if those folks get married. If it makes them happy, who are they hurting? Life is hard enough for them if you ask me, without the religeous right, Bush, rekindleing anti-gay philosophies by making an issue over gay marriage.

We had made some progress on this for awhile, I thought, but we seem to be regressing back to the era of hate crimes against gays.

I don't get it, of all the things we need to focus on, why make an issue out of something so benign in its consequences? All because of a book written thousands of years ago?

Gayle in Md <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
01-28-2005, 07:35 AM
That's right, Dave, open up your heart and open up
your wallet.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Dave, while off the topic, your posts keep bringing up religion, in a disparaging way.....which as an ordained Minister in the Universal Life Churh...causes me to worry about your soul.
I suggest that you read Descartes "The Third Meditation....The Existance of God".....
and don't forget to tithe.....you can seperate Religion and Government, but we need the $$ to spread the word. Might I suggest my own small ministry as a recpient of your largesse? <hr /></blockquote>

Popcorn
01-28-2005, 09:58 AM
When you consider ever a conventional marriage is often under the confines of a marriage agreement or prenuptial agreement. It becomes obvious it is little more the a business arrangement and should be able to be entered into by any two people who want to. It is nice to call what people do as a marriage but when a contract is involved, is it really be it straight or gay? In other words, if they want to enter into a life long agreement, (marriage) so be it. It really is semantics

SPetty
01-28-2005, 10:49 AM
Can a man and a woman be joined, or must they be married?

Some people are afraid of marriage, but may not be so afraid of joinage. (What would be the word for joinage?)

Mr Ingrate
01-28-2005, 12:34 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr> Can a man and a woman be joined, or must they be married?

Some people are afraid of marriage, but may not be so afraid of joinage. (What would be the word for joinage?) <hr /></blockquote>

Yep, joined by a civil union.

How about Stuck?

Wally_in_Cincy
01-28-2005, 01:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Mr Ingrate:</font><hr> Yep, joined by a civil union.

How about Stuck? <hr /></blockquote>

Dave, do you remember that old National Lampoon radio hour bit that was a takeoff on Star Trek (I think they called it Star Trip). The captain is looking for his first mate when he hears 2 people going at it in a broom closet.

Captain: "What's going on in here?"

First Mate: "But Captain it's OK. We're engaged"

Captain: "Well disengage immediately and report to the bridge"

/ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

wolfdancer
01-28-2005, 01:41 PM
Good one Wally...lol

eg8r
01-28-2005, 10:18 PM
[ QUOTE ]
We had made some progress on this for awhile, I thought, but we seem to be regressing back to the era of hate crimes against gays.
<hr /></blockquote> Hate crimes? LOL, c'mon, you really think this is hate crime. If so, they Harry Reid is bringing us back to hate crimes against the blacks with his unfounded accusations. What a ridiculous statement. Bush has not committed a crime and he surely has not suggested anyone else should.

eg8r

eg8r
01-28-2005, 10:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I agree and have ZERO problem with calling it a "civil union" and offering the exact same benefits and rights as married couples. I just have a hangup on the word "marriage" because it's been ingrained in me as being a holy union and has a religious connotation. And based on some national surveys I read back when this topic was at it's peak here in the states, most Americans agree, i.e. let 'em get hitched and give 'em everything we married folks have, let's just not call it "marriage." <hr /></blockquote> Nothing wrong with that.

eg8r

SecaucusFats
01-29-2005, 12:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DavidMorris:</font><hr> I agree and have ZERO problem with calling it a "civil union" and offering the exact same benefits and rights as married couples. I just have a hangup on the word "marriage" because it's been ingrained in me as being a holy union and has a religious connotation. And based on some national surveys I read back when this topic was at it's peak here in the states, most Americans agree, i.e. let 'em get hitched and give 'em everything we married folks have, let's just not call it "marriage."

Yeah, I know, it's just a word. But symantics and words can be important to a lot of people. Simple words can carry and convey a lot of emotion and attachment. I'd be surprised if the majority of Americans would have a problem with the term "civil union" that granted every legal right of marriage. It seems to me the biggest hangups are in calling it "marriage." <hr /></blockquote>

I did not chime in with my opinion before because I have been called a homophobe in the past. But I agree with your take on the subject. Gay couples should have the same rights as heteros, for now I think a "civil union" is the best alternative. It grants gays the same rights as hetero couples but it doesn't carry the same semantic baggage as "marriage".

Gayle in MD
01-29-2005, 07:17 AM
Does it ever end, Ed? Where in my post do I say Bush committed a hate crime?
/ccboard/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
01-29-2005, 08:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> We had made some progress on this for awhile, I thought, but we seem to be regressing back to the era of hate crimes against gays.
<hr /></blockquote>

I see no evidence of this. If anything the reverse is true. Folks nowadays, particularly the younger folks, seem to be quite tolerant of gays.

Regarding the original topic, I am 100% against gay marriage because it puts the concept of marriage (which is thousands of years old and has served society well) on a slippery slope.

If you extrapolate the logic used by the gay marriage proponents you would have to be for allowing a bisexual to marry a man and a woman, would you not? After all, they love one another.

What about polygamy? After all, itís just another non-traditional family, is it not?

Why would you want to open that door?

A good lawyer can write up a contract regarding the disposition of assets and such for a gay couple. I am glad the sensible voters of Ohio voted against gay marriage and against same-sex benefits for public employees.

Gayle in MD
01-29-2005, 09:00 AM
Walley,
I think that bigamy, (marriage to a person when already married to another) is illegal in this country.

My thought is that while we seemed to be making progress in learning to be more accepting and tolerant toward gay people, this issue of fighting against, and or disapproving gay marriage, has not, IMO, encouraged tolerance toward gays.

If anything, given all the religeous condemnation we have been exposed to over the issue recently, I don't think that it has promoted our young people approaching the subject with more compassion, acceptance and understanding.

I think that instead, we lost an opportunity to make life a little easier, and less stressful, for those are not heterosexual.

I think the greatest gift we can give to our children is to raise them to respect those who are "Different" and to understand that while their way is different from ours, that they have a right to be who they are, and that in the long run, this makes life better and safer for all of us.

For some reason, people are afraid to display acceptance of gay people to their children, believing, I guess, that it will somehow increase the supposed horrendous possibility of having "Your" child grow up to be gay. Instead, armed with religeous righteousness and doctrine, they portray gay people as bad, evil, sinners, etc.

I don't think that that, is the humanitarian way to go. And, I don't think that it makes our society better, but rather takes away from it.

Also, I have yet to hear a logical reason for how gay people marrying, hurts anyone else. It would seem to me that anything that promotes love and committment in our society, surely could hurt no one.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
01-29-2005, 01:41 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I have yet to hear a logical reason for how gay people marrying, hurts anyone else. <hr /></blockquote> Why would you be waiting for a logical reason? Has anyone told you they would offer one? Has anyone ever on this board ever said it would hurt anyone?

eg8r

eg8r
01-29-2005, 01:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Does it ever end, Ed? <hr /></blockquote> Yes, it will end when you take a second and read what I wrote. I did not say you ever said Bush committed a hate crime. However, the sentence before the one I quoted was... [ QUOTE ]

Life is hard enough for them if you ask me, without the religeous right, Bush, rekindleing anti-gay philosophies by making an issue over gay marriage. <hr /></blockquote> Your next sentence was the one I quoted... [ QUOTE ]
We had made some progress on this for awhile, I thought, but we seem to be regressing back to the era of hate crimes against gays.
<hr /></blockquote> A little bit of logic would tell the reader you were continuing your thought patter albeit in the next paragraph. If I am mistaken sorry, maybe a little more clarity in between your subjects would help.


Beyond all that, the real point of my post was lost on you. I was wondering if you might take a quick second and comment on the real point, and not nitpick something that was never even said.

What is your evidence we are regressing to hate crimes on gays?

You make these statements with reckless abandon and then when you are questioned on them, you look for something else to argue about to draw attention away from the reckless statement. For once, answer what is asked and quit trying to change the subject.

eg8r